Be a MAN! Take political action to support men. – A National grass roots lobbying site for issues related to Men, Fathers, Parents, Boys, children, and families.

Public Letter to MS Legislative Leaders 02-08-2025

Lt. Governor Delbert Houseman, Sen Pres Pro Tem Dean Kirby, House Speaker Jason White, House Pres Pro Tem Manly Barton PO Box 1018 Jackson MS 39215

Honorable Gentlemen;

I am writing in regards several issues regarding families and society and specifically government interference in the form of “do good” legislation which is anything but doing good.

First up is HB525, the notice of suspension of CDL’s to Employers. I will resist the urge to open with “what manner of idiot thinks it is a good idea to”… and begin more diplomatically with a question. If it is the goal of the state to collect financial child support how is it effective to remove a man’s ability to earn income? Not only should this legislation not be passed but any and ALL suspension of state licenses as they have the inverse effect of their stated goals. Indeed the opposite should be occurring for if a man does not have the ability to earn we should be educating him to earn a higher income and obtain licensing which furthers this goal.

The last federally funded research was in the 1990s and reported by Sanford Braver in Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s debunked the “deadbeat dad” label. The number one reason a father doesn’t pay child support is inability to pay. This has born out in multiple studies over many decades. Worse, the incarceration of fathers for non payment is a debtors prison, an archaic practice banned in all civilized nations a century ago excepting for the persecution of poor fathers today.

I understand that the Child Support System is an unconstitutional federal boondoggle and a misnomer as it is actually a child excise tax designed to reimburse federal coffers for outlays to “single mothers” (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/child-support-reform/). Title IVd of the Social Security Act provides perverse financial incentives to the states to create “single mother” homes and disenfranchised “non custodial” fathers but can we call ourselves “good fathers and family men” if we support a system which disenfranchises fathers to increase federal money to our state?

Mississippi LACKS a Shared Parenting Act. The number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is a limiting court order and number 2 is a mother who see no value and interferes with the fathers access, which 50% of mother ADMIT to doing. The National Parents Organization (https://www.sharedparenting.org/csreportcard) gives MS a grade of “F” noting it lacks any presumptive parenting time adjustment formula. Ironically studies have shown that fathers with a shared parenting arrangement overwhelmingly pay child support on time and in full. MS is only 1 of 9 states with this ranking, lower than 42 others which recognize we are no longer a society where fathers work and mothers stay home with children.

Instead of helping children these policies have been disenfranchising fathers from their children with negative consequences for society. “Single mother” homes are the bulk of children living in poverty and suffering child abuse and neglect. These children disproportionately suffer greater involvement in crime, drugs and alcohol, and teen pregnancies with lower performance in school with a higher drop out rate in high school. Why not enact a rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared parenting and a presumptive parenting time formula will reduce the disenfranchisement of fathers and result in better outcomes for children and society?

We seem to be suffering a gynocentric focus arguing for women’s rights without holding them responsible and holding men responsible without giving them any rights. There is no better example than reproductive rights. We allow a woman to abort a baby or give it up for adoption regardless of the fathers wishes yet fathers are forced to be financially responsible with no ability to “abort” it financially. It surprises me that in the debate over abortion we never speak to the responsibility of BOTH parents, that is that excepting rape and incest BOTH parents are BOTH financially and emotionally responsible to raise a child of a sexual union between them. We used to understand it “takes two to tango” but have morphed into a “he got her pregnant” mentality.

Enter as exhibit 1 Sen. Bradford Blackmon’s SB2319, “Contraception Begins at Erection Act” making it “unlawful to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.” It is enforced with high fines and exempts the use of contraceptives. I have no idea what the intent of this legislation is. I’ll forego diplomacy and ask what manner of idiot thinks it is the states responsibility to regulate a man’s “discharge of genetic material?” While I am relatively certain most Republican’s wouldn’t sign on to such drivel I would be remiss not to point out Republican’s chivalrous gynocentric focus which totally ignores issues of men and boys. Where is the Republican public response opposing this?

As an example of Republican gynocentrism I will point to the “Mississippi Study Group on Women, Children, and Families” which I watched the entirety of the public hearings and also submitted written testimony to (enclosed for your expected avoidance and recognition and lack of discussion on these matters). I need go no further than the title which excludes fathers. In my 10+ year of lobbying NYS Government on parental rights issues I attended many of these “study groups” and “fact finding panels” and was not overly surprised that MS had the same self serving “panels of experts” as did NY, the lettered and “learned” graduates of liberal universities and, of course, no one testifying on behalf of men or fathers. I note that my written testimony was NOT recognized as received and as entered as part of the official record. This stacked deck of lettered, Ph.D., Esq., Judge and Politician excluded any who pays for or receives any of the policy enactments you force upon them. Not a single father, man, boy, or father, man, or boys rights advocate was in sight. Let us gynocentric-ally focus on women and children as chattel to women and force men into responsibility with no rights, even of the first amendment to speak and voice opinions.

I note the most recent, December 2022, Quadrennial Review of Child Support Guidelines had a committee with 1 State Senator, 3 Judges, 5 Attorneys, and 1 Dr. (I assume a Ph.D.) which in my mind is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. The public in put was a 30 day Survey Monkey promoted on the agency’s social media accounts with a minimal return of 243 responses 71.6 percent of which were “custodial” parents receiving “child support” and 3.7 percent who pay. Hardly an impartial and unbiased way to collect information and as such conclusions drawn are speculation and biased opinions not based upon fact. I shall address only “no-fault divorce” here and will respond to other aspects of the quadrennial review in other correspondence.

No-fault divorce originated in California and was signed by then Governor Reagan in 1969. In his defense he did call it the greatest mistake of his political career. It spread slowly across the country and New York State was the last state to pass no-fault in 2010, a fact that I am aware of as the non profit I founded was one of the last secular organizations opposing it as it provided no statutory protection for each parents relations with their child(ren). I am no longer opposed to no-fault divorce even though it encourages divorce, a fact we see in marriages in the US which were nationally at 10.6 per thousand in 1970 staying at that level as no-fault was slowly enacted and at 9.8 in 1990 where it continued its decline to 6.5 in 2018 where it has remained relatively the same since. The fact is marriage subjects a man to government control of his current and future finances even if the marriage produces no children and organizationally we began recommending that to avoid the pitfalls of no-fault divorce one just needed to not get married.

If Mississippi is intent on reducing divorces the state needs to enact a rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared parenting regardless of the marital status of the parents as states enacting shared parenting see a reduction in divorces. If Mississippi is intent on increasing marriages they need to remove the disincentives for men to marry and the incentives for women to divorce. 85% of divorces are filed by women “who grew apart” but who are awarded custody of children 85% of the time and with this a hefty tax free income transfer from the disenfranchised father who is relegated to, at best, a 4 day a month “visitor” in his child’s life. When the judge “awards” custody he is actually stripping one parent of their parental rights as they BOTH had this right walking into court and one does not have it exiting court.

The Marxist destruction of the American Family began under President Johnson with his war on poverty which was intended to actually, as he stated, “get them ni****s to vote Democrat” and not to eradicate poverty. The 1965 crisis of African American families in the 1965 Moynihan Report have now grown to 80% with increasing government regulation of the family. As out of wedlock births increased this increased pressure on federal coffers so in 1974 Title IVd of the Social Security Act was amended ordering the states to collect child support to reimburse federal coffers from absent fathers. In 1981 Title IVd was amended and child support collections unconstitutionally moved to the federal government mandating each state also create an office of child support enforcement.

Unfortunately poor mothers in need of assistance usually have children of poor fathers and collections under the system were well below costs to run the system. Though the 1990s collection methods were increased up to and including criminal actions, including incarceration, against poor fathers for being poor and not paying their child support. As divorce rates increased the system looked to these divorced fathers who were paying child support direct to the mother under a divorce decree and they too were added into the system as a means to boost statistics. Unfortunately what wasn’t factored in were biases towards mothers in granting custody and control of children which in the 90s was at 90%.

Worse for these divorced fathers was the fact that child support payments correlated to his access to his children but now the system divided these into two different areas with collections removed from access to his children. Additionally, proportional offsets for a father who had substantial time with his children and direct financial support provided perverse incentives to reduce fathers to a 4 day a month visitor in his child’s life to maximize payments into the system. We took fathers who were committed to their family and allowed mothers to disenfranchise them but retain his financial support. Married fathers were treated the same as out of wedlock fathers with the 4 day a month “standard visitation” schedule.

Let’s look at the timeline of family formation in America (US Census Bureau).

