Bias against fathers is killing children

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

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/2018/09/12/mamaroneck-cynthia-arce-charged-murder-daughter-gabriella-boyd/1277593002/

Our original post regarding the incident:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many other innocent children have to be sacrificed?

Bob the Non Custodial Father – NYC Fireman

It was the early spring of 2001 and I had received an email from “Bob”, a NYC Fireman (I never got his real name). He was looking for advice with his matrimonial issue and although we had others doing intakes for our non profit, Fathers and Families NY (FaFNY), I would handle police, fire, and military as I was certified in Critical Incident Stress Management, a police officer, former US Army, and an army brat to boot and can relate to those groups. We exchanged 3 or 4 emails concerning his case over several months.

As Bob tells it: Bob returned home from work one day to his small 2 bedroom apartment in NYC and noted a strange pair of men’s shoes under his bed. His “what are these?” inquiry had his wife respond they belong to her boyfriend and he stops there days when Bob’s at work. Hit with the relational violence of infidelity, made worse by the violation of his privacy, and subjecting his child to it no less, a large argument ensues. The yelling back and forth and the swearing is loud, each contributing equally to the argument.

The neighbors call the police and when they arrive Bob is lucky they find no marks on his wife. But even with no evidence of abuse Bob is told if he doesn’t leave they’ll arrest him for domestic violence as she is afraid of him. So Bob get’s an overnight bag and heads to a single buddies apartment, distraught and an emotional mess. Taking his buddies advice he calls the bank to find his checking account has a zero balance and half the savings are gone, leaving him about $40,000 (they were saving for a house). He finds the joint credit cards had been maxed out and he closes those accounts.

Bob contacts an attorney and gets an afternoon appointment with him. To his surprise, a process server finds him and he is then served with an order of protection and ordered to stay away from his wife, an order giving temporary custody to his wife, and a temporary child support order with the money to be deducted directly from his paycheck. He closes his savings account and puts that money into a checking account in his name only. The attorney requires a $5000 retainer to start his case and will get responding papers field within a couple of days.

A few weeks later Bob then made the mistake of thinking he could quietly watch his child’s school recital. He walked to the school and stayed off the grounds until the recital started, then ducked in the door and stood in the back. But a teacher recognized him and staff told him to leave, which he did without incident. But walking off the school grounds he was stopped and arrested for violating the order of protection. It was a night in the system before he was arraigned and made bail. It was a $2500 retainer to a criminal lawyer to fight that charge. He needs any help or support he can get.

Bob, like most, thought his treatment unique. He thought that he had somehow mistakenly been signaled out as a dangerous deadbeat and when given his day in court he would be able to rectify the situation. He was a good, hard working dad. It was his wife who had been unfaithful, and in spite of that he was not physically violent towards her in any way. Once he was in front of the judge and could explain the story they certainly would see the truth. He’s a fireman after all, a good father, and not a criminal.

I’m sure Bob took no solace in finding out that his treatment was the norm and not the exception. It is so common in fact I have put a templated “help” page on NY MAN so they are available when a father is first hit with the injustice. I warned Bob that the attorney’s, his included, would look to drag things out and he should file for divorce in Supreme Court to get it settled as fast as he could. I warned it might get worse before it gets better and that he should expect the system to drain all his assets and in the end order the “standard NY order” of visits of every other weekend and one or two mid week 4 hour visits and hopefully she doesn’t interfere or keep filing domestic violence claims as that would stop his access completely.

It is the irony of this broken and biased system designed to get “deadbeat dads” that it has morphed into a system which creates “deadbeat dads”. These so called “deadbeats” are actually committed fathers who are beat dead by relational and institutional violence which labels them dangerous, violent, drunk, abusive, drug addicts, and/or a deadbeat. The system drives them dead broke with extended litigation, costs, and “child support” which will leave them bankrupt then garnishes about 60% of their income for the next 18 years, the price to be a father. They are abused by a system which accepts false allegations as fact and punishes them for being physically present for their children. The system disenfranchises them as parents, reducing them to at best a visitor and at worst erasing them completely from their children’s lives, valued only for the money they pay into the system.

This is a system of omnipotent moral busybodies doling out oppression and injustice under the guise of “the best interest” of your child as they define it. It treats all fathers as guilty until they prove their innocence, a star chamber of “esquires”, robber barons, demanding ransom to be a visitor to your child. In the end it destroys your parental rights and replaces them with decisions by government bureaucrats, reducing “responsible fatherhood” to one who pays his child support into the system. Once the system reduces fathers to “non” (custodial) parents it will then lament that the children are in need “of father figures”, ignoring the fact it created the problem in the first place. Government breaks the family then blames dads. Being an upstanding member of society, serving society, and wearing a uniform is no protection from it.

