Rights with Responsibilities: Voting and Selective Service

A main area of sexual bias against men and gynocentrist favoritism for women is in men having to register for the selective service (draft) while women do not.  A citizen’s individual rights come with a corresponding duty.   Exclusion of rights is based on the person not being a “citizen” or they have limited rights from limited responsibilities.  In the U.S. voting has always been tied to the responsibility to serve in defense of the state.  Given the right to vote, women continue to avoid the responsibility of defense even though all barriers and legal arguments to exempt them have been rendered moot.

We hear much about women’s fight for the right to vote which they gained in 1920, but many are unaware that the individual right to vote for all citizen’s in the U.S. didn’t occur until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Prior to the 1840’s most men, regardless of race, were denied the right to vote yet still had the responsibility to serve in defense.  And many men didn’t gain equal access to the vote until 1965 and yet still had the responsibility to serve in national defense.

During the colonial period and the Revolutionary War conscription was a state issue.  Most states required able bodied men to serve in the local militia.  Often a militia unit would be called up for a campaign and service would be for that campaign only or a limited time.  Given frontier and colonial life it was important to leave some able bodied men at home to work fields and guard the home front and often the militias were fighting in proximity of their homes to prevent invasion.  Avoiding militia service was usually rendered impossible as it was your community being invaded and you were fighting for both life, property, and liberty and running or hiding impossible.

When the U.S. Constitution was enacted and the vote for the new government held it was up to each state to decide on who was eligible vote and most had property ownership or tax paying and European ancestry as requirements.  As such only about 7% of the population could vote to chose the first President.  When war broke out again in 1812 a mandatory conscription at the federal level was shot down and mandatory service remained with the states.  The argument against conscription was that it was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution and was counter to individual liberty, a forced servitude.

Demand for equal suffrage for all white males was strong in the early 1800’s.  White males bore the responsibility to serve at times of war but were disenfranchised from participating in the decision of who decided they went to war which was opposite to the ideals of the fledgling Republic.  By the 1830’s most states removed property ownership as a voting requirement but limited participation to free white men.  Some limited voting to tax payers and in some states free black men could vote.  But by the 1840’s most states limited voting to free white men.  Eligible voters had increase by 20 times from 1820 to 1840 with over 2 million voting.

Prior to the Civil War the Woman’s Suffrage movement and the Abolitionist Movement worked closely together.  The woman’s suffrage movement was based upon women and men being equal taking the wording from the Declaration of Independence with addition, “all men and women are created equal”.  Opponents pointed to the higher calling for women as family caregivers, being the “fairer sex” and nurturing, in effect putting motherhood on a pedestal with women superior to men in that regard.  The responsibility to serve in defense of the country was a main talking point against a woman’s right to vote as they did not have the full responsibilities of a citizen.  The outbreak of the Civil War put Woman’s Suffrage on hold.

Citizen status conveys rights, duties, and benefits.  The right to vote centered on the definition of “citizen”.  A U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case (1857) said that no man of African Ancestry could claim U.S. Citizenship as a right.  Denial of the vote to women was based upon the lack of responsibility as a reason to deny the right to vote.  The woman’s movement split with one side staying with the men and women are equal argument and taking an anti-Abolitionist position of no vote for women, no vote for blacks.  The other side of the suffrage movement started to argue that woman’s superior nurturing made her qualified to exercise the the right and responsibility of voting.

The Civil War saw both sides enact mandatory military service.  Both sides met 90% of their manpower needs with volunteers and looked to fill out the ranks with a draft.  The south exempted plantation owners and the north allowed commutation money for exemption.  Both sides allowed for substitutes and most conscripted were substitutes.  The unfair policies of the draft caused widespread evasion and even violent protests, such as in New York City where riots resulted in the military coming in to restore order.  The draft ended with the end of the war.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1868) guaranteed citizenship to all male’s born or naturalized in the U.S. which set aside the Dred Scott decision.  And the 15th Amendment prevented states from preventing voting rights based upon, race, color, or previous servitude.  Various methods were used to prevent blacks, Native American’s, Mexican’s, and Chinese from being declared citizen’s or voting.  Many areas had pol taxes and literacy tests as a condition of the right to vote.

The draft was reinstated at the outset of WW I (1917-18) for male citizen’s aged 21 to 30 and then expanded to include 18 to 45 year olds with 4 million men conscripted.  It should be noted that the age to vote was then 21 years old.  The draft was ended with the end of the War.  In 1920 the right to vote was granted to women with passage of the 19th Amendment but in practice it was granted only to white women as minority women were either outright restricted from citizenship (such as Chinese and others) and the poll taxes and literacy tests remained in many areas.

It was in 1917 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled selective service and the draft Constitutional based upon rights having responsibilities, stating “It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it.  This decision is based upon European Common Law (see The Law of Nations), brought to America and enacted here.  Although gaining the vote 3 years after it was tied to the draft, sexual biases were strong enough that the responsibility to serve in any fashion was not put on women.

Pre WW II (1940) saw the first peace time draft of male citizen’s 21-30 years old and just after the outbreak of the war (Dec. 1941) it was expanded to 18-45 year olds as mandatory service and registration of 45-65 year old men was required.  By the end of 1942 a Presidential Executive Order ended voluntary service (to control manpower for industries at home).  10 million men were inducted during the war, and 1 out of 5 men were classified fit for duty.  Just past the end of the war inductions stopped (1947) but the selective service system itself remained.

In 1948 peace time draft legislation was again passed requiring all men 18-26 years old to register, this the model for our current system.  With the outbreak of the Korean War (1950) the draft cranked up again and 1.5 million men (and 1.3 million volunteers) served during the war.  This draft was the first credited with driving volunteers as a voluntary commitment meant greater control over branch and duty assignment.  It was also the first draft with paternity and college deferments although paternity deferments ended at the end of the war.

When hostilities ceased in 1953  the draft continued.  The cold war and looming conflict in Vietnam kept it going, manpower needs of the military were met by the draft and the enlistments that having a draft drove men to do to gain favored branches and assignments.  Deferments were also used as a social control over men.  By granting a deferment to an occupation or class of individuals, such as married men with children, government could channel men into socially preferred activities.   These deferments for the “best and brightest” left a social divide between college educated and married men and poor single men, the “others” responsible to fill manpower requirements.

The voting rights Act of 1965, intended to prevent discriminatory practices against minority populations and bolster enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments, is in effect is the first legislation which had as a standard the theory of “one person – one vote” for all people 21 years of age and over. The attempt to treat all persons as equal, ironically, occurred as the draft was once again being ramped up in response to the Vietnam War.  Again, women were exempted from registering and deferments were given to married men and college attendees.  18-21 year old men were subject to the draft, even though they could not vote.

The theory of rights connected to responsibilities was the impetus for the 26th Amendment (1971) which was enacted under the rallying cry of “old enough to die, old enough to vote” and made voting a right for 18-21 year olds.  Again, the responsibility for men and the corresponding right was given to 18-21 year old women with no responsibility on their part.  Unfair draft deferments were also under attack.  The marriage exemption ended in 1965 and in an effort towards fairness a lottery system was developed.  As the war ground down in 1968 President Nixon proposed elimination of the draft and the use of only volunteers.  Even though the Gates Commission studied the issue and recommended elimination of the draft it was left in place for 1973, 74, and 75, but no one was called up to serve.  The draft and registration ended for the time being, but the selective service system itself remained.

