This unconstitutional denial of due process requires men to be responsible for children based solely upon the word of the mother with no opportunity to settle the matter through testing and/or DNA testing. The full text of the legislation and activity on it can be found at this link. The Mens Action Network urges all men, and all persons interested in truth and due process and the rights of children to contact their Senators and others in opposition to this proposed legislation. In addition to contacting the Sponsor and Co-sponsors also contact the Committee on Finance Members (especially if it is your Senator) and the Senators from your state. Information on finding your U.S. Senator, Leadership, Committees and members, including how to information click this link.
Simply copy from “The Mens Action Network is OPPOSED” (substituting “I am” or your organization name as appropriate), click on the link provided, fill out the form and paste this into the narrative section. Feel free to modify it to meet your views and/or those of your organization. Given this is an election season and both parties are vying for control of the Senate you stand a better chance of your views being paid attention to.
The Mens Action Network is OPPOSED to S-4512 the Unborn Child Support Act and we submit this memo in opposition to be included as part of the official record.
As a knee jerk reaction to the recent SCOTUS decision on Roe and many red states restricting or eliminating abortion Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and some Senate Republicans have introduced the Unborn Child Support Act. And just as “Child Support” is government double speak for an arbitrary child excise tax placed upon fathers who have been forced out of their child’s life by government laws and policies, so too is the “Unborn Child Support Act.” The bill would allow a “pregnant parent” (so called in the bills summary) to have the state enforce child support obligations of the biological father of an unborn child to the mother with the amount “determined by the court, with consultation of the mother” and providing further that “any measure to establish paternity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be required without the consent of the mother.”
The latter part is so egregious that the bill should be called the Denial of Due Process while Supporting False Paternity Act. Further, the bill doesn’t set any guidelines on the amount of “child support” and, just as we have seen with child support standards act add ons and imputed income, we can expect many Judges to award amounts which will render the man impoverished and unable to pay resulting in draconian measures being used to collect the debt, up to and including incarceration. And just as in Child Support the amount has no basis on the needs of the child and if the mother is receiving ANY welfare benefits the amount paid is returned to federal coffers providing no benefit to children.
An unintended consequence of the bill will be that women will be able to file for “child support” for children they can subsequently abort, as always this regardless if the father wishes to raise the child. And while many red states have limited or abolished abortion the “child support” ordered will offset costs of travel, etc. to a state that allows abortion. And to maximize the amount she will receive the “pregnant parent” has incentives to extend the pregnancy as long as she can, choosing a state which allows abortions in the third trimester and scheduling it just before the birth of the child. Ironically, this bill by Senate Republican’s will undermine red states which have restricted abortion and provide perverse incentives in blue states to delay abortions to the last legal minute.
Paternity Fraud and False Paternity: Paternity fraud is where a woman knows she has had relations with more than one man yet intends to label another the father suspecting he is not the biological father. This often, but not exclusively, occurs in marriage. False paternity is when a woman has relations with more than one man but thinks he may be the father and the man accepts paternal responsibility, most often occurring in out-of-wedlock cases. 80% of out-of-wedlock fathers are at the hospital at the time of the birth of their child and many sign on the birth certificate as the father, most unknowing that paternity testing at a later date will not alleviate them from the financial responsibility.
Unscrupulous women will name a man with financial means as the father and many men have paternity testing done before they accept responsibility for a child which may not be theirs. This bill would negate the ability to establish paternity above the statements of the mother as any measure to establish paternity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be required without the consent of the mother ( bold and italics added). Reasonable estimates at the false paternity rate in out-of-wedlock cases are as high as 10% and given the perverse incentives here we expect that to increase as unscrupulous women name the highest earning male she knows as the father as he will have no means to establish actual paternity. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg better get ready for the onslaught of filings which they will not be able to disprove due to the law.
Mommy’s baby is Daddy’s maybe. Currently the law does NOT allow a man to escape his financial responsibility when he is the victim of paternity fraud or false paternity. To stop false paternity we should have mandatory at birth DNA testing. A CHILD has a right to know who their biological father is. Further, any man who finds he is NOT the biological father of a child which he has been acting as a father should be relieved of any and all forced financial responsibility while at the same time, at the courts discretion, retaining his rights to access and parent the child.
The “Child Support” Standards Act, when enacted, was designed not to provide financially for children but to return to federal coffers from fathers money that was given to mothers in federal aid (Welfare, AFCD, Food Stamps, etc.). Based on a percentage of income per child it is an excise tax and has no bearing on the money needed to raise a child. In cases where the money doesn’t go to the government, it again has no bearing on the needs of the child but is an income transfer from fathers to mothers, with no accountability on how it is spent, and with the fathers bearing the weight of the taxes. As such it is a financial windfall for the mother, see ‘Child Excise Tax Freedom Day for “Non Custodial” Parents’, and often poverty for the father.
The number one reason a disenfranchised father doesn’t pay child support is poverty.
The anti-father, anti-male, gynocentric perspective is evident in the bill when it states it is, “taking into account the best interest of the mother and child” ignoring the needs of the father entirely and also the fact that BOTH parents have equal rights and RESPONSIBILITIES for their child. It is in the child’s best interest to live in a household with BOTH of their biological parents providing for their financial and emotional needs and contrary to working towards this end the bill will further drive fathers from their families and children, deny due process, and encourage fraud in establishing paternity.
As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2022, H.R. 4350 passed by the House, wording for equal responsibility for both men and women to register for selective service has been included and forwarded to the Senate. We can expect that, as has occurred in the past, the radical left will remain mostly silent and allow the conservative right to be vocal and derail equal responsibility for defense of the country.
Many of you may not be aware, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the National Coalition For Men V. Selective Service System lawsuit deferring to Congress to act. The National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service recommended ending male only selective service registration stating, “[m]ale-only registration sends a message to women not only that they are not vital to the defense of the country but also that they are not expected to participate in defending it.” In spite of this recommendation, last years NDAA was modified in the Senate to remove responsibility for females to register for the draft.
For those of us who believe in equal rights and responsibilities for all U.S. Citizen’s this is a non partisan issue and as such Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike should be voicing their support for equal rights. With SCOTUS punting the issue our remaining avenue to achieve equality is to move this legislation past those in the Senate who are blocking this legislation. As such I encourage all to contact their Senators in support of equal rights and responsibilities for men and women. Below is a copy of a letter I sent to my (Mississippi) Senators modified as a template for your use in whole or in part. My Senators are both Republican so I framed my argument from that perspective and you should modify your argument to fit your views and convince your Senators.
Date:___________________
Senator _________________, and Senator________________,
Dear Senators;
I am writing in support of equal protection under the law. Specifically, Selective Service (SS) Registration which is mandatory for males but excludes females, a fact which would be corrected under the recently proposed NDAA. Through the years the right to vote has been limited to citizen’s and tied to the responsibility to defend the country and homeland, a history of such is here for those unfamiliar, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/11/rights-with-responsibilities-voting-and-selective-service/. Today we are giving the benefit of citizenship to non citizen illegal aliens and the right to vote to females with no corresponding responsibility and in some local elections also the right to vote for illegal aliens with no corresponding responsibility.
Let me first address the fear purveyors who have responded to equal rights and responsibilities for men and women with the usual “daughters will end up being cannon fodder,” the “it will undermine unit cohesiveness and effectiveness,” and the added the inflammatory to protect the helpless women, “pregnant women will be forced into the military” portraying equal responsibility to country as a left wing anti-family agenda. Chauvinistic male chivalry and feminist gynocentrism walk hand in hand in the objections for females registering. Ironically, the radical feminist left remains publicly silent on the “equality” issue while letting Republican’s carry their water, dividing Republican’s on the issue. This propagandist rhetoric flies in the face of fact and common sense when we separate selective service from military service and assignment to duties for those drafted.
The forced registration with selective service carries with it severe penalties for non compliance, including some of the benefits granted to citizens, and individual rights up to and including possible incarceration, at this time applied only to men. Those males that are unable to serve in a front line combat role due to physical or mental ability, and those that will not be called up due to manpower needs being met, are NOT excused from registering as it is at the time of need that we determine each ones ability to serve in what capacity. To require men to register who will not be called to serve, with no corresponding requirement for women to register and be subjected to penalties for not doing so, creates an arbitrary and capricious unequal treatment under the law as a male physically unfit for combat duty and a female physically unfit for combat duty are treated differently in spite of equal inability to perform. Registration of men only is discriminatory and on its face unconstitutional. As such, registration needs to be applied to all male and female citizen’s with them both being subjected to the same penalties for non registration or the requirement for registration eliminated.