Two parent families / mother headed / father headed

1970 58,939,000 / 8,200,000 / 748,000

1975 (slight decrease) / 11,245,000 / 1,014,000

1985 46,149,000 / 13,081,000 / 1,554,000

1990 48,775,000 / 13,874,000 / 1,993,000

1995 abt. same / 16,477,000 / 2,461,000

1999 abt. same / 16,805,000 / 3,094,000

Prior to 1970 fatherless, mother headed, homes held consistent at 4-5% of households and father headed homes were almost non existent. As it now stands marriage is a hostile environment for men and it is decreasing. Having a child also subjects a father to a hostile environment in a system designed to disenfranchise him from his children for which he is then labelled a “deadbeat” for having been beat dead by the government. The federal government provides perverse incentives to the states to create “single mother” homes as it reimburses for;

Establishing paternity (which requires an out of wedlock birth)
Number of Child support Orders Entered (which requires “single parent” homes)
Amount collected versus amount owed (incentive to increase individual amounts owed)
Collection of arrears (incentive to place amount owed higher than can be timely paid i.e. impute income)
Cost of the program, collections versus expenses (incentive to increase program costs to equal collections and increase collections to drag along program costs)

If government was serious about encouraging married two biological parent families then wouldn’t it provide incentives to the states to create them and not provided incentives to create single parent, especially single mother homes as it now does?

1 in 5 Mississippians live in poverty and ranks second to last in child well being among the 50 states (poverty, not in school, no health insurance, teen pregnancies) (MSU Extension). Two biological parents living in the same household with their children greatly reduces the negative outcomes for children. Yet the federal government and Mississippi provide perverse incentives for a woman to have a child out of wedlock and then cohabitate with a man unrelated to her child as in 1968 “the man in the house” rule was repealed and his income is not counted towards any public assistance she can get. For the purposes of setting child support her income, and that of anyone cohabitating is not factored into the award he has to pay. Worse, the sliding scale provides a perverse incentive to have multiple children out of wedlock as 2 kids with one father is 20% of his income but 2 kids with two fathers is 28% (14% times each of 2 fathers incomes).

The 1965 crisis of 25% father absent African American homes in 1965 resulted in the Moynihan Report which was widely dismissed as it focused all the blame on African American Men. Not to be thwarted government kept its gynocentric focus on financially providing for “women and children” neglecting to hold women responsible for their choices in life while we go to no ends to hold a man financially responsible for the choices of women. We have created a hostile environment for men in marriage and when having a child to the point that 2023 saw the lowest birth rate ever recorded in America. The marxist plan to destroy the American Family is working, fostered by well meaning “experts” who meet in committees and decide what is best for the little man with top down policies and with cognitive dissonance we ignore the negative outcomes, blame men, the double down that it is a problem caused by individual men ignoring the hostile environment government has created.

In the normal world the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome. Perhaps it is time for politicians to recognize 60 years of family policy at the federal and state level is the problem? “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” said Ronald Reagan, are the nine most feared words in the English language. Sadly he, and other politicians regulating families seem unable to apply it to themselves and their programs forced upon fathers which is destroying families. We can double down and continue or we can actually repeal these onerous regulations placed upon fathers and their children.

Sincerely,

James H. Hays, Lt. (Ret)

Encl: Missing Fathers: A family crisis of governments making (at https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2022/09/missing-fathers-a-family-crisis-of-governments-making/)

Resume: Genealogist and Historian https://americanman.org, Blogger http://nymensactionnetwork.org, Retired NYS En-Con Police Lieutenant, Past Investigator NYS Governors LI Solid Waste Task Force, NYS En-Con Police Officer NYS DEC DLE, Past SUNY University Police Officer, Past NYS Park Police Officer, Past Centre Island Municipal Police Officer, Past Military Police Officer Ft. Hood, TX and Civilian Liaison with Killeen, TX Police Department, 33 years LE experience.

Co-founder and Past President of The Coalition for Fathers and Families NY, Life Member, American Coalition Fathers and Children, Life Member National Coalition of Free Men, Past President FRA Capital District Chapter, Past Board Member FRANYS, Founder and Past Treasurer NY Men’s Action Network PAC.

Life Member NRA, Life Member NYSRPA, Life member NAGR, Life Member 2A Foundation, Life Member NYS Conservation Council, Retired Member PBA of NYS, Past Chief Steward, En-Con Police Officers and Supervisors, NYSCOPBA, Past Executive Board Member Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Member and Past regional representative for the NY Conservation Officers Association (NYCOA), Certified

Critical Incident Stress Management with 1000+ contact hours in individual and peer support for fathers and families in crisis.

Bachelors in Family and Society, SUNY ESC, AS Business Administration, AS Environmental Conservation and Law Enforcement, En-Con Police 8th Basic Academy, Certified Police Special Topics Instructor, (Domestic Violence, EVOC, ATVEOC, SEAVOC, Solid Waste Identification and Enforcement, etc), En-Con Supervisors Academy, University Police Basic Academy, Military Police School, NCO Training School

How do Red Flag Gun Laws REALLY Work denying MEN’S Rights?

Red Flag Gun Law are promoted as a means to prevent illegal use but in effect are designed to usurp Constitutional protections of individuals and due process rights. Many oppose these as a violation of the Second Amendment, which it is, but the intent isn’t specifically to prevent you from possessing a firearm as it is a means of government control of your individual actions and result in violation of many of your rights established under the Bill of Rights. While many think these are relatively new, those of us advocating for parental rights have been fighting these unjust “Red Flag” laws enacted under the guise of protecting women and children which are now being spread to a greater portion of society.

The first problem with Red Flag Laws is a denial of due process. The initial filing occurs ex parte, meaning the person seeking the order files it with a Judge without the targeted person allowed to present a counter argument in court. The filing is considered a civil matter and as such the standard of proof is greatly reduced to a preponderance of the evidence (51% for) but with no rebuttal and opposing argument it isn’t difficult to see that the person filing can reach that level of “proof.” Further Judges are reluctant to deny a request for an order as there are few, if any, repercussions to the Judge for issuing the order (He’s acting based on the “evidence” and further has judicial immunity from being sued). However, if he doesn’t issue an order and the firearms are sued illegally the Judge (many of these elected positions) faces public notoriety and backlash for not preventing the crime. The government is stealing your property without you being charged with a crime of given a chance to even address the allegations against you.

A discussion of standards of proof is needed to understand how this process violates the US Constitution. As a police officer I was supposed to establish a suspicion (usually an allegation by a person) that a crime was, or was about to be, committed before investigating a person. Next I had to develop evidence giving me a reasonable belief that this person committed a specific crime and I could present this to the court who, finding probable cause, would issue a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. While it could be argued that the process for “Red Flag” Laws is similar to this it ignores the fact that the processes for a “civil” matter do NOT rise to the same level of scrutiny that criminal matters do and it is the one sided allegation with no investigation which is presented to the civil judge.

Once issued the order needs to be enforced and here the “civil matter” is turned into a criminal matter as the police are the enforcers of the order and it is violation of the order itself which makes it a criminal matter. So possession of a firearm itself is not per se a criminal matter, but you failing to abide by the order (criminal contempt or contempt of court depending on jurisdiction) is the violation of law. Remember, the targeted person has no idea the police are about to show up at his door and seize his legally held firearms. And armed with an order that says he is a danger to himself or another is bound to cause the police (like the Judge) to err on the side of safety and respond in an aggressive manner.

An argument for these Red Flag Laws, which must here be rebutted, has been to prevent mentally ill people from harming themselves or another with a firearm but in these instances the government already has a process in place. A police officer who has probable cause (a preponderance of evidence) a person is a danger to themselves or the public can take them into custody on mental health grounds (again varying on jurisdiction) and deliver them to a health facility for evaluation, said facility able to hold them for 72 house for evaluation and if it is found they are a danger then the process to enforced mental health treatment starts. This an action totally separate for government criminal enforcement. One does wonder that if a person is a danger to themselves or another why it is reasonable to seize their firearms and then let them free to avail themselves of the multitude of ways one person can harm themselves or another?

There are many instances of Red Flag Order confiscations going awry but the fact is that most people, when presented with a court order and armed police officers, comply with the seizure and look to use the system to right the wrong. Many jurisdictions give a 2 week return date for a hearing but in practicality the 2 week return is a preliminary hearing only where people are advised of their “right” to “prove their innocence” and obtain legal representation towards this. And we can see that the government has moved the burden of proof, which criminally lies with the government and civilly lies with the petitioner, onto the defendant/respondent. The entire Bill of Rights has been turned on its head with you guilty until proven innocent. Pray tell, how does one PROVE that they are not going to commit an act in the future? Perhaps the government will develop a “Precrime” division with some “Pre-Cogs” to tell us all what we’ll do tomorrow?