In 1980 President Carter reinstated the requirement that all men 18-25 register for the draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday.  It was made a felony not to register and additionally there were many sanctions for not registering, including not being eligible for most government programs.  A 1981 lawsuit (Rostker v. Goldberg) challenged the male only provision under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the fact women were prevented from combat roles allowed Congress the authority to treat men and women as unequal and look at military needs.

Once an equality movement, the women’s movement now is one based upon achieving benefits for women without corresponding responsibilities.  The demand of women to be treated equally in the military and to open up all job titles (MOS) based upon ability resulted in the military removing restrictions based upon sex in January of 2013.  One would think that the right to volunteer also creates a responsibility to register and women’s groups would support this as being fair and equitable.  The National Organization for Women which advocates for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, and other women’s organizations, remain eerily silent when it comes to women’s responsibilities to obtain these rights.

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) had filed a lawsuit against male only selective service registration based upon equal protection under the law guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Citizenship conveys certain rights, duties, and benefits on all of us equally.  It is very difficult to see how the selective service is justified for one class of people and exempted for another.  Some women get it for there is a lawsuit by Elizabeth Kyle-LaBell who tried to register and was turned away because she was female.

NCFM filed in 2013 and the U.S. Attorney’s Office continues to fight the case.  Overcoming arguments NCFM has beat back opposition, won their appeals, and now has asked for summary judgement in the case.   Certainly, the backlash of the anti-male women’s benefit movement on one end and the radical traditionalists on the other is the driving force behind opposition to equal rights and responsibilities for men and women.

As we remember those who have served this Veteran’s Day, the anniversary of the end of WW I, let’s honor our veteran’s by working to uphold the equal rights and responsibilities guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution.  And when politicians (most who have not served and who do not have veteran status) placate us with hollow words of the value of veterans, let’s ask them why Americas sons are not as valuable as Americas daughters.  And ask them to explain how sexual bias in selective service is fair and meets the equality requirements under the U.S. Constitution, a Constitution veterans swear to uphold and do so for all of us by their service.

Do we believe all male victims of female assault?

The great hypocrisy of “believe all women” who have been victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) or sexual assault is that we do NOT believe nary ANY MAN who is the victim of IPV or sexual assault perpetrated by a female.  Certainly, if we are to skew due process to believe the victim then are not men entitled to the same equal protection?  The focus on women alone shows the blatant sexual bias in this “believe” movement, a gynocentric focus on female victims only.  It is a fact, if we “believe all women” we then inversely NEVER believe a man.

To believe all women is the slippery slope to the denial of due process in our justice system.  Under the U.S. Constitution we stand innocent until proven guilty in stark contrast to blind acceptance of an allegation.  Lady justice is the allegory passed down to us from Roman times representing the morality which should be in justice systems.  She is shown with a scale designed to show that evidence of an offense is present, measured, and balanced.  The blindfold is there to show impartiality in the application of the law.  The sword is for swift justice for justice delayed is justice denied.  If Lady Justice “believes all women” then she removes the blindfold, tips the scales, and strikes any man with the sword at the behest of any woman.  She is then hardly an allegory for justice and equal protection under the law.

At what point do we believe all MALE victims also?  Right now the system dismisses male victims.  How many men’s domestic violence shelters are there?  What government programs are available for male victims of IPV or sexual assault?  Hotlines?  The “Violence Against Women Act” by name and in practice excludes male victims.  Indeed, to admit that one is a male victim of IPV or sexual assault is to subject oneself to ridicule starting with the police and continuing ridicule through the legal system.  If lacking a voice and ignored what is a man to do to get justice?

In a world which believes all women the victimized male is undermined by the counter claim of the female.  Instances of mutual aggression result in the male being prosecuted.  Male victims of female violence are twice persecuted, once by the violence they endure and a second time by the institutional violence of a system which discounts their victimization.  As they are doing now, men will push to be believed and receive equal treatment.  Are we to then morph into a system which believes all “victims” with no measure of the evidence?

Our current system has gotten so gynocentrically focused that we argue about intrusions into protection for the falsely accused as if all false allegations are made by females and all falsely accused are males.  While statistically it may lean in that direction, it is a simple fact of life that both men and women are capable of violence and sexual assault against the other sex, and both men and women lie and are capable of using the relational violence of the false allegation to trigger institutional violence, the prosecution based upon false allegation.  While the institutions are now gynocentrically focused causing more false female allegations then male, we can expect men to push back and gain equality.  Do we want the “equality” of a system which persecutes all falsely accused, both men and women?

The fact that an individual does NOT have to prove their innocence and the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt protects the innocent from the criminal justice system.  Unfortunately, to protect the innocent there are many guilty parties who are not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence.  This is the price we pay to ensure that no innocent person is prosecuted, for to be innocent and prosecuted is to be persecuted.  Indeed, enough men are already falsely convicted for crimes they did not commit.  Are we ready to persecute and incarcerate more men AND women as we undermine due process to “believe all victims”?

For those men and women not prosecuted for whatever reason are we then to resort to a system of public majority rule and social destruction of character?    Two parties both claiming status as victim and perpetrator with high allegations and rhetoric replacing evidence?  The loser being the one who can’t muster as many counter allegations nor sway the majority opinion to their side?  What happens when both sides meet with their mobs with no process to contain them?  Are we not then returning to tribal trial by combat?

Both males and females can be the victim of IPV or sexual assault.  And both males and females can be the victim of false allegations and slanderous character assassination.  Individual victims of violence and victims of false allegations who are not served by the criminal justice system need to be served by our civil and social systems without regard to their sex.  The modern day social and media mob rule lynchings need to cease and we need to return to  due process for all.  Impartial balanced swift justice serves us all and anything else is anarchy and mob rule.

NY MAN endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor

The New York Men’s Action Network endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State.  Larry Sharpe, running on the Libertarian Party line has come out strongly for shared parenting as natural and normal and believes parental rights should not be restricted unless a parent is proven bad and an unfit parent (see his campaign meme above).  You can see Larry Sharpe speak to these issues on Long Island Back Story.

For the parents, men and women, and families abused by New York States incompetent and corrupt (anti) family courts the choice of Larry Sharpe is a no brainer for he is the FIRST statewide candidate in the last 20 years to come out publicly calling for family court and child custody reform.  He has gone so far as to include it on one of his campaign buttons and other campaign materials.

 available here

Let’s address the nay sayers who will dismiss this endorsement asking for  support for their party.   For the last 20 years each party has controlled one house of the legislature and held the Governor’s Office about 1/2 the time, yet neither party has seen fit to pass ANY reform legislation.  Additionally, NO candidate for statewide public office of either major party has publicly come out in support for reform of the system in any fashion.