I last heard from Bob in August that year. He had “settled” with his ex with “joint custody” her having primary physical possession, every other weekend and a Wednesday 4 hour visit for him which he was trying to fit it into his rotating schedule at work. His savings were gone and he was paying out about 50% of his gross income in support and bills ordered to pay. The need for a 2 bedroom apartment for his visits with his child was a strain but he was just getting by. The criminal charges were settled by him accepting an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal and a one year order of protection for his wife against him. He was afraid of another arrest (it would be a felony) but he kept 2 recording devices on himself at all times for any time he might be in proximity to his ex due to his being there for kid. It sucked but it was better than nothing. He hoped it would all calm down and he could be a father, as best he could given the circumstances.

He now knows he was set up by his ex wife who was using the system to her advantage but was coming to terms with her actions. But it was mostly the system he was angry at. How could he be held in high regard as a fireman one day and then treated like a common criminal the next? And for a year he fights with all he has to be a father and is treated like a dangerous deadbeat. Yet once it is settled he somehow once again returns to heroic good guy, a fireman. It is the person, not the uniform, which makes a man a role model, he stated. And I must agree.

I wish I could give you an update on “Bob” especially in light of events on September 11, 2001. But I can’t, I never heard from him again. It’s not uncommon for fathers to focus on the tasks at hand and prioritize work and time with children, especially non custodial visiting fathers taxed for time at both ends, work and kid. Often I would have contact with a father doing battle with the courts and not ever hear from him after the dust settled. I like to think Bob made it through the events that day unscathed. But I’ll never know.

What I do know is that 40% of U.S. children live absent their father. The vast majority are committed fathers who fight tooth and nail to be a part of their child’s life. It’s not the fathers fault, it’s the broken and biased system. I can only wonder how many firemen and policemen were treated like Bob and then ran into harms way to help another on that fateful day. From that day we started the war on terror, 17 years now of firemen, policemen, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, the vast majority men and many of them fathers, heroes, protectors of society and defenders of the weak. Sacrificing for a society that later persecutes them.

20 years of father and family advocacy shows me there are a lot of fire, police, and military fathers who sacrifice for our safety and freedom, only to be denied it at home. The system is tyrannical and unjust for any father and that’s wrong. But a system which collectively holds men responsible to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of society only to denigrate and destroy them individually is particularly tyrannical, oppressive, and cruel. It’s time we recognize boys and men for their value individually and what they bring to society and stop treating them as if they are only worthy of being cannon fodder then forgotten at home. We can start by treating fathers better, supporting fathers, heroes with or without a uniform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to US Senators to Support Parental Rights

August 7, 2018

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

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

Dear Senators:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

Fix Federal Child Support Laws to Lower Welfare Costs

August 7, 2018

Mr. Andrew Bremberg, Director
Domestic Policy Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington DC 20500
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Dear Sir;

I am writing to encourage reform of Title IVd of the Social Security Act and to ask for support for the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act so that children can have the benefit of two active and involved parents, regardless of marital status.

I understand the White House is proposing reform of welfare programs and food stamps by adding work requirements and looking to obtain “child support from both parents” for this benefit. From what I have read it appears that it’s deja vu all over again as welfare reform will not be addressing the underlying causes of single mother homes and disenfranchised fathers, which is the federal governments own policies, specifically Title IVd of the Social Security Act which fuels the disenfranchisement of a parent by the states, most often the father. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/child-support-reform/)

President Johnson’s war on poverty resulted in the removal of fathers from families for women and children to obtain benefits. At that time there was about 7% father absent families in America. Child Support at the federal level started in the Ford Administration and was designed to identify absent fathers and recover money expended by the federal government for children receiving welfare, in effect a tax. Ironically, this intent was never realized as recoveries have never been substantial, for lower income Americans, men and women, simply do not have the ability to earn adequate income. This is evident today as the number one reason a father is behind on child support is he’s poor, an inability to pay. (http://www.acfc.org/acfc/assets/documents/Articles/Child%20Support%20In%20America.pdf)

Under President Reagan the system was expanded and an “income shares” model developed which had 4 major flaws. It looked to maintain the standard of living of children if the parents had stayed married, it was NOT based on the cost of raising a child, there was NO guarantee that the “custodial parent” (the mother) would actually spend the money on the child, and there was NO access enforcement for the father as child support was considered separate from child custody. The states were mandated to have a system in place or lose federal reimbursement dollars. (http://www.fathermag.com/907/child-support/ )

Under President Clinton it actually got worse as he expanded the program (1996 PRWORA) and states looked to maximize their return from the federal coffers and so they “massaged” the system and expanded it to include middle class families which had previously had direct payment of child support outside of the system. Thus, fathers who were already paying on time and in full and carried children under their health care were added to the collection system to show “success”.