Government regulation of individuals started with government regulation of fathers through (anti) family and divorce courts and the issuance of Orders of Protection (OOP). Initially (anti) family/matrimonial civil OOP’s were limited to persons married and those having a child in common, like above the civil action given to criminal enforcement. This was expanded to “persons in an intimate relationship” as defined by the person filing with ex parte filings allowed. But not allowing enough of the population to be controlled the ability to file for “civil” protective orders enforced by rule of criminal law the authority to file needs to be expanded and the persons filed against also. So the preferred government filers are “police, teachers, and mental health professionals,” the government controlled professions already interfering with parental rights and brain washing children, many of them gun control and advocates arguing no citizen should carry a firearm.

Like persons facing allegations of Domestic Violence (DV) we can expect the “Gun Red Flag” civil laws to work the same developing a data base of alleged violators. If arrested and found not guilty you can have your record expunged but allegation of DV exist in a data base in which you can NOT have allegations expunged. These allegations exist in perpetuity are used as a means to determine future violations and so allegations then become the basis of the preponderance of evidence used to deny you a Constitutional Right. The data base of allegations is used to determine “primary aggressors and future violators” and we can expect the same tactic to be used on legal gun owners. The fear is not government but is fear of your fellow citizens, brain washed friends and family members, and the public at large who will file complaints followed up on by “professionals” with no adjudication. Every anti gun person becomes a government agent just as every single date becomes an “intimate relationship” if she says so, subjecting you to government control.

Advocates for Red Flag Laws will tell you that OOP’s work, ignoring the fact that the crimes they are “preventing” carry higher sentences than violating the OOP does. So in effect if an OOP is issued the only person it will work on is the person who was not likely to commit the crime “prevented” in the first place. We can expect the same padding of statistics to occur in states which add Red Flag Gun seizures. And can anyone explain why we need to seize firearms from a man who is dangerous but then return the man into the public to harm himself or another with other than a firearm? If a piece of paper stopped a criminal from committing a crime we would not need to get bail on arrestees as a piece of paper would work against repeat offenders. We see how well that works in “no bail” states where repeat offenders run rampant.

I am a life member of multiple 2A Organizations and a 25 year parental rights activist in addition to being a 33 year (retired) Law Enforcement Officer and PBA Representative and have been writing kindred (or which should be kindred) organizations, Republican’s and Democrats, and civil rights organizations since the 1990s about the continuing encroachment upon due process of law and the US Constitution with no response. I was also victimized by this system, my story here. I also advocated for many parents going through this process, many with valuable gun collections which were seized, hunters and target shooters restricted from their recreation, and many police officers who were placed on “the rubber gun squad” being restricted from carrying a firearm and placed on desk duty, among others. Most spend thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, lost time and money from work, a public assault on their character which takes months, if not years to adjudicate.

With intimate partners and gun owners subject to “pre-crime” orders restricting our conduct I can only guess which class of people will be the next subjected to a Red Flag Law? Continue to ignore the warnings and you could be the next one subjected to tyranny and loss of liberty under the guise of “protection”.

Lt. James H. Hays (Ret)

Retired En-Con Police Lieutenant, past Investigator Governors LI Solid Waste Task Force, En-Con Police Officer NYS DEC DLE, Past SUNY University Police Officer, Past NYS Park Police Officer, Past Municipal Police Officer, Past Military Police Officer and Civilian Liaison with Killeen, TX Police Department, 33 years LE experience.

Founder, NYMAN (nymensactionnetwork.org), Co-founder and Past President of The Coalition for Fathers and Families NY, Life Member, American Coalition Fathers and Children, Life Member National Coalition of Free Men, Past President FRA Capital District Chapter, Past Board Member FRANYS, Founder and Past Treasurer NY Men’s Action Network PAC.

Life Member NRA, Life Member NYSRPA, Life member NAGR, Life Member 2A Foundation, Life member of Gun Owners of America, Life Member NYS Conservation Council.

Retired Member PBA of NYS, Past Chief Steward, En-Con Police Officers and Supervisors, NYSCOPBA, Past Executive Board Member Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO.

Member and Past regional representative for the NY Conservation Officers Association.

Certified Critical Incident Stress Management with 1000+ contact hours in individual and peer support for fathers and families in crisis.

Bachelors in Family and Society, SUNY ESC, AS Business Administration, AS Environmental Conservation and Law Enforcement, En-Con Police 8th Basic Academy, Certified Police Special Topics Instructor, (Domestic Violence, EVOC, ATVEOC, SEAVOC, Solid Waste Identification and Enforcement), En-Con Supervisors Academy, University Police Basic Academy, Military Police School, NCO Training School

Dismissing the Beat to Death Beat Dead Dad

An “empowering and inspirational story” of disenfranchising a father and driving him to his death, Pregnant at 17, Woman Who Chose Life for Her Baby, Says She’s the ‘Brightest Thing in My Life’ 12-05-23 Epoch Times.

In typical gynocentric fashion the Epoch Times highlights a story of a “single mom” who is supposed to be lauded for choosing birth over abortion. Lost in the one sided telling is the story of the father who, as is the standard in support of the “single mother success stories,” is portrayed as a danger to mother and child in this case made worse than the usual unverified allegations of abuse and “fear” using mental health issues to both justify the disenfranchisement of the father and to deny their participation in driving the father to death by suicide.

We learn that the couple started a relationship in Idaho where she “fell for him super hard.” When she moved to Colorado the boyfriend moved to be with her but upon learning that he had mental health issues she decided to end the relationship. She alleges to learn of the pregnancy one week after the breakup. The father attempted to remain in contact with the mother so she filed for a restraining order to prevent him from contacting her.

At one point the “heroic single mother” considers putting the baby up for adoption to avoid a custody battle, again dismissing the rights of the father and of his entire family to be involved in raising the child. The unfortunate “complication” of the father asserting his parental rights is settled when he takes his own life to end the pain of disenfranchisement. It is then that she decides to keep the baby. To escape the “anger of the dads side” and others who blamed her for the fathers suicide the mother returned to Idaho, further alienating the fathers family.

The article ignores the systematic denial of fathers rights to be a parent by a system which sees no value other than paying financial support and which fosters Parental Alienation by one parent which excludes the other parents entire family. The number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time raising his children is a limiting court order and number two is a mother who interferes with his access to his children.

Further, Men suffer suicide rates at 4 times that of women but in child custody case this jumps to 10 times that of women, a good indication of the systemic abuse that fathers have to endure in trying to be a parent. This article blames the true victim for being unable to endure the pain of being forcibly removed from your child without cause. The denial of care and concern for the father is used as “proof” of the justification for disenfranchisement.

Blaming the victim allows all involved; mother, maternal family, courts, social services, and the media, to wash their hands of the blood that is on them as “there was something wrong with him.” Obviously it was “his own fault” and they had no part in driving a man to suicide. The heroic single mother is so “magnanimous” she has “let go of the anger she felt at Josephine’s father.”

I suspect that the father’s family would view this “inspirational” story differently, the father’s and his families perspective which was ignored in the entire article.

Happy Fathers Day Now Let Me Define What You Need To Do To Be a Good Father

With fathers day upon us we’ll certainly see in the MSM a bevy of pseudo father stories of “father figures,” including mothers as father figures, who stepped up and “did it right.” This is one of the reasons I don’t read or watch any MSM. But even in so called father friendly pieces we see the gynocentric bias towards viewing fathers from the perspective of the wants and needs of women and how society thinks fathers should behave towards their children. The obligatory virtue signaling “I’m one of the good fathers” and social distancing from those other “deadbeat dads” will be loud while ignoring the pitfalls of marriage and fatherhood for men which are, in part, driving down marriage and birth rates.

As is the norm the writings regarding fathers on fathers day ignores the fathers who were there financially and emotionally there for their children, who were disenfranchised by a system which demands their financial contributions to the point of debtors prison and which does nothing to foster and reward active involvement, indeed a system which punishes any attempt to be more than a visitor. It will ignore the father who had a unilateral divorce forced on him controlling his assets and income in the present and future, losing his custody and children in a court system which sees him the same as the out of wedlock father, a wallet and a visitor. Marriage is now made a negative over out of wedlock couples as the married father is subject to alimony and loss of his residence and business in addition to being made to pay ‘child support” for children he isn’t allowed to raise.

ACFC Flyer distributed widely to national and state governments and multiple media outlets over 20 years ago

Misandrist gynocentric and chivalrous white knight views abound in all media outlets, the Epoch Times, New York Post, Heritage Foundation, and ABC/WFTS Tampa Bay examples follow. Being active in the parental/fathers rights movement for over 25 years I have submitted multiple op eds, letters to the editor, and rebuttals to coverage including to Epoch, the Post and Heritage and the response has been mostly crickets. And year after year we get the same “(’m a morally superior) married father and your should be also or the (I’m a morally superior) actively involved father unlike the “deadbeats” around me stories, which are many and the norm. Stories of disenfranchised fathers who are struggling and fighting to be a father are few and far between. Even if they do appear they have the obligatory “unlike those other deadbeats” commentary, as if active involved fathers are the exception and not the norm.