Prior to the Vietnam era the draft was run by local boards with exemptions for those in college. During Vietnam this was found to be discriminatory as minorities were disproportionately drafted and the SS instituted a lottery draft based upon date of birth to correct this. Historically SS has had exemptions from service such as the sole financial provider for a family. I expect that SS would develop rules and regulations regarding the exemption or deferment of pregnant females and parents solely, or jointly, responsible for the care of a child. And just as the last remaining son historically was restricted to non combat duty, parents of young children could also be similarly treated and any legislation should properly indicate this.
In any discussion of the military it is important to understand that it takes many persons to keep one person in front line combat. In today’s military only 10% of personnel are in a war zone and only a small percentage of these are front line combat troops. A major war with a major power would certainly increase the percentage of front line troops directly in harms way including those not assigned to combat roles. While I do not intend to belittle those who serve in any fashion the fact of the matter is that even in the worst of conditions most will not be in danger of being “cannon fodder” unless we were in a major war against a world power threatening the US itself and in such instance the entire US population would be in danger justifying all who can to serve in defense of the homeland.
The military service assignments are (supposed to be) based upon merit and ability. Many persons in the Military are in positions that they had not primarily been trained for as if there was a need for manpower and they show an aptitude to perform the duties required they are reassigned. The argument that women are smaller and weaker than their male counterparts only means that those who are will be placed into non physically demanding assignments consistent with their abilities, which is already done for males. How is it equitable and right to draft a 19 year old black male with a high school diploma and make him a cook serving stateside while exempting a white female 19 year old from being drafted to be a cook stateside?
The argument that drafting females will undermine unit cohesiveness and ability flies in the face of the fact that women are already allowed into combat positions. That argument means that the current military is already incapable of performing its duties. If drafting women would cause this is true then the argument is made that women should be restricted from joining the military to begin with. You simply cannot make one argument without the other. The fact is that 83% of the jobs in the military are non combat and can be performed equally by males and females with an aptitude for that position. In addition to combat roles it is reasonable that more men would be serving in strength necessary positions such as laborers moving heavy supplies and materials as they have the ability to do so. But this should NOT be an excuse to exclude the females who can perform those duties.
In an effort to show that women are “equal” to men in outcome I fear and believe that standards were reduced for military personnel. But this is a military command and performance problem, not an equal responsibility when it comes to the draft problem. Both men and women in an unprepared military, indeed also the citizen’s they are sworn to protect, will suffer the consequences of improper training, drafted or volunteer alike. The critical feminist theory and the woke critical race theory which is infecting the military is a readiness issue that needs to be addressed by Congress. Indeed, an unprepared military which suffers personnel losses in conflict supports the need to draft all able bodied and competent men and women to defend the country.
The military is increasingly full of high tech careers driven by mechanization and electronics. Women are now 65% of college graduates and it seems to be a waste of talent to exclude them from these high tech positions which do not require strength to perform. How is the military served by drafting a male college graduate to sit in a facility in Nevada and fly a drone while we pass over a similarly educated and able bodied female college graduate? Females also disproportionately enter the medical care fields. Are we to exclude these very necessary personnel from the draft which will require the positions to be filled by men, many having the abilities to perform front line duties?
The short sighted view that we will not need females to serve in defense of the country ignores the fact that war with one or more super powers may result in our country being attacked. Communist China, our greatest adversary, has over a billion more people than the US, 2 million already in the military (600,000 more than the US), and 35 million excess males with which to draw on in a major conflict. Conflict with China opens the door to opportunistic conflict with Russia. Hostilities with China or Russia, or BOTH, are certain to put our Pacific territories, Hawaii, and Alaska in danger and even the West coast of the continental US. Are we going to draft 50 and 60 year old males for homeland defense against invasion while leaving 20 and 30 year old able bodied females to sit home and do nothing?
The gynocentric “daughters will end up cannon fodder” argument shows a value being placed upon females while showing a misandrist view towards “expendable” men. Simply, why would your son being used for cannon fodder be acceptable and why is ones son required to sacrifice while the daughter not? It is also contrary to the US Constitution, SCOTUS aside which bypassed the issue and punted to Congress (who also failed to uphold equal protection under the law in the last NDAA). But just as discrimination against minority men during Vietnam resulted in reduced combat effectiveness so too will discrimination against men in future conflicts. And how is discrimination against men not discrimination against the subset minority men?
The US already has a lack of patriotic support for our Constitutional Republic and Country problem. 50% of Democrats polled stated that if the country was invaded they would flee instead of fighting for the homeland. As during Vietnam one would expect a large portion of them, unwilling to stand against invasion, would dodge a draft forcing them to serve and fight overseas. Especially with the precedent that a future President will issue a blanket pardon for their illegal actions. Woke ideology is driving Conservatives and Christians from the military, these categories fostering many who volunteered to serve negating the need for a draft. All branches of service are now report having recruitment problems and recruitment goals are being missed. Clearly the patriotic are avoiding a hostile military work environment. And the millions of illegal aliens entering the US, male and female, are by circumstance excluded from defending the homeland, here for the benefit but not the responsibility, nor loyalty to the Republic.
Excluding females and draft dodgers from the draft leaves about 4% of the entire US population, roughly 13.5 million males aged 18-25 years old to fight in defense of the country. How long before a male blue collar carpenter realizes he has been forced to dodge bullets while another 18-25 male dodges his responsibility to the US in Canada? How long before a minority male realizes he is being pounded by artillery while his job at the furniture factory pounding nails is being filled by a male illegal alien, enjoying the benefit of citizenship at the citizens expense? How long before a male college graduate realizes he is forced to lead a combat platoon into battle before he realizes his counterpart female college graduate is working her way up the corporate leadership ladder, a non dangerous career path he wasn’t allowed to get on? Discriminatory draft policies undermined military effectiveness in Vietnam and we are forgetting our history and dooming ourselves to repeat it.
If the federal government is going to maintain a data base of possible persons required to serve in the time of need they need to apply it to men and women alike with the same penalties for avoiding the registration. At the time of induction, which should be based upon manpower needs, the person should then be separated into military basic training for ALL and then individual Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) training based upon aptitude and ability. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm) lists one category (MOS class) for combat personnel (164,000, about 17% of military personnel in 2021) and 12 for non combat personnel (970,584 personnel in 2021). Certainly minimum mental aptitude and physical qualifications have been developed for each specialty, as previously stated most being able to be completed by men and women regardless of sex according to the abilities of the individual.
As early as WW II the US Government used females in support roles in non combat areas to free up men to fill the personnel needs in combat areas. I am not suggesting that females be universally excluded and restricted from hostile combat areas but inversely I am also arguing that they should not be universally included. The MOS and units where men and women work side by side should be based upon effectiveness and if women should reduce the effectiveness of a unit involving males, or men reduce effectiveness of a unit involving females (a factor not even looked at) unit staffing should be then adjusted according to sex, but not otherwise.
Regarding standards for each MOS, as previously stated they should be based upon the minimum qualification needed to complete the tasks and assignments at hand and, absent unit cohesion issues as stated above, sex of the individual should not be considered. All should be required to serve but each according to their ability to serve the needs of the entirety and complete the tasks, goals, and objectives of the unit. The failure to recognize the importance of support roles undermines the ability of the whole to achieve the objectives.
By requiring all to register for selective service we would be supporting patriotism and announcing that all have a duty to OUR country in the of need. We would also be valuing past, present, and future sacrifices of each and every individual who has served, in any capacity, our country in the time of need. It would also be upholding the view that we are all created equal, with equal rights and responsibilities under the US Constitution which is what brings us together in common as citizens of this Republic.
The only failure of our Constitution has been a failure to apply it equally to all persons individually for the God given rights it defines, rights which come with a corresponding responsibility to the Constitution and the individual citizen’s of this country. The extension of the rights of citizenship without the corresponding responsibility to serve equally, each according to their ability, is undermining allegiance to the Constitution and to this Republic, and to each other. I encourage you to stop the sexist bias which undermines our military and make selective service equal for all.
Parental Rights Activists could see this “Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum (WEF) coming for everyone else as it was applied to them many years ago. Many are becoming aware of the “new socialism” of the WEF which uses high taxes and burdensome regulations combined with a surveillance state to control you (instead of Marxist direct control of business and individuals). That is what has been done to fathers and families and it is the reason we have such a high out-of-wedlock and divorce rate and why many young people are not getting married nor having children.
Marxism has at its roots a desire to destroy the nuclear family which they proudly proclaim publicly. While Marxist Critical Race Theory (CRT) is now being used to undermine parental rights and raising of your own children it was Marxist Radical Feminist Theory (RFT) which first assaulted the family. Both evolved from the Frankfort School’s Marxist Critical Theory to create a world which “satisfies the needs of human beings” and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see when placed side by side the Great Reset, RFT, and CRT are the same, socialism with a differently named bourgeois and oppressed proletariat.