Republican’s will point to the anti family policies of NY Democrat’s, and while it is true Assembly Democrats like disgraced leader Sheldon Silver and (then) Judiciary Committee Chair Helene Weinstein have blocked ALL legislation, especially shared parenting legislation (which enjoys over 80% support from all New Yorkers) Senate Republican’s have also been active in opposing shared parenting, with Senators like Republican Betty Little leading the opposition to reform.  It is an unholy alliance of “opposing” parties which blames the other for inaction to reform a system they put into place together.

The “deadbeat dad” legislation introduced by Republican Sen. Kathy Marchionne is a classic example of the unholy alliance of Republican’s and Democrats.  Studies have shown that the reason for default on child support is due to high awards and inability to pay.  Thus the system impacts poor fathers, disproportionately fathers of color, and yet Democrats readily jump on the “deadbeat” bandwagon, even though these fathers are beat dead and dead broke.    Democrats and Republicans alike turn a blind eye to fathers incarcerated for non payment, a debtors prison for poor men, mostly men of color.

Republican support to label disenfranchised dads deadbeats 2013

A constituent letter to Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara and Senator George Amedore has went unanswered by both deadbeat politicians for over a year now.  Now that they are running for reelection they freely contact constituents for support.  Deadbeat Santabarbara sent a snail mail notice with contact information on his office stating, “I encourage you to call me, send me an email, or visit my web site… I want to hear from you”.  A blatant lie given the non response to parental rights issues before him which went unanswered, without even a form letter of acknowledgement.  Deadbeat Amedore announces his “lime disease” Committee work and “FREE document shredding” by snail mail.  Taxpayer money spent on reelection while he ignores the plight of children and destroyed families.  Deadbeat Santabarbara went so far as to block the constituent on LinkedIn when he posted about the death of Gabby Boyd due to his legislative inaction on reform.

Vote for me because the other guys is worse is NO reason to vote for them.  The 2 party status quo (crazy) do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome people (Republican Molinaro) will tell you a vote for a “3rd party” candidate (LARRY SHARPE) is a “split vote” working for the Incumbent (Democrat Cuomo).  Perhaps if the supporters of either major party wished the support of father, mother, and family advocates they would have done something to reform a system instead of creating this one which is harming children and destroying families.

Can Larry win?  What we say is does it matter if another status quo do nothing for reform politician wins (Democrat or Republican)?  But if recent elections are any indication, the answer is yes, he can.  But even without a win we have established the need for reform and if any future candidates want the support of family advocates they will have to begin to address the issues.  A good showing on election day for Larry Sharpe is good for reform advocates, families, children, and parents.  See Larry Sharpe on the Rubin Report speaking on this topic.  He’s also on Joe Rogan here.

NY MAN is a non partisan political action site dedicated to men, father, and family issues.  We believe in the EQUAL rights of BOTH parents, the right of children to BOTH parents, and in PARENTAL RIGHTS as superior to government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians who act as as if they know best how to raise your children, treating them, and you, as dependent on and working for the state.  Morally superior “professional” busybodies telling you how to live your daily life and raise your children “in your best interest” while they plunder your assets while telling you the tyranny is for your own good need to be voted out of office.

Let your voice be heard.  We encourage you to support and VOTE for Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State.

Bias against fathers is killing children

Due to blatant sexism the police and DA’s office refused to enforce a custody order that the father had and this directly led to the death of Gabriella Boyd. “Child Protection” Services was non existent. The article contains video of the father discussing the incident. We brought the issue before NYS Government Officials in 2001 and ask ALL members of NYS Government how long will you turn a blind eye, fiddling away while families burn and children die.  If the system didn’t harbor such anti father bias the mother would most likely be receiving mental health care and Gabrielle would be alive.


Our original post regarding the incident:

It’s a Child’s Best Interest to be neglected, abused, or killed by sole custody?

It hit the local news and social media here in New York State (Mamaroneck, Westchester County) that a knife wielding mother is shot by police after they find “her toddler” severely injured.  The child later died from her injuries.  It is then reported (Mamaroneck Daily Voice 4-30-18) that the day before this incident the father, armed with a Custody and Order of Protection  from the court, was denied custody by the mother who closed the door in the face of police and the father.  The police refused to act as they “didn’t know if they had authority to arrest” the mother.  The fathers attorney reports the District Attorneys Office was contacted and Assistant District Attorney Mary Clark refused to act on the valid court order as it “is a civil matter”.

Apparently both the police and the District Attorney’s Office are unfamiliar with Section 215.50 the NYS Penal Law, Criminal Contempt, “Intentional disobedience or resistance to the lawful process or other mandate of a court” a class A Misdemeanor which allows the police to arrest a person for violating it.  Based on the inaction of the police at the time, and the inaction of the District Attorney’s Office, it appears the mother abused the child the next day, resulting in her death.  In the process of trying to save the child two police officers were attacked and injured, and the mother shot by police.  Ignoring the “problem” with an “It’s a civil matter” hasn’t seemed to make the problem go away.

Incompetence, bad training or bias against fathers, or all of them?

It is hard to imagine a scenario where the circumstances are the mother seeking to enforce a court order against a father where the police didn’t, at a minimum, step in and transfer custody of the child to the mother and most likely would arrest the man.  This sexist anti-male bias against fathers and their parental rights by police and District Attorney’s is the number one complaint of men attempting to enforce their parenting time.  Hundreds, if not  thousands, of fathers in NYS each year are met with custodial interference in gross violation and criminal contempt of the custody order of the court and law enforcement advises them it “is a civil matter” that they need to return to family court to correct.

Unfortunately, buried in the denial of access for fathers and the uneven enforcement and bias which doesn’t recognize a fathers parental rights, is the fact that children are being neglected, abused, and murdered by “custodial” mothers while police, DA’s, and social service agencies do nothing to help.  And the system is well aware of the problems which have been occurring for over 25 years now.  In 2001 the case of Logan Marr was aired by Frontline on PBS.  At the same time here in NYS we had the Kali Warrington saga, a child grossly abused and neglected by her mother and the live in boyfriend as the father, Daniel Simms, tried to get police and prosecutors to remove the child from her custody to his under a court order.

The issues of denial of a families access to a child, most often the father, which results in harm to children was brought to the attention of the NYS Legislature, Governors Office, Courts, District Attorneys, and government agencies extensively in media releases and public education campaigns by the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) such as this 05-10-15Warrington-Simms piece.  Mr. Randall L. Dickinson, then FaFNY VP spoke to the recognized institutional bias against fathers and warned of future harm to children; If, indeed, Social Services and the Courts were performing their duties and responsibilities in a accordance with conventional orthodoxy and did nothing wrong in their handling of this case, and, if, as Mr. Kisselbrack states, they acted in “the best interests of the child,” what, pray tell, are we to expect when, as may occur from time to time, they inadvertently drop the ball? Seven-year- old Kaili Warrington very nearly died before her father, Mr. Daniel Simms, was provided the necessary assistance and even allowed to rescue his daughter. She was fortunate to have survived. How many others will be as lucky? Will some other innocent child have to actually be sacrificed before Speaker Sheldon Silver and the New York State Assembly finally get the message???

How many child victims from Kali Warrington in 2001 to Gabriella Maria Boyd in 2018?