In From Neglect to Nurturing: A Fathers Day Transformation (6-16-23 Epoch Times) Adam B. Coleman relates his experience with his absent (deadbeat) biological father. He relates how he treated “his extramarital children as the least important.” From this I surmise he had extramarital siblings. While I can see the negative emotions his lack of relationship with his father placed upon him I see no similar negative emotions in this piece for having a mother who chose to have a children out of wedlock with a married man. Why is a man’s unwillingness to be a father denigrate while a woman is free to abort, abandon with no penalty, or give up for adoption without the “deadbeat” mom label?

He further speaks of the abandonment when they became homeless twice and he didn’t help them and how his mother would try to force the relationship. Missing here is the fathers perspective on the matter. Was the father paying “child support” which is actually an excise tax if the mother is on welfare as it returns to state coffers which financially strained him? Was he beholden to his current wife under threat of divorce, facing loss of access to his other biological children, loss of his house and further financial strain? If he paid his child support on time and in full didn’t he meet his paternal obligation as defined by government and much of society?

I’m glad to see Mr. Coleman had a good relationship with his own son but missing from his piece is did he marry his son’s mother and raise him (and his other siblings?) in an intact 2 biological parent home? If not, can we pass judgement on him for not doing so and for being an “absent” “visiting” father? He says his son understands he isn’t perfect and I can only wonder if his life circumstances cloud his understanding of why his father did what he did which removes his ability to see his father (and mother), as individuals? It’ not that I agree with what he did, but I wasn’t him so who am I (or anyone else) to pass judgement? One of the challenges of family is to accept and understand them as individuals with their own set of life challenges and move on in life not making the same mistakes as them as we ourselves mature.

As evidence of the one sided perspective of the media, even balanced or conservative media, Adam B. Coleman continues his discussion in This Fathers Day, let’s encourage dads to be in their kid’s lives – and maybe save some in the process (6-16-23 New York Post). His discussion here is more general regarding the problems of single parent (mostly single mother) homes and the decision to form them by divorcing our spouse is harming children. He has valid points, many of which parental/fathers rights advocates and disenfranchised fathers agree with. Yes, children do fare better in a 2 biological parent home and absent that a shared parenting arrangement (no less than 35% of access time for a parent).

He states Fathers Day should be a “day for advocating reconciliation for the fathers of America who regrettably choose themselves over their children” and further states, “Our Government can’t pass a law to make fathers get involved in their child’s life” showing ignorance of the federal government policies which have disenfranchised fathers and continue to do so. It is common to blame the father, this has been occurring since Moynihan’s Report pointed out the crisis of 25% out of wedlock birthrate in the African American community in the 1960s. Unfortunately across all communities and across time the focus is on “what is wrong with men and fathers.”

Mr. Coleman points out his mother told him that his father encouraged her to abort him. I highly suspect if she had considered it herself she would not relay that to him. That said, men have NO reproductive rights. Men who are willing to be fathers have their children aborted against their will. Further, men who do NOT want to be fathers are forced to be financially responsible regardless of their wishes. And in our gynocentrically oriented society we vilify a man who doesn’t want to be a father but is forced into it yet the over 620,000 women who chose to get an abortion in 2020 get a pass on the “deadbeat mom” label.

African American women are about 14% of the population and yet they are 36% of abortions, over 130,000 in 2020. Even given the lack of male reproductive rights, can anyone show that the number of “deadbeat” non involved dads is greater than the non involved through abortion “deadbeat moms?” My experience with out of wedlock fathers is they go to extraordinary efforts to try to be an active father in their child’s life, this with no support or assistance from the groups which are publicly cajoling them to be more active. The majority are at the hospital at the birth of their child and the majority sign on as father on the birth certificate.

Once a woman decides to have a child the federal government encourages paternity establishment by paying the states incentive dollars under Title IVd of the Social Security Act (SSA). This also provides incentive payments for the establishment of the total number of child support orders, amount collected versus owed, collection of arrears, and the cost of the program. What is missing is incentive payments to states for father involvement and/or marriage. Many fathers find out that paternity offers them NO protection to access and ability to parent and raise their child.

An example is “The Good Dad Act” in Florida, recently passed legislation which proclaims to give unmarried fathers the same rights and responsibilities that the mother has. That said, Bernard Jennings was on the birth certificate as the father of his child and was primary caregiver of him for 7 years when the mother took the child and moved away. He finally located her and served papers for “visitation,” said case being put on the calendar 5 months away. The primary caregiver reduced to 2nd class parent and, if he’s lucky, visitor. See New Florida law to give more parental rights to unmarried biological fathers (6-12-23 ABC/WFTS Tampa Bay).

Also highlighted is the story of Ulysess Carwise. His daughter was given up for adoption 2 days after birth without his consent. DNA paternity was conclusive that he is the fathers, but as the court battle drags on his child was allowed to stay with the adoptive parents and she is now 5 years old and believes the adoptive parents are her parents and her father a “visitor” as the battle to terminate his parental rights drag on through multiple courts. The adopting out against the wishes of the father is a common event across the country.

The terms “non custodial” parent and “visitation” are insulting and reprehensible to parents who want to exercise both their (supposedly guaranteed Constitutional) parental rights and their parental responsibilities and they are most often applied to fathers who are relegated to second class parental status. We label fathers a “non” parent and offer them every other weekend and one mid week 4 hour dinner visit, the standard “visitation” order across the nation, and then lament the fact that fathers are not more involved in their children’s life. The right of access and enforcement for interfering are non existent and so the visitation order is a suggestion “allowed” at the discretion of the mother. 50% of mothers admit to having interfered with a fathers time with his children (Sanford Braver 1995).

ACFC Flyer distributed widely to federal and state governments and multiple media outlets over 20 years ago

Deadbeat Dad was a term often used as a pejorative applied to fathers across the board as Title IVd of SSA put fathers into a financial provider role only and was designed, not to collect ‘child support” for the mother but to recoup payments made to “single mothers” who were receiving government benefits of any kind. When the system failed due to the fact that poor mothers needing assistance had poor fathers for their children who were unable to contribute financially, the system was expanded to capture the formerly married divorced (most against their will) fathers who were already paying child support direct to the mother of their children based upon individual state laws. As such it morphed into an income transfer from husbands to wives and is touted as a government “success” for women and children.

No Fault Divorce started in CA and moved east with NY being the last state in the nation to enact it. There is a perception that married fathers are treated better than out of wedlock fathers but in fact they are labelled “non custodial” and given the same standard order of “visitation” and “child support” as out of wedlock fathers. “Child Support” (Child Excise Tax) is set as a percentage of income based upon number of children (i.e. 17% for one child, 25% for 2, etc.) with the money paid through the child support system (a federal bureaucracy with 50 state bureaucracies in each state). Unfortunately for fathers the percentages were set pre tax and as such the payer suffered the tax liability and a father of 2 children could see his $50,000 a year gross income reduced to $7487 net income and the mothers pre divorce income of $25,000 increase to a $38,557 net. “Single mothers” have a perverse incentive to have multiple out of wedlock children with multiple fathers (i.e. 2 children x 2 fathers = 34%, 2 children x 1 father = 25%).

Thus the federal system placed perverse incentives for the states to make fathers “non custodial visitors and payers of child support” regardless of the former marital status and perverse incentives on women to divorce their husband or have multiple children out of wedlock. Historical two income blue collar families kept the father, mother and child out of poverty but now, by placing the father into poverty for the years of his children’s minority, and often beyond as many state mandated payments for “children” until 21 years old regardless of their relationship with their father, fathers are reduced to poverty to keep mother and child out of poverty. Further, arrears can not be reduced for any reason so a poor father in arrears often suffers collection by the state after his children reach majority and no longer need financial support, often until his children have children of their own.

The problem is not a liberal or conservative one with the federal uniparty giving incentives to the states to create single mother homes and then make fathers, and if not them, taxpayers pay for women and children. As Ronald Reagan would say, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” should strike fear in an individual, and in his case it is poetic in that as Governor of CA he initiated No Fault Divorce and as President initiated the federal child support system which put mandates’ and awarded perverse incentives to the states, to create “single mother” homes and “non custodial fathers” whose responsibility was only financial. The liberal government subsidizes “single mother” homes and the conservative government forces the disenfranchised father to pay the costs, at the risk of debtors prison, of her decision to marry the daddy state.