Just as the Great Reset has been in motion moving slowly over decades, the government regulation of the family and driving fathers out of the family has been occurring over decades, each decade getting more onerous in directing individual behavior. In the 1950s White Fatherless Homes exceeded Black Fatherless Homes. Enter President Johnson and his “Great Society” of social programs for women and children. Black Fatherless Homes skyrocketed to 20% in the early 1960s, labelled a crisis, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan published “The Negro Family: A Case for National Action,” now known as the Moynihan Report. The report received pushback from the African American Community as it was viewed as blaming African American men for the breakdown in the African American Family.
Enter the RFT in the 1970s and the war on “the patriarchy.” Far from being a war on those who held the reigns of power in government and industry it was a war on men in general, including fathers and blue class working families. Who needs a man was the common refrain. In 1970 No Fault Divorce was enacted in California and quickly spread to most other states. Even in NY, which didn’t enact No Fault Divorce until 2010, a woman only needed to go to family court and make ex parte allegations of an unfit spouse and was virtually guaranteed to get child custody, child support, and a separation agreement which would be turned into a divorce after one year of constructive “abandonment.”
The standard for awarding custody in family courts was the Tender Years Doctrine, that being young children would go with the mother for their tender years but older children would go to the father and his “firm hand” as they were learning to navigate in the world. But over time the standard was changed state by state to the best interest of the child standard. This shifted decision making on what is the best interest of the child from the parents to the judge. Through the 1980s and 1990s bias in the courts had them awarding mother custody over 85% of the time in divorce cases and almost 100% in out-of-wedlock births, in all cases making one of the child’s biological parents “non custodial” with limited parenting time. Parental rights stripped without cause.
And over this time, increasingly, 2 parent families were dragged into family court at the request of child social agencies and the judge’s opinion inserted over those of both parents. Cases are easy to find where parents left a child unattended but in a safe place yet the police were called and child neglect charged. Schools started to refer cases where parents refused to follow the dictate of the administrative state, such as one whose parents declined to put a child on drugs for ADHD preferring to try alternative methods first. Parents have been hauled into family curt because they made their child attend church too often even though in accordance with their beliefs. Once the courts made one parent a “non” (custodial) parent it became easier and easier for the Judge to impose his opinion of the best interests of the child on both parents. How long before parents are dragged into family court for NOT teaching their child CRT?
Increasing out-of-wedlock birth rates and exploding divorce numbers had “single mother” homes increasing, and increasingly they turned to daddy government to help them financially. As federal coffers were strained government looked for a funding source to replenish expenditures. Enter the “deadbeat dad” under the Reagan administration where popular media was used to portray fathers who “abandoned their financial obligation” to their children. Never mind it was the “single mother” who decided to get pregnant and rely on daddy government, it was “deadbeat dads” fault. As the money was to go to federal coffers the amount of “child support” wasn’t based on the needs of the child but assessed as a percentage of gross income of the father, a per child excise tax.
Even though marriage and divorce were state issues, a Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement was developed and a counter office in each and every state in the nation working under the federal guidelines with reimbursements of money to the states to ensure compliance. Before this a father was ensured access to his children as that was when he picked up his kids he delivered the child support check directly to the mother, no kids, no money. Now she could, and many were, refusing to deliver the children at court ordered times but as his “child support” went direct to the state he was thus forced back into family court to try to get back the lost time with his children, which caused greatly overburdened courts to admonish mothers to not do it again with no penalties.
Initially directed towards out-of-wedlock births the Child Support System couldn’t get any returns as it turns out poor women have out-of-wedlock babies with poor men who can’t pay in to the system due to lack of income. So to show that they were “successful” the system increasingly looked to include those fathers, mostly from divorce cases, where they were already paying child support on time and in full. Many states now directed that ALL child support payments had to go through the government. When the federal government included an incentive for cases with a health insurance order, millions across America were served with an administrative order directing they provide health insurance for children already on their health insurance. “Problem” solved with a windfall to the states.
In 1984 the Duluth Project was begun to address domestic violence against women, ignoring violence in families with child and/or father victims. Even though early domestic violence shelter operators were reporting that the mothers were often as violent as the fathers, the Duluth Model was developed along RFT and it held that ALL domestic violence was because a man wanted power and control over his wife and children. When (then) Senator Joe Biden introduced the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) it was based upon the Duluth Model. VAWA passed in 1994 and has dutifully been reauthorized by both Republican and Democrat alike to the tune of billions of dollars, most of which funds radical feminists and RFT, CRT, and the Great Reset.
When police on the street weren’t arresting enough men due to women not filing complaints (or not showing up in court to testify) mandatory arrest laws were passed which required an arrest if any party was injured. This in spite of the fact it is considered prosecutorial misconduct to arrest a person who obviously can’t be convicted. When police started arresting both parties as much of domestic violence is mutual the laws were changed to arrest only the “primary aggressor” which was defined as the larger person, more intimidating, in effect describing men. To help identify the primary aggressor Domestic Violence registries were set up in every state. Unlike relying on adjudicated cases the registries rely on domestic violence reports, often by one party, with no opportunity to have the case adjudicated by the other party. There is no expunging your name form the record for the innocent.
The socialist daddy state has been very successful in destroying the African American Family as it is widely reported 80% are “father absent” homes. Like in the Moynihan Report we keep blaming Black Men for this. CRT would have us believe that it is “institutional racism” yet the greatest income disparity isn’t between Blacks and Whites, it is between college educated Blacks (who run the cities that Poor Blacks live in) and non college educated Blacks. Having decimated Black Men and Boys and their families the New Socialists need to move on to the rest of families. 15% of White families are headed by the mother, 5% by the father with CRT and school control of children looking to undermine the remaining 80% of 2 parent families. Using “toxic masculinity” and “believe all women” they are looking to drive fathers out of families. Families are dissipating just in time for the Great Reset.
Marriage is hostile to men, and can also be to a female spouse out earning her husband. Many forego marriage not because of men or women but because government controls it and thus controls the finances of the family. Many are foregoing marriage but still creating a home with 2 biological parents of their children. 75% of White families have 2 biological parents while only 39% of Black families* do. We don’t know how many of these families Black and White Fathers are actively involved in the raising of their children for the government keeps no statistics on that, indeed most states have no access enforcement for court ordered parenting time for parents labelled ‘non custodial.” It is apparent the next “critical theory” has to attack the White 2 biological parent families and I believe the Marxist CRT combined with the Great Rest is designed to do just that. The issue isn’t one of race or sex, it is will we allow the “educated class” to dictate to us working class folks how to live our lives and raise our children?
We have gone from “shiftless” black men, to “deadbeat dads”, to “toxic masculinity” and I think it’s time for men and boys, and the women who love them, to say enough. This led to conservative families being labelled “right wing” zealots, parents opposed to CRT being labelled “domestic violent extremists,” and I say it’s time for parents and traditional families to say enough is enough. We’ll bond with a mate, have our children, and raise them as we see fit. And we don’t need your theories and government regulation of the family, we can figure out life on our own based upon our heritage and beliefs, free individuals entering into our social contract of a family beholden only to God, family, country, and community.
*Note there are discrepancies in reported numbers of homes by head of household and marital status and/or unmarried long term biological parents or those separated households that have both parents active in raising their children. The last federally funded research on fathers was in the 1990’s (Sanford Braver) and updated, unbiased, and accurate statistics and studies are needed.
It is imperative that you understand how your government is labelling you, passing objectionable laws (rules, regulations, policies, or emergency declarations) based upon that label, persecuting you, receiving an overreaction from the fringe element of “your group” (or driving you to overreaction or making it up if there is no overreaction), then labelling the entirety of you individually and your group by association as the fringe “radical”. The label, now a false narrative, is then inflated and the process repeated, again, and again, and again…
Welcome to government definition inflation labelling and persecution. As a 25 year fathers rights activist (and definition inflated labelling and persecuted father) let me explain what I observed the big government-big media-big business cabal is doing to keep you under control and to maximize their power and profit. Government, and this includes all 3 branches at both the federal level, and its agents, big business and media, will first label you (Canadian Truck Drivers are a “small radical fringe”), then persecute you and violate your rights to silence you (police over response to peaceful Ottawa protests), hoping to get a fringe element to overreact (protestors didn’t so police attacked them then labelled them as “violent”), then paint the entire movement as the same as the “radicals,” (National Security Acts invoked to “protect from possible future acts”) all with the ultimate intent to silence you, and others, completely. Once labelled the media will parrot the terms used and inflate their use and then big business, at the behest of government, will use this as a means to attack your business dealings and finances and ability to earn a living (sound about right?). The labelling is inflated and the entire process is repeated, again, and again.