In January of this year I sent a letter to (my) Senator George Amedore and Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara (link here 17-09-15 Legislation request my districts) regarding legislative corrections for fathers and families.  Clearly requested was “Legislation to provide for access enforcement of parenting time by law enforcement agencies for clear violations of a court order” where I explained, “Access Enforcement. Right now there is NO access enforcement for parents save for a costly return to court which after the fact results in the parent losing time with the child even when it was ordered by the court. It is criminal contempt in the penal law to violate the order of a court yet law enforcement agencies will not enforce custody orders. Just as we have mandatory arrest for violating an Order of Protection we should have equal mandatory arrests for violating custody orders of the court.

Just like all legislatures before them, my own “representatives” didn’t bother to respond to my correspondence and request to protect children.  After the child suffered at the hands of her mother through the neglect of the police and district attorney I posted on social media with these elected representatives, “when?”  Senator Amedore’s Office has done nothing.  Assemblyman Santabarbara’s office simply blocked me from their social media accounts.   How many other innocent child have to be sacrificed before the NYS Legislature, Governors Office, District Attorney’s, Police, and Child Welfare Agencies finally get the message???

In the Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect we learn that “Children of single parents have a 77-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse, an 87-percent greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect, and an 80-percent greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents.”  The largest class ofabuser is single mother households; the second largest class of perpetrators is “boyfriends”, often referred to as a “father figure” by the popular media.

Denial of access to “non custodial” parents, most often the father, is harming children.  District Attorney Anthony Scarpino isn’t commenting, the Mamaroneck PD isn’t returning calls, the NYS Legislature is hiding, social services hasn’t been heard from, the media has moved on.  And somewhere a father sit in tears, heart broken, wondering how the current system and denial of his parental rights and bias against fathers has been in the best interest of HIS child?

How many other innocent children have to be sacrificed?

What does society gain by making beat dead, dead broke, disenfranchised Dads?

It always amazes me that the vast majority of sheeple (Americans) just accept the government propaganda and allow men to be thrown in debtors prison for not paying a child excise tax (child support).  The media is the worst, never asking the simple $64 questions, why and how, and looking the other way at the blatant sexist misandry which says men pay for children and the gynocentric sexist system which grants children to mothers automatically yet does not hold THEM financially responsible for the children.  So lets list a few questions to ask.

  1. Did Mr. Father support his children financially before the divorce? (YES).
  2. Was Mr. Father’s custody of his children removed without cause? (YES)
  3. Are the children suffering due to the non payment of this money? (NO)
  4. Is Mrs. Mother held accountable to provide financial support for the children or will we subsidize her with income (welfare) is she asks? (NO, she isn’t and YES we will)

A brief recap is in order of the making of a “dangerous hardened criminal” out of a father.  First you remove his parental rights without cause, then you tell him he has to transfer income to his ex for “support” with no accountability that it is spent on the child, the support amount is an arbitrary number not based on the needs of the children but a percentage of income, set the payment level not on what is actually earned but is expected to be earned and leave it there regardless of actual earnings in the future and ability to pay.  When the man falls behind suspend his drivers license and any licenses he needs to make the money, then threaten him with jail, put him away for 6 months (keep the financial charges running while he is in jail).  Let him out and threaten him with another 6 months if he doesn’t pay up.

When he gets mad at the injustice of loss of his children, loss of his career, and loss of his freedom, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness he is then labelled “angry” and “dangerous”.  Enter one Mr. Leon Koziol, esq. , as reported on by local media.  It is now news as Mr. Koziol has reportedly stated he’ll not turn himself in, is avoiding arrest, nor will he go willingly if caught.  Lost in the sensationalism is the oppressive tyrannies he suffered to get to this point.  The $64 question not asked is how does a man go from being an active and supporting father, a respected member of the legal community, and end up a dangerous hardened criminal?  The answer is the system made him.

The Sean Delones cartoon (banner on top) is from an incident in New York City in 2006 where a Doctor lost everything in a divorce, including his house, and went home and blew himself and the house up.  These are not isolated incidents and they occur every day to varying degrees.  It’s obvious by the cartoon this is an acknowledged problem in society evidenced by the cartoon ironic, “wonder what made him snap”.  Destroyed families, lost children, assets plundered, men driven to ruin, violence, and suicide and this occurring every day all over America.  And you ask why are these men angry? Really??

To stand up to the system results in the system labelling you the deadbeat dangerous dad.  It is easy to imagine Mr. Koziol’s fight for parental rights added to his persecution, and the labels “disgraced attorney” and “bad dad’ who doesn’t pay his child support, designed to label and disgrace.  We know “deadbeat dad” isn’t true, Sanford Braver proved that in the 1990’s (Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s).  Yet the abuse of fathers, and the labelling, continues.  In 2006 the following flyer was distributed to show the level of injustice which is driving men to kill themselves. The result was court administrators and government officials complaining that we were “inciting violence”.

So we ask you Mr Government Official, is it not violent to remove a persons children from their care, custody, and control?  Is it not violent to plunder a person’s assets in a star chamber of lawyers who are violating the most basic human right, parental rights?  Is it not violent to force a person to work and take the fruits of their labor as spoils for the oppressor?  Is it not violent to destroy a man’s reputation?  Is it not violent to have armed men chase a man with continuous threats of incarceration in debtors prison?  Is it not violent to put him into debtors prison for non payment of a debt he did not accrue on his own actions?

Indeed, the system is so bad and ruins so many that it is amazing that MORE people aren’t lashing out at the system.  “when a long train of  Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government… For over 30 years Government “child support” bureaucracies and the Courts have been violating parental rights and persecuting fathers to the point we now have 40% of children suffering without a father to the detriment of their children and society as a whole.  It does seem a design to reduce men to despotism which certainly deserves men to declare their independence from.

No, I’m not advocating violence or the overthrow of government.  Claims which will certainly be thrown in response to this post.  But I do advocate for every act of civl disobedience, including direct protest at individual omnipotent moral busybodies who hide behind the  bureaucracies which persecute people and destroy families in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the individual rights guaranteed under it.  A person deserves to get as they give.

I’m sure the system will run down the 60 year old former father and former attorney, over react to the “dangerous”  60 year old former father and attorney at the expense of his physical safety, and with moral authority throw the “deadbeat” 60 year old former father and attorney into jail at taxpayer expense.  Hounded, he’ll be run down and captured.

So one last $64 question for the blind media and despots who make up this system.  What do citizen’s and society in general gain by government removing children from fathers and then making beat dead, dead broke, abused and disenfranchised men of fathers?

Request to US Senators to Support Parental Rights

August 7,  2018

Senator Charles Grassley, Sponsor PRRA
135 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510

Senator James Inhofe 
205 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510(OK)

Dear Senators:

I am writing concerning Parental Rights and address this to you as you were a sponsor, co-sponsor, or historically a co-sponsoring state.  I have enclosed information on PRRA and Title IVd reform from the http://nymensactionnetwork.org web site which I encourage you to review and to support reform of the system which is destroying families in America to the detriment of children.