One need look no further than The Heritage Foundation, the useful idiots of Reagan policy, to see the federal think tank which pushes such ideology. Yelling from the roof tops, “marriage before carriage” and the “success sequence” (We Need Committed Dads To Quiet Our Cultural Chaos 6-17-23 The Federalist), colloquialisms of the just get married and be happy crowd as they fail to recognize that men have no reproductive rights, a large part of women control who gets married, marriage is a hostile environment for men, and women file the majority of divorces as it is financially in their interest and now socially acceptable to do so. Jump in boys, a mere 50% will burn a slow death, even odds, but it worked for (morally superior) me!

Worse they ignore the assault on parental rights which began with the denial of fathers rights. Heritage denied fathers rights while still holding them responsible while inversely claiming to uphold the parental rights of mothers while holding them to no responsibility whatsoever. Enter here the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, pushed forth by Heritage but excluding the “non custodial” parents, fathers, of course. Here is my updated version which includes all parents, sent to them in 2019 and several times a year thereafter with no response.

Early on I had been warning of the assault on parental rights, with both the left and right taking a blind eye to the injustice, as it was bound to impact BOTH parents, including married parents. Indeed, many a “custodial” parent found themselves (after much litigation and expense) reduced to “non custodial” status and to now be poorly treated by a system they once thought their advocate but quickly learning the system is out to benefit itself. In Albany, NY in the 1990s we saw married parents dragged into family court by a school system which demanded the parents do as ‘the professionals” said, which we warned was a harbinger of things which are occurring now. The denial of fathers rights and government control of them in the 1970s has been a slow crawl to the denial of parental rights and government control of children for ALL parents in the 2020s.

Coleman would show himself to be an involved father, morally superior to his own father even though admitting the reasons for his actions were never relayed. Jennings also makes sure he’s differentiated from those “deadbeats” stating, “There are some men out there that are not doing what they’re supposed to do to be a father, but there are other men who really want to be a part of their child’s life, married or not, they want to take responsibility, they want to parent their child.” Roberts and Squires with Heritage would lecture us fathers, “We need men who are unafraid to stand up for their wives and children and who see protecting and providing for their families as their most important vocation.” How will we do that if we can legally be beat dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised form out families? And will we see the same treatment for mothers who “walk away” from their responsibility by abortion, abandonment, or adoption of their children this next mothers day?

Here’s a thought for those men that think to virtue signal themselves as a superior father to other fathers, woman who thinks they can define what a good father is, and government which forces fathers into visiting wallets, yet all demanding fathers be more involved, get your head out of your gynocentric orifice and recognize it is a hostile environment created by government for men to get married and for men to have children that is the problem, not men and fathers. Morally superior chastisement does nothing to fix the hostile environment and fails to recognize government created this environment and caused the problems. You can save your lectures and virtue signaling, for us fathers who were willing to be financially and emotionally responsible for our children but were beat dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised from our parental rights and our children your hypocritical misandrist totalitarianism is just more of a reason for us to hold you in contempt on what is for us, Fathers missing our children Day.

The idiocy of Orders of Protection and seizure of firearms

The DOJ is asking SCOTUS to overturn a decision overturning a federal conviction for felony possession of a firearm due to restrictions by an order of protection (OOP). Zackey Rahimi had agreed to a civil OOP after a physical altercation with his girlfriend which according to 18 United States Code 922 prevented him from possessing firearms as it “prohibited” him from harassing, stalking, or threatening her or their child. Police later found him in possession of a rifle and a pistol and he was charged with a federal felony. On appeal his conviction was overturned as it conflicted with the SCOTUS Bruen Decision and the Second Amendment.

The left wing is in turmoil over this decision with many a headline shouting “domestic abusers” have a right to own firearms. The anti gun crowd has always worked in concert with the liberal feminists who perceive men as dangerous, and those with guns even more dangerous. A search of “female domestic violence use of firearms” reveals a bevy of left wing, anti gun (including government) sites framing the debate from the gynocentric perspective of female victims and male perpetrators. The anti gun lobby would like to make this into a public health debate and is willing to vilify men as dangerous perpetrators of violence to justify restrictions on firearm ownership.

The ignoring of male victims of domestic violence and abuse with the one sided portrayal of woman as victims and men as perpetrators has been pushed by not only the political left but also the political right with “white knight” TradCons stepping up to “protect women” at the expense of the rights of individual men. None of the national Second Amendment organizations, indeed no conservative or justice organization at all, advocate on behalf of men who are daily subjected to false allegations of abuse which restricts their right to possess firearms issued by biased judges in biased courts systems. Issued on the flimsiest of allegations of fear and based upon no evidence of actual violence the OOP’s remove mens Second Amendment Rights without due process.

It appears that Rahimi isn’t a good poster boy to argue the injustice of seizing firearms which occurs daily in the US under OOP’s and Temporary OOP’s but the case supports the argument that the only person limited by these orders are the people who would not violate them to begin with. It also shows how a civil matter can be made into a federal case and expanded into a felony. 18 USC 922 makes it a felony to possess a firearm if an OOP is in place prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening a “significant other” and it has been shown there is a reasonable fear of bodily injury. Civil cases are determined based upon a preponderance of evidence, often defined as 51% in favor. While entitled to a hearing, this low threshold allows a judge to believe a woman making a claim of fear in a he said, she said situation with no other corroborating evidence.

Rahimi agreed to a civil protection order in Feb 2020. In regards to harassing, etc. the mother of his child, it appears there were violations of the OOP with charges filed for violating the court order. However, in December of 2020 and into January of 2021 it is reported that Rahimi had at least 5 incidents involving a firearm, shooting into a residence after a narcotics deal, shooting a driver of a vehicle he got into an accident with, shooting at a Constable, and shooting into the air at a restaurant after a friends credit card was denied. When serving an arrest warrant he was found to possess a rifle and pistol in his residence and was charged with a felony and convicted under 18 USC 922, said conviction overturned under appeal.

There is no mention of Rahimi’s conviction for any of the multitude of firearms incidents that he had allegedly committed. In the ruling overturning his conviction it is noted that Rahimi is “hardly a model citizen,” however, he was not a convicted felon. It appears, for whatever reason, the decision was made not to pursue state charges which were at a felony level, at least at the time of prosecution under 18 USC 922 (g)(8). Conviction of a domestic violence misdemeanor for violating the OOP by approaching his ex (18 USC 922 g9) or conviction of a felony in state court (18 USC 922 g1) would have subjected him to enforcement under these federal regulations.

The actions of Rahimi post acceptance of his OOP shows that the OOP is pretty much a worthless piece of paper which does not prevent a person from committing violence as the violent acts themselves carry more punitive punishments than violating the order (if properly charged and convicted of the violence). What the OOP’s do is subject a person in a civil matter who is not inclined towards violence to criminal charges under the vague term of “harassing.” Many Temporary OOP’s are issue ex parte, often on exaggerated or outright false allegations to gain leverage in divorce or family court.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Ho found 922(g)(8) difficult to justify because it disarms people based upon civil protection orders and not criminal proceedings. This has long been a problem with OOP’s issued in matrimonial and family courts as the preponderance of evidence standard requires much less evidence than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, trial by jury is mandated only in criminal cases thus people are subjected to the biases of the judge. Once an OOP is issued actions, such as a verbal disagreement over custody, can result in criminal charges against a man who is charged criminally with a domestic violence misdemeanor for which he has to spend time and resources to avoid incarceration and loss of his right to possess firearms. A second “violation” results in felony charges.

This I know from personal experience. At a custody dispute I was charged with 2 simple violations (akin to traffic tickets), charges so low I did’t even have to notify the police agency I worked for, I had a “temporary” OOP issued which seized my firearms and put me out of work for months until I cut a deal to carry a firearm at work but was otherwise restricted (Lets red flag unconstitutional red flag laws). Faced with a lifetime order of protection I agreed to plea to one simple violation and paid a $50 fine. Her repeated false allegation of “reaching where I keep my gun” and the one year OOP prevented me from accessing my children due to the possibility of arrest for a felony. And my story is not the exception but the norm.

As previously mentioned search “female – DV – firearms” and up pops #1 the Brookings Institute, 2 is The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence which is now the John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 3 is National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and on and on. Liberal anti male, anti gun organizations form a loose coalition all advocating for restrictions to your second amendment rights by arguing that gun ownership is a public health and safety issue. They would use incidents like Rahimi to blame all men and blame all guns and gun owners ignoring that Rahimi is an exception to how most gun owners conduct themselves. Justice is undermined under the guise of doing good by ignoring the innocent persecuted individuals.

In its Writ of Certiorari the AG’s office argues that the Fifth Circuit decision “misses the forest for the trees” but we can see in their argument the same biased “men are abusers of women” argument adding that guns add to the danger in domestic violence situations. Supporting the argument they are biased and gynocentric is the statement that “the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” It is the AG’s Office which misses the forest for the trees ignoring both male victims of domestic violence and persons involved in mutual violence. They also ignore the fact that civil matrimonial and family court do NOT provide due process, indeed, many are “courts of equity” not bound by the standards of criminal courts and often the “defendant” is forced to operate without legal counsel as none are provided free of charge as they are in criminal court.