In the 1980’s government decided to go after absent fathers (US and Canada) for the federal aid money paid out to single mother homes. The “child support” system was developed, child support in quotes as the money collected did not go to children but to federal coffers. Fathers were forced out by a lack of protection for their biological parental rights post separation/divorce or out-of-wedlock births and did not abandon their children. But to justify their actions the government created the “deadbeat dad” to justify removing a father from his family and then pilfering his assets. Ironically the deadbeat dad myth was debunked in a 1990s US Federally authorized study (Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths by Sanford L. Braver). But that didn’t fit government interests and so the report (and his book) was drowned out by the government-media- big business cabal and the persecution of the “deadbeat dad who abandoned his kids and doesn’t pay support” continues to today. Given that a child has a right to BOTH parents and there are “non custodial” mothers, most fathers rights activist today recognize themselves as parental rights activists. Ironically the removal of parental rights without cause is the same reasoning used by so called “experts” to interfere with parents involvement with their children’s schooling as the knowing experts are acting “in the best interest of the child” regardless of the parents views.
Back in 2016 H. Clinton coined the term “basket of deplorables” to describe Trump supporters. As this didn’t result in her election the definition inflation labelling went with “Right Wing White Supremacists” which continued for four years but they didn’t get their violation of rights until the 2020 election and their overreaction until the January 6 protests when a fringe element of useful idiots were led into the Halls of Congress by Agent Provocateurs. The label of “insurrectionist” was then added to white supremacist, not to only those who entered or damaged the Capitol Building but to all supporters of President Trump. The attempt to solicit further overreaction by Jan. 6 Protestors continued with the FBI using SWAT Teams to effect arrests of non violent individuals who would have readily turned themselves in if advised to do so.
The Covid restrictions made parents aware of what their children were being taught and many didn’t like the curricula especially Critical Race Theory (CRT) and did what good American’s do, voiced their objections at school board meetings. Immediately they were labelled as “racist,” ironically regardless to their race or nationality, for speaking against CRT which is a marxist ideology applied to race. An overreaction was attempted when a father of a sexually abused teen daughter was baited into arrest but that didn’t solicit enough of an overreaction so the Education Secretary goes to the National School Board Association which at his behest writes a letter to the Department of Justice labelling parents as violent and “domestic terrorists,” thus a made up labelling. Federal investigations then ensued by the DOJ and FBI in addition to parents being doxxed and harassed on social media.
Next up was the Canadian Truckers whose peaceful protest was immediately labelled as violent and “illegal”. In a sea of kids bouncy houses, dancing, and Canadian Flags, Trudeau upped the labelling to NAZI and Racist as one NAZI flag, which was immediately removed from the protest area, was presented and photographed by big media. The entirely peaceful protesters were put upon by police who created the overreaction roughing up their own citizens for passive resistance to orders to vacate. Trudeau imposed martial law to “protect Canadians from white nationalists and foreign influence.” Canadien Banks and the financial system have now joined in and are seizing accounts, in the digital age rendering those people “non persons.”
And now the Department of Homeland Security, the agency which allows our southern border to remain open which directly threatens us all, has issued a threat warning that citizen’s are spreading “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” speaking about those that question the Covid mandates or question the validity of past and future elections. It labels any who do so a “domestic violent extremist” and warns we will “justify violence since 2020 and could continue to inspire these extremists to target government, healthcare, and academic institutions that they associate with those measures .” Of course, providing no examples of this.
Fathers labelled as deadbeat for advocating for their right to raise their child, parents labelled as racist radicals for invoking their parental rights to raise they child and control their education, 1/2 of Americans labelled deplorable for supporting a presidential candidate, truck drivers and peaceful Canadian protestors are labelled NAZI’s by their own Prime Minister, applied to even a Member of Parliament who’s parents were holocaust survivors. The big government-big business-big media Cabal has used definition inflation to the point that over 1/2 of North America is a “right wing white supremacists”, “racist NAZI’s” and we all are now a “domestic violent extremist” and a threat to government, both north and south of the American-Canadian border.
Over 70% of Americans oppose further mandates of lockdowns and 50% of Americans don’t have confidence in the honesty of elections as we head into the 2022 election season, including many Independents and some Democrats. Canada’s protests indicate the similar views there. The current American President, Senate, and House sit in office with very scant majorities. Trudeau’s Liberal Party won the smallest share of the popular vote in Canadas history and he had to get the support of a third party to get a majority in Parliament to rise to Prime Minister. Yet they act as if they are “mandated” by a supermajority to tell us what to do as individuals. In other words, neither country has a government which is popular with the majority of its citizen’s and neither government has a mandate to do anything, especially authoritarian mandates.
It is plainly apparent that the Canadian Cabal and the American Cabal are driven by the same policies. That would be the World Economic Forum which advocates for a “Great Reset” of capitalism and who spoke of the Covid-19 outbreak as a “unique opportunity to push this great reset”. I encourage everyone to look at the weforum.org web site and see the dangers this oligarchy (the Davosians) are to the national governments of both Canada and America and the free world. We are each others largest trading partner and allies in all other things so a great reset in one or both effects us all. Instead of the great reset I say lets all go for a Great Awakening, like the Great Awakenings in early America. It has worked before in North America to bring the citizenry together and can do so again.
American’s individual rights are God given and enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enumerates their individual rights. Yet these are just pieces of paper with worthless words unless we, as citizen’s of our respective countries, stand up, speak out, and work together to protest peaceably. And this mean by all means register and VOTE in each and every upcoming election no matter how high or low, national representatives to school boards. It’s time for citizen’s to take back control of their government and remind them that they are mandated to protect our God given individual civil rights.
I stand united with and I speak out in support of Canadian and American individuals united for our God given individual rights of liberty and freedom for individuals, parents, and families. God bless you all and may God bless Canada and America.
James Hays, Retired Police Lt. NYS Environmental Conservation Police, Quasi-Retired Parental and Family Rights Activist (I still write and speak out), Historian and Genealogist.
The current administration is promoting the complete replacement of a husband and father with daddy state subsidies to single mother homes. For those of us advocating for the Father/Men’s/Parents Rights this attack on the family is no surprise for we have seen the steady destruction of individual and parental rights under the guise of “protecting” women and children and fighting the “war on poverty”. Indeed, one can put the 1960’s federal government war on poverty and subsequent programs on a chart showing increased “family” programs and it corresponds with the increases of single parent homes. Following the trend, this next round of government programs should get us near to no nuclear families by 2040.
As part of its Build Back Better plan the current administration promotes the fairy tale “The Life of Linda” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/) showing a single mother, Linda, and her son Leo from his birth to her end on earth subsidized by funds from the daddy state. Missing from this once upon a time is the husband/father and any male influence in their lives as the story paints a fantasy world of happiness for her and her son from her pregnancy to her need for elder care, overseen by Leo, or course. It is obvious government propaganda on a par with Stalin’s completely made up Pavlik Morozov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov) which duped a generation into support of a communist police state in the Soviet Union.
Presented in 7 panels in comic fashion we are introduced to Linda who’s pregnant and working in a factory. In panel 2 Linda is seen grocery shopping with her toddler son Leo, subsidized with $300 a month for essentials. #3 Leo is happy in day care, subsidized by the government capped at 7% of her income. #4 a happy Leo enterers a “high quality” Pre-K program for “free” at 3 years old. Next we fast forward to Leo graduating high school and entering community college subsidized by extended Pell Grants. Panel 6 has Leo getting a good paying, union job. And lastly we find an old Linda, arm in arm with Leo as she spends her last years taken care of by government which is paying for her elder care.
Cradle to grave government happiness
The true story of the life of Linda is more like this. Linda meets Lenny and they date. Linda wants a child but not a husband so Linda lies about her reproductive status. Once pregnant Linda breaks it off with Lenny without his knowing of the pregnancy. At birth Lenny learns he has a son and files for paternity and DNA shows him to be the father, using all of his savings to pay for an attorney. It is then that Lenny gets hit with a child support order and is assessed at 17% of his $60,000 income is to be paid to the Child Support Unit. He also learns that the child support is after taxes so he is assessed 22% federal and 5% state income tax. This has reduced Lenny to $710 a week.