Parents, regardless of marital status, have seen their parental rights slowly eroded under the guise of “the best interest of the child”.  A couple in Washington State brought before the court by child protective for sending their child to church twice on Sunday, and ordered that once is enough.  A couple in Albany, NY brought in by the school district and ordered to place their child on drugs for A.D.D for deciding to try alternatives first.  A father, labelled “non custodial” denied access to his daughter by police and prosecutors only to see her killed, http://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/05/20/its-a-childs-best-interest-to-be-neglected-abused-or-killed-by-sole-custody/.  Unfortunately, these are not isolated instances of denial of parental rights.

Daily courts remove children from a parent, resulting in millions of American children removed from parents by states desire to maximize reimbursements under Title IVd, which states readily admit to, most recently in Illinois (video making the rounds on social media).  It drives both divorces and out of wedlock births, and even provides incentives for women to have children with multiple fathers.  Combined with father bias, this system has resulted in 40% of Americas children living apart from their father.  

It is widely recognized that single parent households result in harm to children, abuse, neglect, poverty and strains on the budget to provide programs to assist these broken families.  It is an ironic conundrum that the government provides the incentives to create single parent homes fostering bigger government to “solve” the problems they created.  One must certainly suspect this a design of an oppressive moral busybody Orwellian government looking to enlarge itself at the expense of individual parents. http://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/07/02/parents-declare-your-independence-from-a-despotic-government/ 

It’s time to reform this system of injustice and restore Parental Rights.



Encls: Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, Title IVd SSA Reform, Fix Federal Child support Laws to Lower Welfare Costs

Sen. Roger Wicker, 555 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington DC 20510
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, G12 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.  
Sen. Richard Burr, 215 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Pat Roberts, 109 Hart Senate Office Building 
Sen. Mike Enzi, 379 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Marco Rubio, 284 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 
Sen. Lamar Alexander, 455 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. 
Sen. Steve Daines, 320 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, 522 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Johnny Isakson, 131 Russell Senate office Bldg. 
Sen. Todd Young, 400 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, 702 Hart Senate Office Bldg. 
Sen. Rand Paul, 167 Russell Senate Office Bldg.

Are NY Republicans a friend to men, boys, fathers, or families?

Published 1-24-18 9on the old NY MAN site.

While Republicans in NYS certainly talk a good game of supporting men, fathers, and families the talk is just that, cheap talk.  Now that we have 20 years of grass roots lobbying hindsight NY MAN can safely say that NY Republicans have achieved nothing for Men, Fathers, Boys, and Families.  That’s not to say the Democrats have been any better, indeed it seems both are an unholy alliance of big intrusive government career politicians who, at best, work to continue the system which is breaking families apart as it provides monetary rewards for them and at worst villify all men as guilty to champion a cause.  And “deadbeat” and “abusive” men are an easy mark, even if placed with a broad brush upon men who don’t resemble the stereotyping.

We can see this bias in the posting of New York’s Junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, once an upstate moderate Democrat who now holds the radical feminist “women are victims” party line as she maneuvers for a Presidential run in 2020.  Also spouting the “Women’s Equality” agenda is current Governor, and also Democratic Presidential hopeful Andrew Cuomo.  One would think the NY Republicans would follow the National Republican platform and oppose the policies of the Democrats, yet Republican State Senator Kathy Marchionne and other Republican Senators voted for “pay equity” legislation, this opposite their national party platform.  And now we see Brian Kolb, Republican Assembly Minority Leader putting forth a “I support these women victims” DV report, this just in time for his run at the Governorship which he has announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for.

The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence has been properly debunked yet time, and time again, yet we see politicians doubling down on the myths as they pander to the “women’s vote”; Domestic Violence is perpetrated by men against women for “power and control”, women need protection from abusive men and an Order of Protection (OOP) will prevent violence, and that false allegations of Domestic Violence are few and far between (Debunked here).  And once again we see doubling down on the debunked Duluth Model and blatant political pandering for votes by Brian Kolb in the NYS Assembly Republican Minority Report on Domestic Violence.  This report ignores male victims, false allegations victims , and undermines Constitutional protections for the innocent (a link to “PASK, Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, non biased research is here).


Apparently NYS Republican’s have forgotten politics 101, and that is don’t alienate your base.  Although NY MAN is non partisan, the left wing of the Democratic Party has moved left, and in the process many moderate Democrats switched to the Republican Party as it was more in line with pro family policies, this more so in upstate NY which until recently remained a Republic bastion.  In fact it was the upstate and Long Island (Republican) control of the NYS Senate which balanced the overwhelming Democratic control of the NYS Assembly.  The support for anti-male biased reports like this says to us male Republicans “I don’t support you” and one would certainly expect the same non support in return.  (see “what party do I register in” at http://nymensactionnetwork.org/advocacy-get-active.shtml)

The balance between the two legislative houses meant that you needed a Democratic sponsor in the Assembly and a Republican Sponsor in the Senate with “same as” bills, and in fact the majority party in each house would not let the minority party to sign on as a supporter of one of their sponsored bills.  This created a unique situation in that the minority members of either house were willing to put in “feel good” legislation, that is bills which they didn’t really support but did so to make a constituent happy, knowing it would never make it out of committee.

Brian Kolb is a sponsor of the Family Court Reform Act, a NY MAN supported bill of needed reform in NYS Matrimonial and Family Courts (which was carried by Republican Assemblyman Bob Prentis and before him Jay Dinga) and NY MAN was positioned to support his run for Governor, until the anti male DV minority report came out.  Given his pandering for the women’s vote it appears his support of Fathers and Families and family court reform was nothing more than a feel good bill going no where to curry votes among men in his drive up the “NYS political ladder”?   As such, unless and until retracted, NY MAN urges men, fathers, and families to NOT support Brian Kolb in his run for nomination to Governor on the Republican line or general election. (note on 8-01-18 Kolb has dropped form the race and Molinaro is the Republican Candidate, with no platform for fathers and families).

There is often discussion about which party will best represent the interests of men, boys, fathers, and families and unfortunately the answer is neither.  The Democrats have moved to garner the women’s vote and to this end often follow the radical feminist agenda that men are bad and women victimized.  But the Republican’s often treat men and boys at worst as “deadbeats” who shirk their responsibilities to society.  Fortunately, both parties do have supporters of men, boys, fathers, and families in their ranks and it behooves us to work within both parties, and within ALL parties, to foster equality of opportunity and free choices in the pursuit of happiness for all individuals.  What we don’t need is a politician of either party who panders to get our votes, only to switch positions for political expediency to further their own career later on.

Undermine Parental Rights to Undermine all Other Rights

Parental rights, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, are a fundamental right, one which is not supposed to be abridged without cause and the burden of proof is strict scrutiny.  Unfortunately, when it comes to parental rights, especially a fathers right, this standard is not applied and fathers are routinely disenfranchised from their children. Today in the U.S. we have 40% of children living apart from their biological father and in the minority community the rate is over 60%.

It is important to understand that the only reason these fathers live separate from their children is a court order restricting their access by a court which removed their parental right without cause.  They did not abandon them nor did they not provide for their children financially.  There was no abuse, neglect, or abandonment to warrant government interference under the fundamental right and strict scrutiny standard.  Courts, using the vague standard of “best interest of the child”, routinely remove one parents rights, most often the father.  These parents were removed from the custody and control of their children simply because they had a child with another parent who saw no value in their continuing contact with their children.