This developed into a massive government tracking system of middle class America, the New Hires Rule and computer data bases (both state and federal), and draconian collection methods such as wage garnishment, asset seizure, suspension of licenses, and even incarceration in debtors prison. States continue to massage their reporting to maximize reimbursements. One of the ways to maximize the reimbursements is to make the lower income earning parent “Custodial” (usually mothers) and the higher earning parent “Non Custodial” (usually fathers) and to not allow deviations of the standards for amount of time spent with the children (shared parenting arrangements).

Thus the system incentivized single mother “Custodial” households with financially taxed “Non Custodial” fathers. Two out of three dollars a state spends to collect “child support” (actually a child excise tax as it is based on income and number of children and returns to government coffers) comes from the federal government as states massage reporting to maximize returns. In New York State I was advised by child support that payers are “always in arrears” as they are assessed on Monday but pay on Friday, a perpetual arrears collection maximizing federal reimbursements based on fuzzy accounting and reporting methods.

And thus we end up in the conundrum where the federal government provides incentives to the states to break up families and disenfranchise fathers from children by state policy and procedure which maximizes the federal outlays to the states, in turn pressuring federal welfare coffers which causes the punitive federal policies towards fathers who were marginalized and disenfranchised from their children against their will in the first place. Fathers beat dead, driven dead broke, abused, and disenfranchised from their children to maximize state reimbursements from the federal government.

I have one question which should put this in perspective and for which I am sure there are no readily available statistics; How many custodial fathers work and do not rely on welfare for their children? If a single mother can’t work and adequately provide for her child financially why do we pilfer the fathers assets in a transfer to federal coffers while denying him custody (with no or minimal impact to federal coffers)? Wouldn’t father custody allow her the free time to earn a living? And check the system and see (if these stats exist) how many custodial fathers, not receiving welfare assistance, are also not receiving any (or minimal) child support from the non custodial mother?

The current system is also contrary to the U.S. Constitution, violating parental rights which are fundamentally guaranteed. Federalized child custody, support, and marriage initiatives violate states rights and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement itself is an unconstitutional federal agency. The fundamental rights of parents (and strict scrutiny) are violated daily to maximize federal reimbursements to the states. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/prra/) Federal child support payments incentivize the removal of parental rights. (http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol86/iss2/13)

The great irony is that all this is done under the guise of protecting children by government but has in fact created a system which places children in harms way as single mother homes show the highest negative outcomes for children in all areas. The safest place for children is in a two biological parent home and absent that an arrangement in which BOTH PARENTS provide for the nurturing (psychological and emotional) and physical needs of the child. The crisis of father absent homes is the result of government interference in the family which tragically, even results in the death of children. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/05/20/its-a-childs-best-interest-to-be-neglected-abused-or-killed-by-sole-custody/)

The system is broken, ironically broken by those that wished to do good. The myth of the “Deadbeat Dad” was debunked by a federally funded study in the 1990‘s. (see Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s,: The Surprising Truth About Fathers, Children, and Divorce (1998) Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. with Diane O’Connell) The vast majority of child support arrearages are due to high awards and the inability to pay on the part of the father. Inversely, fathers with shared parenting have an over 90% compliance rate which begs an answer to the question of why a father who has not abandoned his child financially is even in the system in the first place? Federal $$ incentives, obviously. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/02/24/stopfederalincentivesforfatherlesschildren/)

Non custodial parents under the current system are driven to poverty, this with no guarantee the money goes to the child. The social welfare and federal and state tax systems make it worse and blue collar “non custodial” parents simply can not make the extortion payments and still maintain ANY contact with their children. Just as the draconian collection methods directed at fathers failed to return dollars to federal coffers to offset outlays, so too will draconian collection methods to get “child support from both parents”. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/07/16/child-excise-tax-free-day-for-non-custodial-parents/)

Just as government policies under welfare in the 1970‘s provided financial incentives to remove fathers, so too does the current system of child support. By choosing to have an out of wedlock child a woman guarantees her income from either child support collections or a multitude of welfare programs or both. Not only does child support undermine marriage, as does welfare, it incentivizes a woman to have multiple out of wedlock children with different fathers as 17% for each child (34%) of two men’s incomes is better than 25% of one man’s income for two children (sliding scale income shares model).

STOP BLAMING MEN AND FATHERS. The rise in the crisis of father absent homes, from 7% in the 1970’s to over 40% today (and 60% in the African American community) correlates directly with the federal governments increasing interference in the family. If the government wishes to reduce expenditures more excise tax schemes and draconian collection methods will not work. Simply, you need to remove the financial gain to single mothers for the lifestyle decisions they make which disenfranchise fathers.