Both Lenny and Linda have health insurance through work but it is Lenny who is ordered to maintain a family plan to cover Leo which is $85 a week for the family plan as opposed to $20 a week for the single plan. After Social Security, union dues, and other mandatory deductions Lenny’s is reduced to $600 a week take home pay. Lenny also has to file as single for tax purposes while Linda gets to file as head of household thus reducing her income for tax purposes. As Lenny’s income is higher than Linda’s he has to pay 60% of all out of pocket expenses such as child care and co-pays and Linda pays 40%.
Linda’s after tax weekly take home after mandatory deductions is $675 a week as her tax is reduced by her head of household, standard deductions, and child tax credits. On top of this she gets $196 a week tax free in child support giving her $871 a week in income. Lenny has filed for visitation and he is allowed to visit every other weekend and every Wednesday for 4 hours. To maintain his visitation Lenny needs a two bedroom apartment so his son Leo has a bedroom of his own on the 4 days a month he is sleeping over with his dad. Even though Lenny’s mother is available for child care and wants to spend time with her grandson, Linda chooses to put him in day care at $270 a week, and Lenny has to pay $180 of that but Linda’s child care is capped at $1880 (7% of her income), a cap which doesn’t apply to Lenny. Together with co-pays for doctors and such, Lenny’s weekly income drops to $510, 2/3 of which is used to pay rent on a 2 bedroom apartment (about $1800 a month).
Linda gets a new boyfriend and he owns his own house and she stays with him rent free. Unfortunately the rent or other financial benefits she receives from him don’t affect what Lenny has to pay her in child support nor does it count against the government benefits and tax breaks she receives. The house is two counties removed and Lenny has to spend extra time and money traveling farther to pick up Leo. At 3 Leo is placed into pre-K and Lenny doesn’t like the facility they chose as what they teach are counter to his beliefs. He finds out there is nothing he can do about it as he is a “non custodial” parent.
Leo was smart and good in math but with limited father involvement he started to use alcohol and drugs. When Lenny tried to intervene Leo just pulled away and would skip his visitation time with his father. Lenny thought with supervision Leo could work hard and earn grades to get him into a 4 year college and earn an engineering degree. But Linda didn’t want to pay the 40% she would be assessed to send him to college and encouraged him to go to the free community college which Leo did. So instead of earning $150,000 a year as an engineers Leo earned $60,000 a year as a technician.
Working until she was 62, in retirement Linda could only afford a one bedroom apartment on her retirement and social security, the boyfriend long gone from her life. She has a nice photo of her and Leo from the last time he visited 2 month’s ago, luckily she gets elder care in her home. It’s not the quality care one gets from a caring relative, but it’s enough to keep her out of the nursing home. Leo has 2 children with 2 different women, both of whom moved away from where he works. He is assessed 17% for each kid, 34% of his gross pay before taxes. Both his “baby-momma’s” are on welfare so what he pays in child support goes back into federal coffers to offset the costs paid to the mothers. He lives in a one bedroom apartment in the bad part of town as that’s all he can afford. He still drinks and uses drugs to escape his reality. He’s “to busy” to visit his mother working extra to try to keep ahead of the bills, besides, she has people who from the government who take care of her. Linda has a photo of each kid as a baby and she hasn’t seen either in over 2 years. She sits alone, counting the days.
Lenny paid his child support for 18 years and became estranged when Leo pulled away as he started the partying, drug lifestyle. Lenny warned him about gold diggers looking to get pregnant by him as he had a good job. Leo didn’t listen and blames his problems on his father “for not being there,” even though it wasn’t the fathers choice. Lenny had lived on so little for so long when he finally didn’t have to pay through the nose he started saving and investing. He built up a nice little nest egg, including long term care insurance so he wouldn’t be stuck in a state nursing home when he’s very old and feeble. He sees both his grand kids when he wants as he can afford to travel to them and free babysitting for the weekend and a gift certificate to the spa to mama is enough to get him a weekend. His last girlfriend gave him the marry me or I leave speech. He has a new girlfriend.
Unfortunately the real world outcomes for boys of single mothers is far from the happy idealist scenario presented by the government. By choosing a state subsidized single mother lifestyle the Linda’s of the world are setting themselves and their sons up for negative consequences from increased domestic and child abuse to possible gang participation, drug and alcohol use, and poverty. While negative or positive outcomes are not guaranteed, the statistics are clear that a child raised in a 2 biological parent household have a much greater chance at a successful and happy life. Single mother homes are the bulk of families living in poverty and no person ever got out of poverty by living off of government programs. Some may seem to do better financially up front with government subsidies, but the back end financial and social costs for all are steep.
I am writing you in regard to VAWA as I understand you are tasked with writing the 2021 senate version. First, the Violence Against WOMEN Act by name is discriminatory to men and boys, both gay and straight, who suffer domestic violence and it should be changed to reflect that is directed towards combatting domestic violence within families. Even though legal decisions stated that men and boy victims could not be excluded by name of the act and in practice they are to this day.
“Joke” Meme circulating on social media, ironically highlighting the plight of male victims of domestic violence.
NAGR and other gun rights groups, to which I am a life member, complain that the “Red Flag” laws, long a problem in the family rights arena, are being pushed with 135 “Republican’s” voting for these laws applied to our military personnel. False allegations of abuse, combined with the mistaken belief that all DV is male perpetrators and female victims, have long been used to gain leverage in divorce and child custody proceedings. Additionally, those who bear false witness are rarely, if ever, held accountable for their lies. My horror story of false allegations when I was a NYS Environmental Conservation Police Officer (now retired) can be found at https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2021/04/lets-red-flag-unconstitutional-red-flag-laws/. I wrote about the unconstitutional nature of red flag laws here. What was designed as a shield for victims has been turned into a sword for those that would abuse the system and turn the system into an abuser on their behalf.
As A Republican I can only wonder why those in our party continue to authorize these vast funds which are funneled primarily to left wing groups pushing the anti family socialist agenda. Worse, the programs, when audited, are generally found to be fraught with fraud and misuse of funds. Some of these cases are outlined at https://www.saveservices.org/2021/03/vawa-long-standing-and-widespread-waste-fraud-and-abuse. As a co-founder and past President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY Inc. (I hold a Bachelors Degree in Family and Society from SUNY ESC) in the early 2000’s when I was researching this issue one DV services organization advised me how they “counted each client 4 times” by sending them to various “services” such as counseling or legal advice, and counted them even if they said they didn’t need the service. The Washington Times in 2019 reported on the fraud that is occurring in one part of VAWA, immigration citizenship, and that is not alone. In 2011 Sen. Grassley stated, “the problem with VAWA grantees’ administration and record keeping may actually be getting worse.” What was designed as a shield for victims has been turned into a biased political boondoggle, and it continues to this day.
I attended training and was certified by NYS as a police instructor for domestic violence. I can tell you first hand that the training was biased against men and was based on the debunked Duluth Model which has it that all Domestic Violence is perpetrated by men. Primary aggressor was defined as someone who was “larger” and “intimidating” and was nothing less than double speak for “arrest the man”. I found the training to be nothing less than indoctrination which was contrary to police training and tactics conducted in concert with constitutional protections ( I was a certified police special topics instructor on multiple topics). When called on to instruct I refused to do so as the course materials and lesson plan could “not be changed” in any fashion whatsoever. “This Way to the Revolution: A Memoir” by Erin Prizzey, who opened a shelter in England in 1971 explains how the system has been usurped by radical feminists.
While it certainly provides some services for victims of DV we have to ask ourselves at what cost to civil rights and at what cost to American taxpayers. It is well past time for a name change. It is well past time to remove sexual biases against male victims. It is well past time for the program to ensure that it is not undermining the U.S. Constitution and the rights of all individuals guaranteed therein.
James H. Hays, Lt. (Ret) NYS En-Con Police
CC: National Association for Gun Rights provided the following contact emails which were accepted – pat_souders@durbin.senate.gov, john_dowd@leahy.senate.gov, lindsey_kerr@klobuchar.senate.gov, reynaldo_benitez@ossoff.senate.gov, aaron_cummings@grassley.senate.gov, richard_perry@lgraham.senate.gov, “Beth_Jafari@cornyn.senate.gov” Beth_Jafari@Cornyn.senate.gov, steve_chartan@cruz.senate.gov, kyle_plotkin@hawley.senate.gov, doug_coutts@cotton.senate.gov, ted_lehman@tillis.senate.gov, kaleb_froehlich@murkowski.senate.gov
In an Op-Ed in the Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/who-cares-about-male-suffering_3891890.html). Janice Fiamingo opens with the fact that July 11 is Gender Empathy Gap Day designed to bring awareness to societal indifference to the suffering of men and boys. She goes on to provide multiple examples which I encourage you to find in the article itself. What I found troubling as a MRA/FRA were the comments to “man up” opposite those that stated they had “sympathy” for men and boys.