If national gun rights organizations, conservative organizations, and individual justice organizations are serious about upholding the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially due process for individuals they need to seriously look at their handling, or lack thereof, of persons (the vast majority men) who are denied due process and railroaded by government policies and government agencies which believe they can violate your rights under the guise of doing good. As to why they do so I close with a quote from C.S. Lewis, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Be Careful What You Ask For …

As President Biden signs the “Respect for Marriage Act” I am reminded that after NYS was the last state to oppose unilateral divorce we switched our support for marriage to advising MEN – DON’T GET MARRIED. Be careful what you ask for was authored by Randall L. Dickinson, FaFNY VP in 2004! Shamefully, the problems outlined are still relevant today. Here it is in its entirety.

The recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision granting gays the right to marry and the highly publicized same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in San Francisco, are only the latest examples of what some are suggesting may become the most important social issue of the upcoming presidential election. As the debate intensifies, those on both sides of the social and political spectrum continue to define their positions on gay marriage, indeed, on the very definition of the institution of marriage itself. While those on the political left, backed by the Democratic Party and aided by the liberal press/media attempt to frame the issue as one of civil rights, conservatives on the right, backed by the Republican Party, promote a more traditional definition of marriage. Indeed, most recently, President Bush, himself, has called for a Constitutional Amendment that would clearly define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Largely overlooked in all of the sound and the fury, however, is one aspect of the broader issue itself that gays and lesbians might want to ponder before proceeding much further on their quest for the Holy Grail of the homosexual agenda. Beyond the ideals of “marriage” and “family”, what are the realities associated with each in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries; how have they evolved, what are the implications for those wishing to enter into the bonds of matrimony, and what happens when it all ends, and couples no longer wish to remain married.

Changes in state laws beginning in the early 1970’s have given a legal preference to any spouse wishing to leave a marriage, even if the other spouse wants to preserve the marriage and has done nothing to give the deserting spouse “grounds” for a divorce. Such laws have essentially acted to empower whichever party wants out, leaving the spouse who wants to preserve the marriage powerless to prevent its dissolution and with no recourse but acquiescence.

The marriage contract has, thus, been described as having been reduced to little more than a contractual economic partnership devoid of any legal protection. Maggie Gallagher states, in her book The Abolition of Marriage, that it has become “less binding than the average business deal. Marriage is one of the few contracts in which the law explicitly protects the defaulting party at the expense of his or her partner”. If all of our business transactions were conducted in a similar fashion, our national economy would collapse. With the marital contract now worth less than the paper it’s written on, why should we deceive ourselves into thinking that it is not having the same devastating impact on our marriages and our families.

Adding to laws that help facilitate the divorce process are others that drive the decision to initiate it. Research has shown that the single greatest factor in determining which party is most likely to file for a divorce is the expectation of being awarded custody of the kids. Along with the kids usually comes a whole range of other financial benefits, as well, including child support, alimony, the marital residence, and one half of the remaining marital assets. With most states still adhering to the standard sole custody model, wherein one party receives the kids, while the other is left to pay, it’s not difficult to understand how at least one of them may perceive little or no downside.

The elimination of any need to establish grounds for a divorce was based on the presumption that both parties are equally motivated to end a marriage, and was supposed to make the process less adversarial and more amicable. Today, 50 percent of all first time marriages and 60 percent of all second marriages will end in divorce, 80 percent of them initiated against the wishes and the will of one of the parties. Ooops!

Such public policies as these have been supported by both liberals and conservatives alike. Ironically, many elected representatives, jurists, legal “experts”, and social services “professionals” who advocate for the right of gays to marry, at the same time continue to resist any reasoned consideration of the impact these same policies may be having on the dual institutions of “marriage” and “family” and the trap that may await those who sail blindly into these uncharted waters.

Nor has the institution of the Church been any great help. While continuing to pay lip service to the ideals of strong marriages and healthy families, most churches today appear reluctant to address the issue of divorce for fear of offending their congregations, large portions of which having experienced the phenomenon of divorce either directly or indirectly in some manner. Preferring to go along in order to get along, many churches that haven’t chosen to ignore the elephant in the room altogether, have simply adopted a policy of acceptance. Rather than providing assistance for couples struggling to save their marriages, and admonishing them that the Church will not condone divorce as an option, some churches have, in essence, begun to legitimize divorce by performing so called “New Beginnings” ceremonies designed to help divorcing couples “move on” with their lives. Today the divorce rate among those professing to be Christians and who claim to attend church on a regular basis is higher than it is for the general population overall. Coincidence? Maybe, but it’s difficult not to draw certain inferences.

Before the gay and lesbian community becomes myopic in its passion for the equal right to marry, it might be wise to consider, as well, the need to lobby for the equal right to certain protections under the law following divorce. Matrimonial and Family Law, including those dealing with the custody of children, the “equitable” distribution of marital property, and child support standards are in desperate need of a major overhaul. Without such reforms, rather than embarking on a journey toward nuptial bliss, many gays and lesbians may find that they have unwittingly entered into a Faustian bargain, ending in the inferno of Divorce Hell. The message for gays and lesbians is crystal clear: be careful what you ask for; you might just get it.

Randall L. Dickinson resides and works in the Albany, New York, area and is Vice President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. The Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. is a not-for-profit public information, education, and lobbying organization dedicated to the advocacy of family related issues and to preserving the relationship between fathers and their children. Its national affiliate is the American Coalition of Fathers and Children

Written testimony to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls

Call for inputs (deadline Dec. 15, 2022) https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2022/call-inputs-custody-cases-violence-against-women-and-violence-against-children

I am writing in response to your call for inputs regarding custody cases and parental alienation. You can find my personal story of alienation here, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2022/12/a-story-of-parental-alienation/ but I submit not as an individual but as an advocate for parents suffering in the current (anti) family courts. I include my bona fides at the end of this testimony.

First I must call out your bias in this review. You focus on violence against women and children, specifically violence in the home, ignoring the fact that what is occurring in family courts is the violent removal of one parents rights and the violent removal of a child from one parent and that parents family tree. It is the sole custody decree which causes this. This focus on false allegations of parental alienation (PA) ignores the fact that PA occurs to both mothers and fathers. It also ignores that men are also the victims of domestic violence. I ask is there a Special Rapporteur on violence against men? If not, why not?

My (former) organization, FaFNY, was an educational and advocacy organization working towards shared parenting arrangements to be the norm in NYS. Based in Albany, NY we were the umbrella organization for various father, mother, grand parent, and children’s organization. In fact my earliest introduction to PA was by “Elizabeth” who was with the NYC Chapter of the Children’s Rights Council. An alienated mother herself, she explained to me that my ex was using alienating actions similar to what her ex had done to her.

I also attended the Battered Mother Custody Conference (BMCC) which was held annually in the Albany area and am familiar with the discussions around their opposition to PA. I noted there that many of the non custodial mothers were the victim of PA in their personal cases. I note for the record that PA is NOT recognized in NYS Courts. That said, individual actions to undermine the other parents relationship with the child can be entered as evidence of a need for primary physical possession with one or the other parent. This is what happened to the NY mothers who lost custody of their children, many involving multiple false allegations of child sexual abuse which were determined by the courts to be false, the parent put on notice to stop, and when they didn’t then a change of custody occurred.

If shared parenting was the norm we would not have an issue of a parent denied access to their children. And in our proposed presumption of shared parenting legislation in NYS the evidence of child or spousal abuse was a listed factor in denying shared parenting and awarding sole custody to one parent. I believe this evidenced based method is the best way to determine the need for placement with one parent over the other and absent a showing of abuse the presumption of shared parenting should be used in the best interest of the child.

Many of the earlier pioneers in researching PA did not advocate a change in the custodial arrangement unless the actions were severe and harmful to the child and instead advocated for family counseling by professionals to reduce the conflict between parents and decrease and eliminate any negative impacts to the child. Exaggerated and outright false allegations run rampant in family courts which never punish for even the most egregious provable cases. In my years of advocacy I know of no cases where an allegation of abuse resulted in a loss of custody of children.

Those opposed to PA claim that it is a ruse used by abusive fathers/husbands to gain custody and I am sure that there are cases where an abusive spouse, husband or wife, attempts to use the legal process to exclude the other parent. My personal case of three years of litigation to deny me access to my children by a physically abusive spouse provided anecdotal evidence of this. Again the solution to this problem is evidence based family court decisions and absent a showing of abuse or neglect on the part of one parent, a presumption of shared parenting.