Why is this important to constitutional rights advocacy organizations?

If you undermine a parents right to the custody and control of their children you remove that parents right to pass along their heritage and beliefs.  And this in turn removes the right to pass along to their children any and all rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.  This not only violates the fathers parental right, it violates the right of the child to learn of their fathers and ancestors beliefs and heritage.

Without the father whose religion will be taught to the child if any?  Without the father, who will teach them to speak out against injustice?  Who will teach them to peaceably assemble and petition government for a redress of grievances?

Without a father, who will teach them about firearms?  Their right to bear them?  And who will teach them to hunt, trap, or fish?  Who will teach them about the outdoor environment, the natural law?

Do we need to list all the bill of rights to understand that without a father the child loses these rights?  And once lost to this child, the right is most likely lost to all future generations of children. 

Have we forgotten the lessons of history, the Hitler Youth and a system of totalitarian government which curtailed liberty under the guise of working for the benefit of children?  Do we need to list the totalitarian governments throughout history that removed children from parents as a means and method to control individuals?

The government oversight of parental actions is not limited to fathers alone as the system now looks at the other parent as also under their oversight, their “right” to rule “in the best interest of the child” thus inserting their beliefs for those of one, or both parents.  And the vague standard is now being applied to intact two parent households by these courts.  Can we expect a government to respect our individual rights under the Bill of Rights if they do not respect the most sacred right, that of a parent to the custody and control of their children?

If you are truly a rights organization then you MUST join in support of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act,  http://nymensactionnetwork.org/prra/, for there is no preservation of the right you advocate for if there is no preservation of parental rights.

Parents’ Rights and Responsibilities Act of 20??

_______ CONGRESS          _____ Session

To protect the fundamental right of a parent to the care and custody of a child and to direct the upbringing of a child, and for other purposes.



To protect the fundamental right of a parent to the care and custody of a child and to direct the upbringing of a child, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Parents’ Rights and Responsibilities Act of 20??.


(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that–

the Supreme Court has regarded the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children as a fundamental right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty within the 14th amendment to the Constitution, as specified in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925);

the right of parents to the care and custody of their children has been recognized as “a fundamental right protected by First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments” in Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp. 1247 1251 (D. Mich. 1977), as “far more precious than property rights” and by the Supreme Court as an “essential” right  that protects a substantial interest that “undeniably warrants deference, and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection,” in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953), Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1971), and the Supreme Court has held in Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 2000 (99-138), that “The liberty interest at issue . . . the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. . . .  [I]t cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”

(3) this right has been recognized for centuries by the common law, and by the tradition of western civilization.

(2) the role of parents in the raising and rearing of their children is of inestimable value and deserving of both praise and protection by all levels of government;

(3) the tradition of western civilization recognizes that parents have the responsibility to love, nurture, train, and protect their children;

(4) some decisions of Federal and State courts have treated the right of parents not as a fundamental right but as a non fundamental right, resulting in an improper standard of judicial review being applied to government conduct that adversely affects parental rights and prerogatives;

(5) parents face increasing intrusions into their legitimate decisions and prerogatives by government agencies in situations that do not involve traditional understandings of abuse or neglect but simply are a conflict of parenting philosophies;

(6) governments should not interfere in the decisions and actions of parents without compelling justification; and

(7) the traditional 4-step process used by courts to evaluate cases concerning the right of parents described in paragraph (1) appropriately balances the interests of parents, children, and government.

(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to protect the right of parents to the care and custody of their children and to direct the upbringing of their children as a fundamental right;

(2) to protect children from abuse and neglect as the terms have been traditionally defined and applied in State law, such protection being a compelling government interest;

(3) while protecting the rights of parents, to acknowledge that the rights involve responsibilities and specifically that parents have the responsibility to see that their children are educated, for the purposes of literacy and self-sufficiency, as specified by the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972);

(4) to preserve the common law tradition that allows parental choices to prevail in a health care decision for a child unless, by neglect or refusal, the parental decision will result in danger to the life of the child or result in serious physical injury to the child;

(5) to fix a standard of judicial review for parental rights, leaving to the courts the application of the rights in particular cases based on the facts of the cases and law as applied to the facts; and

(6) to reestablish a 4-step process to evaluate cases concerning the right of parents described in paragraph (1) that–

(A) requires a parent to initially demonstrate that–

(i) the action in question arises from the right of the parent to direct the upbringing of a child; and

(ii) a government has interfered with or usurped the right; and

(B) shifts the burdens of production and persuasion to the government to demonstrate that–

(i) the interference or usurpation is essential to accomplish a compelling governmental interest; and

(ii) the method of intervention or usurpation used by the government is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling interest.


As used in this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE- The term `appropriate evidence’ means–

(A) for a case in which a government seeks a temporary or preliminary action or order, except a case in which the government seeks to terminate parental custody or visitation, evidence that demonstrates probable cause; and

(B) for a case in which a government seeks a final action or order, or in which the government seeks to terminate parental custody or visitation, clear and convincing evidence.

(2) CHILD- The term `child’ has the meaning provided by State law.

(3) PARENT- The term `parent’ has the meaning provided by State law.


(A) IN GENERAL- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a child’ includes, but is not limited to a right of a parent regarding–

(i) directing or providing for the education of the child;

(ii) making a health care decision for the child, except as provided in subparagraph (B);

(iii) disciplining the child, including reasonable corporal discipline, except as provided in subparagraph (C); and

(iv) directing or providing for the religious teaching of the child.

(B) NO APPLICATION TO PARENTAL DECISIONS ON HEALTH CARE- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a child’ shall not include a right of a parent to make a decision on health care for the child that, by neglect or refusal, will result in danger to the life of the child or in serious physical injury to the child.

(C) NO APPLICATION TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a child’ shall not include a right of a parent to act or refrain from acting in a manner that constitutes abuse or neglect of a child, as the terms have traditionally been defined and applied in State criminal law.


No Federal, State, or local government, or any official of such a government acting under color of law, or any other party, shall interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to the care and custody of the child of the parent or to direct the upbringing of the child of the parent, unless

that parent has been duly convicted of the abuse or neglect of that child as defined and applied in State criminal law; or

that parent has been duly found to have abrogated or violated the marital contract with the other parent of that child as defined and applied in State law.


No exception to section 4 shall be permitted, unless the government or official is able to demonstrate, by appropriate evidence, that the interference or usurpation is essential to accomplish a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn or applied in a manner that is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling interest.


Any parent may raise a violation of this Act in an action in a Federal or State court, or before an administrative tribunal, of appropriate jurisdiction as a claim or a defense.


Subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988 (b) and (c)) (concerning the award of attorney’s and expert fees) shall apply to cases brought or defended under this Act. A person who uses this Act to defend against a suit by a government described in section 4 shall be construed to be the plaintiff for the purposes of the application of such subsections.

Letter to NY State Legislators

Sent to these legislators with attachments on 1-25-18.  Copy, Paste, and Modify to fit your desires AND SEND IT TO YOURS!