I post a link to the difference between the empathy called for and the sympathy offered here, https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sympathy-empathy-difference. As Ms Fiamingo point out, what we are looking for is EMPATHY, a simple recognition that men and boys who suffer are treated poorly by both men and women. You don’t have to have been victimized yourself and “feel my pain” and sympathize. You simply need to recognize the disparate treatment that men suffer and recognize it as wrong. As she plainly states this isn’t a victimhood contest between men and women, “it does seek to prompt recognition of our collective inability or unwillingness to recognize the humanity of men”.
The man up and don’t be a soy boy crowd is dismissing the issue out of hand without even looking to see if there is merit to the complaint. Of course attacking the “soy boys” allows them to avoid having to speak to the multitude of facts presented in the piece. Ironically this argument supports Ms. Fiamingo’s position that the societal indifference to the suffering of men exists. Having sympathy also can ignore the problem for feeling my pain and sharing my feelings does not necessarily translate into working to correct the problem which caused my pain.
Being a career law enforcement officer, I have never committed a crime with a female accomplice (it’s frowned on in my profession) and I don’t have sympathy for a criminal sent to prison as I’ve never been one. But if he was sent to prison and she given probation for doing the same crime I do have empathy for his disparate treatment which is obviously bias for being male. And in my 30 year career I was witness to and can attest to preferential treatment given to women by law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges for both minor and major offenses.
In the olden days (1990’s) we used to have fathers rights meetings face to face. The “man up” crowd referred to them as “pity parties” and did not attend, dismissing the plight of others. The sympathy crowd would attend the meetings for the emotional support but wouldn’t get politically active to work to change the system. Regardless of their level of victimization by the system, it was those who had empathy for others who would fight for change. Parents, siblings, and second spouses were often the most vocal for change driven by their empathy for another.
Within the Men’s Rights, Fathers Rights, Parental Rights movements we see the same lack of empathy. Home schoolers and conservative Christians pushed the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act but specifically excluded “non custodial” parents from the act. When I co-founded the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) I was told, by males and females, that I should change the name as it wasn’t “inclusive”even though the mission statement supported equal rights for both parents and both parents rights free from government interference. Bias towards fathers and fathers rights is what allows them to be removed as a parent and their parental rights.
And we have our share of “man ups” in the FRA/MRA movement. After 3 years of litigation I was arrested, suspended from work, dead broke, with $20 in my pocket and the clothes on my back with a borrowed car and place to sleep. With an OOP over my head based on false allegation and violation of that being a felony I tried to get my access exchange at a neutral location and was denied. Faced with certain felony arrest should I try to get my kids at her residence I stopped picking them up and she refused to deliver them. At the next meeting I was told to “fight harder”. “Don’t give up”, in effect to man up and sacrifice myself. You can see those types of comments all over MRA/FRA social media pages. As if manning up and fighting harder with self sacrifice in a system designed to drain you financially and emotionally will somehow result in a different outcome.
I co-founded the NY Men’s Action Network (originally a PAC) and was a principal lobbyist in Albany for 10 years advocating for parental rights and court reform. There are many politicians who knew how bad the system was and didn’t care to reform it. But the bulk of them were uninformed and my factual stories were dismissed with an “it couldn’t be that bad”, certainly my being male and the lack of empathy for men played a part in limiting reform as the vast majority of negative outcomes in (anti) family court and the system occur to men.
In my 25 years of work with FaFNY I have well over 1000 contact hours with individuals and groups in peer support and counseling. The vast majority of persons I counseled wanted empathy; to be listened to, for their story to be believed, and for recognition that they received a raw deal. While they were the victim of the system by having their individual and parental rights destroyed they were not victims themselves looking for others to correct their problems, they were looking to get others to stop causing their problems. This is much different than the “victim” who blames life’s problems on their race, sex, or life circumstance and looks to others to give them something for free to fix it.
Lack of empathy for men and boys has us ignoring the problems of men and boys. The first act to correct a problem is to recognize what the problem is. A lack of empathy and dismissing the problems prevents us from that first act. And in the multitude of problems facing men and boys; suicide, crime victims, disparate incarceration, denial of parental rights, and on and on there is one underlying facet of each of these problems, a lack of empathy for men and boys.
I disagree with Ms. Fiamingo one one thing, I think every day should be a day of empathy for boys and men. I encourage you to read the article and use it to hone your debate skills in support of men and boys. And if you are looking for more information on boys and men you can go to the Global Initiative for Boys and Men https://www.gibm.us/home, or the National Coalition For Men https://ncfm.org.
James Hays, Lt. (Ret) NYS En-Con Police, past President FaFNY, past Director NY MAN.
Being a beat dead, disenfranchised father for 25 years one would think that I would have hardened and gotten used to the anti male posts, articles, and comments about fathers on Father’s Day. But I haven’t, the negativity and chastisements telling fathers how they are supposed to be and blaming fathers for being absent still pisses me off to no end. I suspect it is from the idiocy and propaganda that family break down is the fault of men and not government policies, laws, rules, and regulation which is the cause. Blame which flies in the face of reality.
The most recent installment of idiocy is the Administration for Children and Families “Dadication” campaign (https://fatherhood.gov/dadication) directed at fathers through its fatherhood.gov web site. Of course government needs to push the “responsible fatherhood” agenda as cover for the fact that the disenfranchisement of fathers and the destruction of families is the result of their own programs. In response to a 20% out of wedlock birth rate in the African American community in the 1960’s the Moynihan Report came out (the Johnson Administration) and received immediate backlash for blaming black men.
Johnson’s war on poverty and the developing nanny/daddy state began subsidizing single mother homes. As these federal programs increased (Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations) so too did the problem of single mother homes. Adding to the out of wedlock fatherless homes was an increasing divorce rate which was made easier by “no fault” divorce laws. Even though more woman initiated divorce then men the stereotype was the philandering husband abandoning his family for the younger trophy wife. Men were blamed for “abandoning” their children regardless of circumstances.
Many people are unaware that the advocacy for men’s rights and fathers rights goes back to the 1970’s. Groups like the Men’s Defense Association published “The Liberator” newspaper advocating for equality for men in divorce and with child custody. The National Coalition of Free Men, renamed the National Coalition For Men at NCFM.org, was formed in 1977 and is still in existence today. (Full disclosure, I was a member of MDA and am a life member of NCFM). Sadly, blaming men for social ills continued with liberals looking at men as oppressors, “the patriarchy”, and conservatives looking at them a “deadbeats” not living up to their responsibilities.
It was under the Reagan administration the blaming men rose to new heights. A PBS special highlighted a black man who bragged of having 9 children with 9 different mothers and this was used to argue for a Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to set standards for financial responsibility for fathers. “Deadbeat dads” were to be held responsible to pay back into federal coffers money expended to pay for his children. Title IVd of the Social Security Act was amended to award states money to hold these deadbeats responsible and a massive federal and state bureaucracy was born.
Of course the gynocentric hypocrisy was ignored. The fact that there was 9 tawdry mothers who had children out of wedlock with the same man was overlooked as was the fact that women choose to have out of wedlock children, not men who have no say in a woman’s pregnancy or abortion. Child support payments were now separated from father access to his children, no kids no check used to be the rule. Combined with no fault divorce, a man could be divorced from his children against his will and responsible fatherhood was redefined by government and media as did you pay your child support on time and in full.
Dr. Warren Farrell wrote “the Myth of Male Power” in the 1990’s pointing to the gynocentric hypocrisies. Sanford Braver conducted federally funded research in the 1990’s which he published in “Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s” where he debunked the myth of the deadbeat dad. Unfortunately truth was countered by a biased media (see Bernard Goldberg’s book “Bias”) and now a large state and federal bureaucracy funded to take money from fathers and transfer it to federal coffers or direct to mothers.
I (with others) formed the Coalition of Fathers and Families Inc. and the NY Men’s Action Network PAC in the 1990’s and like others hoped the new technologies of email, internet, and web sites would help dispel the myth’s of the deadbeat dad and other negative stereotypes of men but unfortunately well funded government agencies and well funded by government non profits use these same tools to better advantage. Misinformed chivalry meets biased gynocentrism supported by propaganda from government and organizations making a living “fixing” the problem. There is no better example then the “Dadication” Campaign, unfortunately which is but one of many.
I was lifted today when I read an op-Ed in the Epoch Times, “On Fatherhood” by Paul Adams (https://www.theepochtimes.com/on-fatherhood_3863038.html). In it he points out the difference in treatment of mothers on Mother’s Day and fathers on Father’s Day with mothers receiving praise and fathers being admonished. We are making some progress. Unfortunately right along side of it is an article about fathers manning up in a feminized world. On the former article I commented on items which needed to be fixed, on the latter I commented on the mistake of blaming men (which pulled me from other chores to write this blog).