My attendance at the BMCC revealed that many attendees advocated for ignoring the rulings of family courts and some even openly talked of custodial interference and development of an “underground” support network. About half of the attendees who suffered loss of custody suffered that fate due to the fact NY is a sole custody state and their spouses happened to be among the 15% of fathers who win custody. They would have been helped by a shared parenting law.

A 1986 study on bias against women in the courts found blatant bias against MEN with well over 80% of custody awarded to mothers. Using the family courts own report I was able to determine that 80% of Orders of Protection (OOP) were dismissed or withdrawn with many of the remaining OOP’s mutual orders of conduct against both parties. False allegations of child and spousal abuse run rampant in family courts, the solution, as it is for PA, is proper adjudication of the evidence in the case.

As a victim of physical abuse I was again victimized when my reports were ignored. I was then victimized by multiple false allegations of abuse which were never sanctioned and thus continued and I was further abused by PA, incessant bad mouthing and denigration of me to my children. Ironically, even given all that I would not have restricted my ex to our children and would have been satisfied in a shared parenting arrangement.

Given the biases against men in custody awards I expect that a portion of the men who win custody use tactics, such as PA, to gain an advantage. So even if we dismiss fathers who are alienated from their children, the fact that mothers are similarly situated and alienated would dismiss any and all theories that PA is a male sex linked activity to abuse women.

A Story of Parental Alienation

I hung up the Waving Santas which I made with my young daughters in 1991. Little did I know then that by Christmas 1998 the Waving Santas would be a reminder of children that had been alienated from me, the primary caregiving parent. The “we’ve grown apart” and the “I don’t know if I want to be married” discussion in 1995 was to turn into 3 years of domestic violence and abuse through hellish litigation with me fighting to be a father and my ex fighting to exclude me. The $30,000 I paid in “child support” offset the (estimated) $50,000 spent to remove me from my child’s life.

Middle aged with 2 pre teen daughters, we had focused on my career and now settled my ex went back to school and then working as a nurse. She then began to denigrate and insult me, often disguised as humor, fat, don’t make enough money. I became the primary caregiver as she was in school and now with both working full time expected equal help around the house, which I didn’t get. She then announced that my money was to pay the bill, hers was hers. She started dressing up and going out to night clubs staying out late, drinking and smoking weed.

She opened up a bunch of store credit cards and ran up bills to the point I paid them off and then cut them up. She then began to run up the joint credit card we held for “emergencies.” She was spending a lot on personal items, to great excess such as 15 pairs of jeans. A year into the split a friend advised she was using the “Divorce War” strategy, the book “Divorce War: 50 strategies every woman needs to know to win” which was the number one seller of books on divorce by women. I got a copy and realized I had been duped, fighting to keep my marriage together while she was plotting the divorce.

When the marriage was breaking down we were arguing incessantly about her appearance of infidelity (she claimed none) and one evening she punched me in the lip, a right cross, and then doubled up with a roundhouse right to the ribs leaving me with a fat lip and a bruise on my side. I stated we were done and told her the next day I was going to get an attorney and suggested she do the same. I met with my attorney but she went to (anti) family court and got an ex parte “temporary” Order of Protection (OOP) and a temporary child custody order. When served by the local police I complained of my Domestic Violence injuries which were apparent and was told “we don’t take counter complaints.” My children were removed and I was denied access for months.

I’m a police officer and as a condition of employment had to maintain a home office in my area of assignment. I had “settled” the custody and visitation in (anti) family court. I started in family court with an attorney but when I ran out of money discharged him, an incompetent waste of time and money he was anyway. I went pro se and managed to get my kids dropped off each weekday where I brought them to school. Unfortunately my ex moved to an adjoining school district and the kids start times were an hour apart but I toughed it out and spent 2 hours each weekday getting them to school. I also had them every other week on my days off which rotated.

About a year into the process my ex got a new steady boyfriend. Unknown to me at the time, the attorney’s relied on a “how to” manual by a local attorney in which he advised if your client didn’t have a solid chance at full custody to agree to a liberal access order with them as “primary physical possession” and then cause conflict as the courts would eventually award custody to the “custodial” mother. “Primary physical possession” is government double speak for custody. She started causing conflict including marching into my house and threatening me. I started recording EVERY interaction with video cameras and voice recorders, plainly visible which prevented her from causing conflict but in effect had me as a prisoner to the fear of false allegations.

She escalated and began to call the police and allege I had threatened her “reaching behind where he keeps his (off duty) gun,” but the local and state police would just make a blotter entry of the neither provable or unprovable allegations and refer us back to family court. Filings in family court were continuous and I was forced to counter file to protect myself and status and reputation as a police officer. One day she picked up and was in the car in the driveway and waited until I turned off the video camera and came back to the door, opening it she threw a bunch of papers at me and then refused to leave the porch, putting her face on the screen and daring me to “go ahead and hit me” and to “make her leave” as she berated and swore at me. Luckily a neighbor saw the encounter and agreed to testify on my behalf.

I ended up with an OOP against her and the current custody arrangement was continued. The DV Advocate, by policy, was forced to interview me. She stated that being a 6’ 220 Lb.+ police officer who carries a gun I shouldn’t be afraid of her. I asked if I could arrest me ex? No. Can I beat her up? Of course not! Can I shoot her? Absolutely NOT! “Then how is being a 6’ 200 lb. policeman with a gun going to prevent her from abusing me? She just walked away at that point. Over a year and a half of litigation resulted in her gaining no leverage towards alienating me. I had battled the unjust leviathan to a stalemate.

By the custody order the children had to remain in their present school district, upheld by the recent litigation in family court. I had filed for divorce, unbeknownst to me she had also begun divorce filings but in hers she asked for a temporary ruling allowing the children to be moved to an adjoining county which her boyfriend lived in. She had listed about 10 items she didn’t gain in family court such as $2000 toward her attorney fees while I was forced to go pro se. The preliminary conference turned into a fiasco as the court clerk went down her bullet item list and I said no to each and every item as I had just spent 2 years litigating them in family court. The conference ended with my ex and her attorney both hollering at me and me asking the clerk how long I had to endure the abuse.

In the Judges chambers in 2 weeks, he obviously mad at the pro se trouble maker where I again refused to negotiate and advised i wanted a trial. He then ordered me to pay her attorney $2000 and lifted the custody order allowing the children to be moved and just like that the past litigation was thrown out as was stability for my children. But here’s where it gets even weirder. My girlfriend lived about 2 miles from my ex’s boyfriend, and she knew this. But then she moved into a rental kitty corner across the street from my girlfriends. I tried to enforce my OOP but it had no distance listed in the “stay away from.”

Due to my employment I couldn’t change my residence to my girlfriends and transferred into an open sector 20 minutes away from them to get closer. I no longer had the kids in the morning before school but as I was at my girlfriends unless actually working I made the best of it and would walk them to the bus each morning. My ex tried to get an OOP forcing me to drive “away from her residence” and not use the common walking trails to no avail. What she did do was to deny me my time with the children when there was a change in my normal day off schedule (which occurred often as I was on salary).

Multiple complaints of custodial interference were filed by me with the state police and DA’s office declining to prosecute or even take a report, referring me back to family court. One day when she denied my custodial time I was standing in the front yard and she drove by with the kids so I walked to the end of her driveway with my ever present voice recorder running. I calmly asked for the kids and she declined yelling “I’m calling the police” to which I replied, “Please do.” I waited for their arrival expecting the same do nothing and referral back to family court.

When the police car came down the road my ex’s boyfriend started getting my kids out of the car and I walked 10’ down the driveway and told him to get away from my kids. I was then slammed forward onto the trunk of the vehicle by the state trooper with my ex’s boyfriend pushing me from the front. The trooper asked if I had a firearm and I told him my off duty was on an ankle holster and I held up my leg and told him to go ahead and take it, which he did. I started to complain of his treatment and he then told me to shut up or he would arrest me to which I replied I should arrest him for interfering with my court ordered custodial time. Another car arrived and he said we should go to the barracks to straighten things out, which I agreed to thinking it to just be referred back to family court.

There were about 3 troopers and a station commander when I arrived and I was seated at one of the desks calmly talking about my continued custody battle with my ex and her multiple false allegations of abuse which ended up with me getting an OOP. The original trooper came in and told me to shut up stating “you don’t have any rights to your kids.” A Lt. from my outfit had arrived and I looked at her and said, “with that I say nothing without an attorney.” My Captain and Lt. arrived and was meeting with the station commander and the trooper and then the trooper walked back into where I was and gave me 2 appearance tickets to appear in court for simple trespass and simple harassment, charges so low I was not required by policy to notify my agency of.