Senator George Amedore
20 Park St., Fonda NY 12068 

Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara
2550 Riverfront Center, Amsterdam NY 12010 

Dear Senator and Assemblyman: 

January 25, 2018 

I am writing as your constituent to obtain your assistance in securing legislation which will benefit families in NYS. 

Most states and the Federal Government have failed to move with the times and have lagged in updating and modifying their laws, policies, and procedures to stay with current trends of two working parents, often unmarried and living apart, yet both actively involved in the raising of their children.  Unfortunately, NYS is worse.  New York’s “standard visitation order” is stuck in an outdated sexist and biased system from the 1950’s of a stay at home mother and a working father. The presumptive order of a “custodial” mother and a “Non Custodial” visiting, child support paying father is the norm with almost no deviation from this “one size fits all” model.

Worse, NY Courts are biased against men and fathers.  As far back as 1986 a NYS Office of Court Administration study of bias against women in the courts found not only bias against mothers but also extreme bias against fathers concerning child custody and support payments. Studies, Commissions, and revues over the years bear this out, yet nothing is done to correct the problems.  False allegations and perjury are an accepted norm, fostered by attorneys with “a wink and a nod” coaching their clients to “win”.

Long delays in court are the norm, most people can’t afford the attorney fees to navigate it and end up going Pro Se (especially men and poor people).  Our nine tiered court system is widely recognized as antiquated and confusing, even to those who work within it, yet court restructure and reform remains elusive and undone to the detriment of NY citizens.  Family and Supreme Courts operate with no oversight, a virtual star chamber, which seems to serve no man, woman, or child with balanced blind justice.  This made worse when you don’t have adequate legal counsel.

To correct this I am calling on you both to sponsor or co-sponsor legislation which would: 

  1. Legislation for proper terminology by replacing “visitation” with “Parenting Time”.
  2. Legislation to make shared parenting and equal parental rights and responsibilities
    the law of this state.
  3. Legislation to provide mediation and/or collaborative law as an option to litigation.
  4. Legislation to secure Court restructure and reform.
  5. Legislation to remove the “star chamber” under which family courts now operate by opening courts to the public (unless a finding for closure is on the record), mandating electronic court recording, and allowing the parties to individually record ALL court proceedings.
  6. Legislation to provide for access enforcement of parenting time by law enforcement agencies for clear violations of a court order.
  7. Legislation to modify Child Support consistent with parental involvement and direct expenditures to ensure payments don’t restrict parenting time or result in a child having reduced standards of living with one parents household versus the other.
  8. Legislation to ensure both parents have access to child’s to records health care, education, and welfare unless restricted by court order.
  9. Legislation to mandate at birth DNA testing for out of wedlock births to determine paternity and allow for DNA evidence of false paternity to be introduced at any time and false paternity shall relieve the person from mandatory parental obligations.
  10. Legislation to establish a fathers parental rights at the time of paternity establishment.
  11. Legislation to mandate that the OTDA conduct quadrennial reviews as required by Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and that stakeholders input include organizations which represent parental, children, and family rights during the review process.


Terminology changes. We need look no further than the 2010 Review of the New York State Child Support Guidelines (2010 Review”) to find support for terminology change. Not only does it propose to eliminate the negative term “visitation” it also proposes to eliminate the term “custodial” and “non custodial” as not descriptive of todays social norms. Long proposed by parental rights advocates, it is high time this piece of legislation passed into law. 

Shared Parenting. A cornerstone of family rights and children rights advocates is enactment of shared parenting as the law of the land. Although hiding behind the excuse of “judicial discretion”, NY now currently employs a default “visitation schedule” ironically referred to in the NY Courts as “the standard NY order” of visiting every other weekend and one mid week visit of 4 hours. This denial of one parents access to children has been shown to be detrimental to a child’s health and well being. In effect the “standard NY order” is NOT in the best interest of the child. And in cases where there is cause Judges could still restrict a parents access. The 2010 Review of NYS Child Support Guidelines recommends shared parenting be the norm. 

Mandatory Mediation and/or Collaborative Law. The cost of divorce/separation and settlement of child custody and support issues is now a very expensive endeavor which removes assets which could better be used for the child. The adversarial “winner” mentality of court has parents focused more on not losing their children (rightfully so) and less on the needs of the child. Mediation and/or collaborative law has been shown to reduce animosity between parents and result in reduced litigation and increased compliance with orders post legal action. It reduces burdens on the court as the only issue which have to be litigated are those where agreement can not be found between the parties. 

Court Restructure and Reform. Has bipartisan support and is supported by the Judiciary. As it requires Constitutional changes reform enacted this cycle will have to be considered in the next cycle. As the Constitutional Convention is not being held I call upon you to get this done. 

Open Courts and recording of ALL actions before the court. While certainly there are situations where the court of its own volition, or at the parties mutual consent, where the courts would restrict all, or some, public access for cause. This does not negate the right of the parties themselves to have accurate video and/or audio recordings of all proceedings. In any minor traffic infraction we require the proceedings be recorded to protect the rights of the individual, yet when litigating family matters we ignore the rights of individuals to a true and accurate accounting of the facts? Let’s secure legislation to end these star chambers. 

Access Enforcement. Right now there is NO access enforcement for parents save for a costly return to court which after the fact results in the parent losing time with the child even when it was ordered by the court. It is criminal contempt in the penal law to violate the order of a court yet law enforcement agencies will not enforce custody orders. Just as we have mandatory arrest for violating an Order of Protection we should have equal mandatory arrests for violating custody orders of the court. 

Child support reform. The 2010 Review calls on modification lowering percentages for higher income brackets. Additionally, it reports that deviations from base amounts, currently authorized by law, are not being used by lower income brackets, most likely caused by the lack of legal representation and also the systems not adequately explaining the guidelines and deviations to people. I encourage you to work with OTDA to enact reform to correct this. 

Access to official records. Right now schools and other institutions tend to view the designation of “non custodial” parent as removal of parental rights. Many parents report difficulties in accessing their child’s records. While the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) guarantees a parents rights to school records I encourage you to put forth state legislation which guarantees that parental rights not be infringed based upon a label or designation and unless the parental rights are specifically restricted, applying strict scrutiny, and removed by the court. 

At birth DNA testing. And false paternity is a fraud perpetrated on both the man and the child. Responsible Fatherhood starts with identifying the biological father and a child has a right to know who his real father is. Unfortunately over 30% of DNA tests of men identified as fathers find out that they are not the biological father of the child. And once a man signs on as the father he can not challenge the fact even if DNA later shows he has been daddy duped into thinking he was the father. I encourage you to put forth legislation which mandates mandatory at brith DNA testing for all out of wedlock birth’s and additionally to put forth legislation removing a man’s responsibilities to children found not to be his by DNA testing regardless of the length of time he had been duped. 

Paternity AND parental rights establishment. Paternity establishment is one of the federal reimbursements under Ttitle IVd SSA. 80% of out of wedlock fathers are at the hospital at the time of the birth of their child and were already willing to admit paternity. Unfortunately, in addition to the problems with false paternity, the signing on as a father makes him financially responsible but does NOT secure his parental rights. I believe the OTDA should be mandated to aid and assist a father obtain his parental right in addition to securing his financial responsibility and ask for legislation to do this. Child support is BEING THERE and I believe we should all work to ensure a child has both parents. 