We are now entering the 6th decade of government nanny and daddy state regulation of the family. Each succeeding generation we have seen an increase in fatherless households to now 40% of families in America, 75% in the African American community. We continue to blame men, now “soy boys”, “cellar dwellers” or “gang bangers” for being raised absent their father and admonish them to act different while the new “woke” generation blames everything on men (ignoring how good most of us have it in America).
Government regulation of fathers and families has made marriage a hostile environment for men and we wonder why nobody wants to get married and women lament the “lack of marriageable men”. Child support has gotten so draconian that having a child, in or out of marriage, is a hostile environment for men and we wonder why the birth rate has dropped below 2 children per woman, not large enough to sustain our population. We raise children without their biological father then we wonder why they suffer greater anti-social behaviors. As long as we continue to blame men, give women a pass for not being responsible, and ignore the problems of government regulation of the family, we are not going to see any change for the better.
With all things the devil is in the details and when we look at the details of red flag laws we find they give arbitrary power of your constitutional rights to a government official which is bound to abuse that power. As I am a, now retired, career law enforcement officer, a parental rights activist for over 25 years, and a victim of these red flag laws I can speak to the abuses I’ve both seen and experienced. Here’s my personal horror story which is not unique and my humble opinion on the matter.
I was involved in a bitter 3 year custody battle with my soon to be ex wife (late 1990s). In an effort to gain an advantage she, obviously coached, resorted to filing abuse petitions and in many of them she claimed I threatened her by “reaching back on his waist where he carries his off duty gun.” Luckily for me my neighbors witnessed many of the incidents and testified in family court on my behalf resulting in an order of protection for me against her abusive instigating behavior.
Next she resorted to withholding my parenting time with my children. Due to bias in the system police do not enforce custody orders for non custodial parents even though it is a violation of penal codes and they refer you back to family court for resolution. On one occasion I arrived at the head of her driveway as she had just pulled in with the children and standing in the road calmly demanded my parenting time. She exited the vehicle and left the children in the car with her boyfriend announcing she was going to call the police to which I responded “good, I’ll wait right here in the road.” As the State Trooper arrived she came back out I began walking towards the children expecting the usual mediation and referral back to family court.
I was three steps onto the driveway when I was grabbed by the Trooper and slammed onto the back of her car as my ex quickly spirited the children into the house. The Trooper yelled, “where do you keep your gun” to which I responded it was in an ankle holster and I lifted my leg so he could take possession of the firearm. I then had a few heated words with that Trooper regarding the excessive force in lieu of verbal discussion or commands and my treatment by him. A second Trooper arrived and advised we could go to the barracks which was 5 minutes away and “straighten things out.” I had filed multiple custodial interference complaints at this barracks over the months only to be referred back to family court and thought the same would occur.
Supervisors from my agency began to arrive and I was sitting in the Troopers office with one of them and several Troopers discussing the flawed system when the original Trooper arrived and began to yell at me that I had no right to my children and I was harassing my ex, at which point I advised I would make no statements without my attorney. The Trooper had taken possession of my wallet and he left the office but shortly returned and handed me two appearance tickets for minor violations, trespass and simple harassment, and he threw my wallet at me which I noted was missing my badge and police ID. So I went to my supervisor and asked what my status was and he said suspended without pay.
As I had my court appearance tickets and suspected my pistol was being held as “evidence” I started to leave as the walk from there to my girlfriends house was only 5 minutes. I was grabbed at the back door and told that they had decided to take me to immediate arraignment and off I went to see the Judge. I was “lucky” he said as he wasn’t going to set bail but he did issue an order of protection ,among other things, seizing my firearms. My supervisor then drove me to my house in an adjoining county and took possession of all my work and personal firearms and then to my girlfriends house to get firearms I leave there as that was where I stayed when not working.
Here’s where the ironic hypocrisy begins. My girlfriend was a licensed pistol permit holder and kept a pistol in both night stands on either side of the bed. Additionally her son was a hunter and kept long guns in the house which were readily available to me. I had managed to not be arrested at the 10 plus times she said I “reached to his waist where he keeps his off duty gun” due to insufficient evidence and in 3 years of child custody litigation hadn’t laid a hand on her, much less threatened her but now I was a threat to her and society, the prior false allegations ignored. Amazingly I didn’t take possession of these readily available firearms and go on a rampage. I’m sure the order made me not do it.
I had a copy of my ex’s statement which was included in the charging documents. She claimed I was screaming and swearing and “reached around to my waist where I keep my off duty gun” and she feared I was going to grab it so she ran to call the police. Unknown to her or the Troopers was the fact I recorded every interaction I had with her and this incident was no different and I had an audio recording rebutting her allegations of verbal abuse and the fact my off duty pistol was in an ankle holster and was where I normally carried it undermined the argument I reached for a gun on my waist. I demanded a hearing on the seizure of my firearms and a speedy trial in 30 days which I was entitled to by law but was given neither and in fact had it postponed for month’s.
I scraped together my last $2500 and hired a criminal attorney. We arrived at the court date, an afternoon trial with me the only case docketed. As I was charged with only simple violations I was NOT entitled to a jury trial, the one case docketing certain to keep the process in the dark. I was left in the hall as my attorney went into a room with the Judge, the Assistant District Attorney for that Town, the Assistant District Attorney for Domestic Violence, and my ex. He came back out, visibly shaken, and advised when he told the Judge about the recording he ruled it inadmissible as “there was no chain of custody,” that if I demanded a trial and “if” found guilty he would sentence me to jail time and issue a lifetime order of protection. I had heard through my law enforcement contacts that the Judge was going to sentence me to consecutive 15 day sentences (30 days the maximum) and that I was to not be segregated from the regular population as was customary so I believed he would follow through on his threat.
My attorney advised I could win on appeal but it would cost between $5000 and $10,000 and take about 4 years. I advised him the lifetime order of protection meant I would be out of work and additionally incarceration, and this incident, would be considered a “voluntary” reduction in income and I would be jailed after 6 months for failure to pay child support waiting for the criminal appeal. I told him to cut any deal which would put me back to work. He told me my ex was incessant that I not be given a deal and when she was told that would mean no more child support payments from me she stated she didn’t care and wanted to see me destroyed. He apologized for not being able to stop the worst injustice he had seen in his long legal career, I’ve never seen anyone get as effed as you”, he said and went back in to see if he could cut a deal.
Back out he advised that the Judge had called my agencies Colonel in charge of uniform personnel to OK the deal and I was to be given a one year order of protection and I would be allowed to carry my duty firearm while working but no long guns or shotguns while on duty. I was to plead guilty to trespass and pay a $50 fine. My personal firearms would remain seized. As a condition of employment I had to maintain a home office and I was to leave my issued sidearm at my home office and not to carry a firearm when off duty. Given my girlfriends possession of firearms this in effect meant I was only unarmed from the time I left my home and travelled to hers. Amazingly the order “prevented” me from driving in my police car with my duty weapon and murdering my ex, I expect as I had my uniform on I was an upstanding member of society but when I took it off I turned into a dangerous threat to society. That’s it, I’m sure.
In divorce court I asked that exchanges of the children occur at a public location which could be monitored by neutral parties and was denied. If you violate an order of protection it is a felony and so I couldn’t risk picking up the children and having the false allegation repeated so in effect, the total exclusion of me from my children she had been fighting for three years to achieve was achieved by making these multiple false allegations when one finally stuck. Bankrupt, reputation destroyed, career almost ruined, and faced with a bad choice of returning to work and losing my children or the worse choice of going to jail and losing my children I chose bad over worse.
My suspension without pay from work was for 60 days, conduct unbecoming an officer for arguing with the Trooper. I was out of work for 4 month’s on the order of protection so when they offered to “take 5 days” I said the 60 days should be concurrent with the 4 month’s. When it went to an arbitration hearing the union attorney felt I had a very good argument but I warned him that they would play the domestic abuser card and they did. The hearing examiner split the difference and ordered a 30 days suspension without pay. Once the red flag is thrown it’ll be thrown time and time again when needed.
Those of us who have suffered in family and matrimonial courts have been sounding the alarm about these abuses of due process and violations of civil rights to no avail. Petitions for orders of protection are filed Ex Parte, meaning by one party without the defendant present. Judges think abundance of caution as no Judge wants to be the one who didn’t issue an order and then have something bad happen so fearing blame and having no rebuttal to the charges they almost never deny the order. Once the order is served any anger or indignation at the violation of your rights will be used as evidence to show you are angry and a danger. You suffer the costs of attorneys to retain your God given rights and the system will drag on painstakingly slow as you suffer financially, emotionally, and reputation-ally.