He went out and returned throwing my wallet on the desk and when I looked inside my badge and ID were gone so I walked into the meeting room and asked my Captain my status and he advised I was suspended without pay. So, tickets in hand I headed towards the door of the station intending to walk the 10 minute trip back home but was grabbed and asked where I thought I was going. I have he appearance tickets and I’m walking home I answered but was then advised the tickets were being pulled and I had to go for an immediate arraignment.

I wrote of my “red flag” law treatment here, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2021/04/lets-red-flag-unconstitutional-red-flag-laws/ and refer you there for that part of this story.

I was only charged with simple violations as I would not be entitled to a jury trial. And when I advised I had a tape recording to refute the ex’s statement the Judge advised he wasn’t going to allow it into evidence. I heard through the grape vine that the Judge was going to find me guilty and sentence me to consecutive 15 day in jail terms, 30 days in county jail and to be place in population followed with a lifetime OOP restricting firearm possession and putting me out of work. The system was going out of its way to prevent me from showing the system was a sham and any injustice to silence me was acceptable to them.

The temporary OOP put me out of work as I couldn’t legally carry a firearm. I was in both divorce and criminal court and hired an attorney for each with the last of the money I could scrape together and then filed for personal bankruptcy. I had the clothes on my back and a few changes, $20 in my pocket, no income, and a borrowed vehicle. The deal to get out left me with an OOP for a year but allowed carrying a firearm at work. A violation of the OOP would be a felony charge and put me out of work again. Given her past false allegation and the fact I was now a “convicted” abuser any future allegations would be added to the others on record and I would be sent away to prison.

And so 1998 was the first Christmas without my kids, the Parental Alienation having worked. I tried to get the divorce Judge to order exchange at a neutral location but she said no, in effect denying me the ability to get my kids. To add salt to the wound she ordered me to pay another $2000 to my ex’s attorney, arguing my recent bankruptcy “freed up credit” to pay him. I told my ex she could send the kids down the road at any time and she responded that I had to get them at her place, or not at all. I said I wasn’t going to risk another false allegation and arrest and she said, “I guess you’ll never see your kids again”. She was right. Within a couple of month’s she moved away.

Of course friends and family blamed me for “losing” my kids. I was supposed to not fight the system and just pay the “child support,” shut up, and visit my kids when allowed. Even other fathers, beat dead and disenfranchised, would pass judgement on me for not getting my kids when “I had the chance” as most don’t understand the two questions of fatherhood, fatherhood by whose definition and fatherhood at what cost? And for me the every other weekend visiting dad (no parental rights) didn’t justify the cost (risk of prison) with expected continued litigation costs to boot. Correspondence by mail continued for 3 month’s but slowly faded over a year as it was one sided, not a call or card in return, and I suspected not reaching them.

The hardest part is watching your kids ripped apart by a system which denies one parent their parental rights, forcing a parent to fight to be a part of their child’s life. Not a day goes by where you don’t wonder if just giving up and walking away is healthier for your children. But I expect in the long run the fight for your rights conveys to them that you care, even if they have to suppress those thoughts under the sharp tongue of an alienator. The narcissistic alienator having no such thoughts or care for their children are willing to use the kids to abuse you as the only way the abuser can get to you is through the kids. The abused alienated parent if forced to either walk away from the abuse or fight it and ultimately end up losing anyway, at least knowing you did what you could.

I heard through the grape vine that work might argue that I was mentally unable to continue as a police officer so I decided to apply the old adage of “I’m more sane than you as I have papers to prove it.” So off to the psychologist I went and at the 3rd visit he summed up my plight as, “with all the injustice you suffered it’s a wonder you didn’t lose it and kill somebody.” I was then diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from government persecution and he advised I needed to get out of the system. He didn’t understand, the system is designed to put a box around you, floor, four walls, and a lid to keep you as a beat dead, driven dead broke, disenfranchised dad who has been denied your parental rights without cause. At least now I’m sane and I have papers to prove it.

I lived on 35% of my gross pay for 10 years, paying “child support” and attorney garnishments, until they both hit majority. When people would inquire abut my kids I would initially try to explain the Parental Alienation and they would inevitably respond with a “when they are older they’ll come back,” the feel good statement which isn’t true. Ironically similar to my first which was a stillborn with people responding “it’s probably for the best,” in both instances masking their own inadequacy if faced with the same circumstance. Eventually I got tired of the people passing judgements about me and just started stating “they’re dead” as they are dead to me and which served to stop the asking in short order.

And yet, year after year I put out the Waving Santa’s now 25 years without a response. You can only change the things that you can change and accept the things that you can’t change, including your kids. But I suppose it is important as a parent, on the off chance it might occur, to convey to your children that the door is open and always has been, holding onto that slight sliver of hope while accepting the inevitable no show.

Government destroyed parental rights and now we wonder where the defenders of children are?

In the late 1970s and I get hauled into the vice principles office to be interrogated for an alleged property damage offense as I was seen in the area. He tried the brow beat me, tough guy routine and at one point in my denials of guilt he said, “if you deny it one more time I’ll slap you backwards in that chair” so I shut up and said nothing. Sent home to “get a parent” I got my recently retired US Army veteran of 3 wars Master Sergeant father who was advised of the allegation and the threat of physical violence to me.

The meeting went along the usual lines, Dad, “How do you know he did it?” “No proof, So nothings going to happen to him then? …pause… “Now that that’s settled, did you threaten to harm my child?” The Vice Principle responded, “Well, yes but”… and Dad cut him off “Let me tell you something Mr., you ever lay a hand on my child or endanger him in any way and I’ll kick you ass up and down the street in front of this school for everybody to see! We clear on that?” “Yes sir” was the answer.

By the standards of 2022 my father, a hero of the greatest generation who fought for your freedom, would have been labelled a sexist and racist (the Vice Principle was an “oppressed” man of color). Dads reaction was a natural fathers parental response to protect his child, but now that would be unacceptable. At a minimum a complaint and criminal investigation would begin, the resulting legal expenses born by the blue collar working family. His “war record” would be used to show his “violent tendencies” and in spite of his depression era his life in the dust bowl of Oklahoma he would be portrayed as exhibiting “white privilege.” Being a male, of course, he had “male privilege.” Charges might be laid and if the drawn out procedure lasts long enough a plea deal would be made, not due to guilt but to stave off bankruptcy. Think not? Search “Loudon County Father” and “School Board.”

From 1970 to today men have been labelled as “deadbeats,” “abusers of women and children,” “patriarchally controlling,” and now “toxically masculine”. We disenfranchised fathers from families and made it so their sole responsibility to the family to pay their “child support” (which goes to the government and not their family) on time and in full. We have an 80% plus mother custody rate resulting in 30% of American homes being single parent, mostly single mother, homes. This is the highest percentage in the world. The erosion of fathers rights was the beginning of the erosion of mothers rights and eventually both parents rights.

Parents have police called on them and lose their children to “child protective” services (CPS) for letting their child walk home alone from school or go to the playground unsupervised. Schools turn parents into CPS for not putting their child on drugs for a school diagnosed Attention Deficit Disorder and are dragged into family court to which orders them to do it. Divorced parents have to place themselves under the courts and one of them is going to lose custody to the other resulting in both being regulated by that court. Out-of-wedlock birth mothers who get government services are similarly placed under the jurisdiction of family courts with Out-of-wedlock fathers also where the only expectation of them is to pay child support back into the state for benefits given to the mother.

With the destruction of fathers parental rights and “experts,” advocates, and Judges regulating parents actions as THEY determine the “best interest of YOUR child” is it hard to imagine that deterioration of parental rights wouldn’t continue with school boards, administrators, and teachers now believing that they determine what’s in YOUR child’s best interest? And when administrators determine that a Covid vaccine is needed will they listen to parents who say it shouldn’t be mandatory contrary to the “experts?” And is it any wonder that government, and especially law enforcement, would investigate any parent who tells these “experts” that they are wrong and the parents intend to do something different? Ask the mothers speaking out at school boards in Virginia.

The government subsidizes single mother homes and has made generations dependent on government benefits and looks to increase their control over people by increasing government dependence. Just search “Life of Linda” and you’ll see this administrations ideas for cradle to grave government dependence. Government provides perverse payments to states to break up families and drive one parent (usually the father) out of the child’s life. Erroneously labelled “child support” the money actually goes to federal coffers if the mother receives any assistance from them. It is government programs and policies which have broken up families and disenfranchised fathers from their children.

When you wonder where are the fathers understand that many have suffered great injustices in family court and have been beaten dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised from their families. The remaining men work under a system which considers them dangerous and “toxic” and as such they risk arrest, loss of job and income, and a long expensive fight with a large bureaucracy. With America having the highest rate of single parent households and the life of Linda showing a single mother with one son, do we really think these anti-male, anti-father, anti-family government programs were an accident? And do we think they will stop increasing unless we Citizen’s demand it to stop?