Quadrennial Reviews timely and to include father participation.  To my knowledge NO father or “non custodial” parent has ever been invited to submit comment for a review. Nor has an electronic forum ever been provided to collect their views. Simply, how is it that OTDA can address the issues of men/fathers if they do not bother to ask what they are? They can’t, and they haven’t. The recent review for 2010 was completed in 2017 and to my knowledge has never been up to date. Outdated information excluding the needs, wants and desires of men/fathers and “non” custodial parents is sure to produce policies and laws which do not meet their current needs and this is the current system that we have. Let’s get up to date, and include fathers views. 

Child Excise Tax Freedom Day for “Non Custodial” Parents

The U.S. Tax freedom Day is estimated to be on April 19, 2018 but for those who pay a child excise tax (AKA Child Support) the tax freedom day occurs later, much later, in the year.  Our estimate is that a non custodial parent has to work until August 1 to pay the combined tax load.  That’s into the 8th month of the year before you see a penny of your hard earned dollars.

Why is it a Child Excise Tax and not “child support”?

Matrimonial issues, including child custody and support are issues reserved to the states.  But the federal government’s “war on poverty” begun under President Johnson was increasing in costs over the years.  The federal government formed the Office of Child Support under the Reagan administration which worked on Child Support GUIDELINES (developed in 1987) to be given to states with a mandate that they have a system in place to ensure working non residential fathers were financially supporting their children to reduce the monetary impact to benefits paid out of federal coffers.  As an incentive to comply (passed in 1988) the federal government tied payments to the states with a deadline of 1989, a scant one year to comply or lose $$.   (See “Child Support Reform” for current incentive payments to states and “Parents; Declare Your Independence” for the unconstitutional nature of child support)

Prior to the guidelines state courts were free to set child support payments based upon a showing of need, a “Costs Shares” Model which allowed both residential and non residential parents to share in the actual costs of raising the child.  Income transfers from one parent to the other were minimal and usually occurred as an exchange when the non residential parent was exercising their parental time with the children, an incentive to both parties to pay and allow access pursuant to the court order.  A non residential parent could be ordered to pay expenses directly, such as medical insurance coverage or costs or school extra curricular expenses.

The Guidelines sent out by the federal government, however, were an  “Income Shares” Model, a set percentage of income with an increasing sliding scale upwards based on the number of children.  As it is a fixed percentage dependent on quantity it is an excise tax and an income transfer, with the government as middle man, from one parent to the other.  The model is flawed as it presumes the custodial parent makes the payments benefitting the children directly and it transfers the money from the non custodial parent to the custodial  with no accountability for the custodial parents child expenses actually paid.  Further, it has no relationship to the actual cost of raising a child in that state or the costs based on actual circumstances of the child.  The guidelines themselves were derived from income and expense models for intact families and thus ignored the real world economics of maintaining two households for the children.  Health care, child care, and extraordinary expenses are added on after the income transfer is set, thus skewing the percentage even higher.

It should be noted that the Income Shares submission from the feds to the states was a guideline and states were free to modify, change, or put into place any plan, but the short turn around (enactment 1988, deadline 1989) and the fact that ALL states had guidelines in place on time indicates the states just enacted the guidelines generally as proposed.  The federal governments own studies on enactment showed the states did little more than quick reviews, minor changes and enacted the guideline as a mandate.  This simply to maximize the states  reimbursements $$ from the federal government.  For New York State the income transfer amounts were set at 17% for one child, 25% for 2, 28% for 3, etc. and were based on GROSS income plus add ons and a expenses based on pro rata income of the parents.

1st Rule of Accounting;  Net Income = Assets – liabilities.

Using general numbers we can break down the actual cost for a custodial parent and a non custodial parent who has the standard NY visitation order of every other weekend and one day mid week for 4 hours with 2 children.  Assuming a $16 an hour 30 hour work week for CP and a $24 an hour 40 hour work week for NCP, rounded numbers and general tax bracketing.

  1. Custodial Parent           2. Non Custodial Parent

Gross Income (after FICA)        $25000                             $50000
Federal Tax                                    –        $0                            -$11000*
State Tax                                        –  $1250                            –  $3250
Federal EITC                                 +  $6444                           +          0

After Tax Income                        $30194                              $35750
Medical Insurance Premiums            $0                            –  $7500
Child Care Expenses                   –  $3467                            –  $6933
Extraordinary Expenses            –    $670                            – $1330
Excise Tax Income Transfer    +$12500                           – $12500

Net Income                                   CP $38557                       NCP $7487

Tax Freedom Day              0 days – January 1          213 days – August 1st

*This is filing status single for the NCP and Head of Household and both child deductions for the CP.  If an agreement in the order is in place NCP may be able to file head of household with one child exemption but it is not guaranteed (abt $2000 reduction). NCP medical insurance cost shown is increase due to keeping a family plan to carry the children, cost of single plan deducted from both. Child care expenses are set by CP and beyond NCP’s control, even if NCP has available kith or kin care for free and lacking a “right of first refusal” for care of the children specified in the order. Extraordinary expenses are dental (braces), eye care, etc. and again the choice of provider and expense levels are controlled by the CP.

In NYS there is no set proportional offset for time with the children. On the remaining $144 a week net income the NCP needs to ensure adequate space for children during parenting access time. It is plainly apparent the NCP will have to seek extra work and income to survive thus reducing the time available to interact with the children. Additionally, increased income may result in the court revisiting the order and increasing the child excise tax based on higher income.

Once income is set, any reduction is considered a voluntary reduction in income and income levels can be imputed and set at the higher level. The child excise tax is an order for the employer to deduct and is taken out before net pay (just like the other taxes) leaving the NCP the take home pay. Should a NCP be assessed a child excise tax which results in garnishment of greater than 65% of his gross income, the level of deduction is capped HOWEVER, the amount is still owed and is added to the NCP’s arrears which, when hitting certain levels results in automatic suspension of drivers licenses, seizure of registered automobiles, suspension of professional licenses, and even incarceration.  Loss of driving privileges or professional licenses, and even involuntary incarceration for the non payment of the child excise tax is considered a VOLUNTARY reduction in income and the assessment still accrues and adds to the arrears during this time.


Taxation without representation?

It’s important to note here that the NCP never financially abandoned their children and there was no clear and convincing evidence that being a “non custodial” parent would lead to them NOT financially support their children in the future, a clear violation of parental rights and the strict scrutiny standard for government to intervene.  The limited time “visiting” with the children, against the wishes of the NCP, is further violation of the individuals constitutionally protected parental rights.  Worse, the transfer of income has an inverse action on time with the children for as the income transfer increases the ability to spend time with the children decreases.  Taxation without representation.

Stripped of our children without our consent.  Without our consent, taxed for the violation of our right.  Our petitions for redress of these grievances answered only with more injury.  Given the assault upon out natural, God given parental rights, by a government which is supposed to be protecting those parental rights, one does wonder when the tea will hit the harbor.