If you think it can’t happen to you look up “Cowboy’s for Trump” and the plight of their leader Couy Griffin, a New Mexico elected official, who “entered a restricted area” at the Capitol protest on Jan. 6 and held a prayer session outside of the Capitol Building. Regardless how you feel about his political views and alleged simple trespass on restricted capitol grounds his physical arrest and incarceration for 3 weeks with no bail seems extreme on its face. And when he was finally released, RED FLAG, his right to possess firearms was revoked in spite of the fact he has not been violent. When he received multiple death threats the Judge allowed him to possess firearms in his home but not his car or in public. If he’s not a danger to violate that order then the order itself is unnecessary and additionally threats against him are valid away from or in the home.
The view that an order of protection prevents violence flies idiotic in the face of reality as the violent acts are felonies and anyone who is willing to commit violence and face years in prison isn’t worried about violating an order which has less than a one year term. Orders “preventing” the possession of firearms similarly only work on people who legally own firearms and weren’t going to commit acts of violence in the first place. “Red Flag” is a government misnomer for “violate due process” under the guise of government “protecting” society by violating the civil rights of an individual who has not committed any crime and has not been allowed to rebut the allegations against him. Any angry exaggerated excited utterance or public post not meant to be taken literally, such as “Communists should be taken out and shot,” opens the door to anyone with a grudge, or government themselves, to RED FLAG the persons civil rights.
The fathers rights and parental rights movement dates back to the 1960s where advocates have since then and to today been complaining about the lack of due process, ex parte allegations taken as fact (Red Flag), unnecessary orders of protection issued, and individual civil rights violated on a daily basis. Legislators create misnamed bills “to protect the public” which in effect undermine civil rights and due process. Executive branches overcharge, incarcerate with excessive or no bail, issue ex parte orders of protection, and use overbearing and unnecessary police tactics to intimidate citizens. Judicial accountability is an area ignored by most of the public, courts are now where civil rights go to die. Our lack of due diligence to protecting civil rights under the guise of protecting the public and “preventing” crime is now undermining liberty for all of us. Us parental rights activists would like to welcome the rest of America to the unconstitutional nightmare.
James Hays,
Lt. (Ret) NY En-Con Police, past President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) and past Director of the NY Men’s Action Network (NYMAN)
Not a day goes by where we don’t see a person on TV talking about the problems of father absence and out of wedlock births. Do a search for “Responsible Father” and up pops web sites and government programs directed at men and talking about their responsibility to their children. As a 25 year father rights activist I am well aware of these programs having attended state and national seminars put on by government promoting responsible fathers all aimed at fixing fathers. Unfortunately they are all the same and doomed to failure for they fail to properly identify the problem and keep blaming men and ignoring the federal government and states as the culpable parties.
The 1935 Social Security Act (SSA) included federal dollars for Aid to Dependent Children. At that time most black mothers worked so the program was aimed primarily at white mothers with a deceased, absent, or unable to work husband. In the early 1960s civil rights activists and welfare reform activists worked to eliminate biases within the system and black mother participation increased. Fearing the program would reduce marriages the name was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in 1962. In 1964 President Johnson began his war on poverty campaign which added food stamps and medicaid for poor people. Thus the role of father as financial provider was usurped.
In 1967 the federal government required states to establish paternity and also to extend benefits of unemployed male parents. In 1968 the Supreme Court ruled that the AFDC benefits could not be reduced for a man in the house if they were not deemed to be an “actual or substitute parent.” In 1981 the Supreme Court ruled that a step-fathers income be considered. Thus providing a financial incentive to mothers to not live with their children’s father and to not marry any future significant others.
In 1965 Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw that there was a crisis in African American families as 23.6% of births were to unmarried mothers. He also noted that historically the rate of increase or decline in African American male unemployment paralleled the rate of AFCD cases but in 1962 the lines crossed with AFDC cases going up as unemployment claims went down. He warned against Defining Deviancy Down as single mother houses were becoming socially acceptable. When he published his findings in “The Negro Family: the Case for National Action” he received criticism from civil rights leaders for labelling blacks. The report was not put into policy by Johnson due to this.
In 1960 the birth control pill was approved for use in the United States giving women reproductive choice. In 1970 abortion was legalized. Men have no similar effective temporary birth control method nor means to “abort” an unwanted pregnancy. If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy she can terminate the pregnancy regardless of the wishes of the man. If a woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term, even if she lied to the man about her reproductive status, and even if he doesn’t want to be a father, she can establish him as the father and he will be held financially responsible for the child.
The Feminist movement began in the 1960s and originally touted itself as an equal rights movement but the radical feminist movement split off from that blaming “patriarchal white men” for “oppression” of women. It portrayed the view that men were abusers of women and children. The theme of the feminist was women don’t need men. Labor participation increased for women throughout the 60’s with 1963s Equal Pay Act and 1965s establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and prohibitions on sex discrimination in employment. While originally about choice, the movement looks down and denigrates women who choose a traditional nuclear family over a career, encouraging young girls to forego the former and choose the latter as the social norm.
Historically the person wanting out of a marriage or who committed adultery lost custody of the children. In the late 1800s the courts increasingly relied on the Tender Years Doctrine holding that young children be placed with the mother and older children with the father. In 1970 California passed the first “no fault” divorce law and this trended across the land. In reality all one needed to do to escape a marriage was to file for legal separation in family court, live apart for a year, then file for divorce under the abandonment statutes. New York was the last state to enact no fault divorce in 2010. Child custody changed in the 1970s abandoning the Tender Years Doctrine in favor of The Best Interests of the Child standard. Thus decision making on custody was placed at the courts discretion. Even with this standard the mother custody rate after divorce was well over 85% due to judicial bias against men. Divorce rates jumped to about 50% of all marriages.
The combination of subsidized single mother homes and easy divorces saw divorces and father absent homes rise as did AFDC claims. In 1988 President Reagan signed the Family Support Act establishing a federal Office of Child Support Enforcement thus removing states rights in this area. He ordered the states to have support guidelines in effect but left the states only one year to establish them. Each State was to also establish an Office of Child Support Enforcement. While labelled as “child support” the massive bureaucratic program was designed to establish paternity of children receiving AFDC and hold the father financially responsible and return the money to federal coffers. And thus the “Deadbeat Dad” was created.
Lacking time to establish reasonable child support guidelines the states just enacted the example guidelines provided by the federal government, an income shares model which taxed the “non custodial parent” (most often the father) 17% of his income for one child and 25% for two (with some variation in states). The assessment is pre tax dollars so the payer is responsible for the income tax in addition to the income transfer and one child is 35% and two 48% of gross income. In later years draconian collection methods were implemented, including incarceration. Fathers making close to 3 figure salaries can usually make the payments and still get by but a father making under $60,000 is reduced to living below poverty levels. Studies have shown that the vast majority of “deadbeats” are really dead broke, inability to pay the number one reason for default. Incarceration disproportionately affects poor fathers who tend towards young fathers and fathers of color.
In the 1990s Sanford Braver conducted the only federal research on child support and the family and he published his findings in “Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s.” This, and subsequent private studies, have shown that about 80% of divorces are filed by women with the number one reason being “we grew apart”. The divorce rate peaked at about 50% of all marriages and has been declining as the marriage rate is rapidly declining. After divorce mothers obtain about 50% of the marital assets, usually more, and gain custody of children in about 85% cases. Worse, there are virtually no access enforcement avenues for a non custodial parent denied access by the custodial parent, and 50% of women admitted to having interfered with a fathers access to his children.
In out-of-wedlock births the support guidelines provide a perverse incentive for women to have multiple children with multiple fathers as two 17% payers (34%) is higher than one father paying for two (25%). Poor young men have no disincentive to having out-of-wedlock children as they have no income to be taxed. And those with out-of-wedlock children are incentivized to work off the books, crime and drug distribution two good off the books income earners. Access to their children can be had by providing direct financial support to the mother in exchange for access. And we are now in the third and forth generations of children raised in single mother homes, thus establishing it as the societal norm for 1/2 the population.
As government “helped” the family these past 6 decades we saw marriage decline, divorce and out -of-wedlock births increase and now 40% of children live absent their father, close to 75% of African American fathers. I think it’s plain to see, it isn’t fathers that need to be taught responsibility.
James Hays, Lt. (Ret) NY En-Con Police, past President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY) and past Director of the NY Men’s Action Network (NYMAN).