To this end I encourage reform of Title IVd to incentivize two parent households by basing payments to the states for the number of married households with children and for unmarried parents with shared parenting and private agreements which are not through state collection agencies, thus providing incentives for the active involvement of both parents in a child’s life and removing the incentive for the states to create “custodial” and “non custodial” parents and broken families living apart.

I encourage policy changes supporting parental rights and enactment of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act to restore the primacy of parental care and control of children superior to the well meaning but omnipotent moral busybodies of bureaucratic government. For indeed, the child support and welfare systems have fostered an ever increasing imposition of government standards and mores over all parental actions, even those of married parents biologically related to their children. This denial of parental rights is destroying American families and is undermining the liberties parents have under the Bill of Rights. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/08/06/undermine-parental-rights-to-undermine-all-other-rights/)

Blaming men, making men pay for the choices of women with no choice themselves, and ignoring the violations of men’s and fathers constitutional rights, especially parental rights, by government laws, rules, and regulations caused this mess. More of the same will not make it better and will only make it worse.

CC: Alex M. Azar, Secretary, DHHS, 200 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20201

Sonny Perdue, Secretary USDA 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington DC 20250

Vice President Michael R. Pence The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boys will be … defined? Is nature (sex) v. nurture (gender) settled debate?

Published 3-22-17 on the old NY MAN site.

When I fill out paper forms I cross out “gender” and write “sex” next to it. The PC police get mad at this, “it’s gender” they tell me and some even cross out “sex” and re-write in “gender”. I can only wonder how it was over time a persons sex turned into gender in classifying the sexes. Sex, defined, is the 2 main categories of humans based upon their reproductive functions (Sex organs). Gender, defined, is the state of being male or female based upon social and cultural differences and not by biology.

The argument of nature versus nurture as impacting human behavior has been going on the my entire social science career of 40 years. Except in rare circumstances people are born with either male or female reproductive functions and so throughout time we have identified people as either male or female. For example, you might be a heterosexual male or gay male but you were still identified by reproductive ability, male. Your sexuality and sexual preferences were separate from your sex.

Enter Gender Feminist Theory which holds that the sexes are actually “genders” and the state of being male or female is based upon social and cultural differences entirely and not on biology in any amount. The theory holds that your sex (defined by nature) has no bearing on how you act as a male or female, but that you are socially constructed to act a certain way. Boys will be boys because they are taught to be boys by society, so the theory goes, ditto for girls.

I guess missed the “it’s settled science” memo and reports in peer reviewed scientific journals explaining that nurture won out totally. I have seen no paper or report discussing that the issue of nature (reproductive function) over nurture (socially constructed) was settled science or that one had more weight than the other. From what I had read and reviewed, forced gender identification opposite to your sex actually caused developmental problems. A good example of biological sex holding over socialization is the case of David Reimer (Bruce at birth).

One of twin boys, Bruce, born in 1966 he had a botched circumcision which seriously damaged his penis. His parents brought him to a psychologist who advocated for the theory of gender neutrality, socially constructed boys and girls, and convinced his parents he would be better off raised as a female, so Bruce had sex reassignment surgery (testes removed) and was to be socialized as a female, Brenda, and given estrogen in adolescents for breast development. But the socialization didn’t work and “Brenda” did not identify as a girl. From 9 years old on “she” wasn’t acting the part and knew he was a boy.

At 14 years old “Brenda” had surgery (including a double mastectomy, testosterone injections and his penis reconstructed) and he changed his name to “David”. The failure of the gender socialization was reported in medical circles by noted sexologist Dr. Milton Diamond debunking the blank slate social construct gender theory and to prevent this from occurring in the future. The story was told in 1997 in the book “As nature made him: the boy who was raised as a girl”.

Even though the theory of a socially constructed “gender” was debunked prior to the turn of the century we still write “gender” on our forms and there are those who still see men and women as “socialized” beings, ignoring their biological sex. Certainly nurture plays a role in how we develop, and there is great overlap in how male and female humans behave naturally. But it is easy to see that it is the forced roles placed upon children which are bad, this whether you are forcing a boy into a traditional male role or are trying to force a boy into being a female.

We are beginning to see some people calling out the “gender” feminists for putting forth a socially constructed sex theory which is scientifically unproven and wrong and contrary to biology. Dr. Barry Kuhle, an evolutionary psychologist speaks to this denial of science in his piece in Psychology Today entitled “Giving feminism a bad name”. He points to the gender feminists radical response and denial of any science which contradicts their theories and beliefs.

Christina Hoff Sommers has also pointed to “gender” feminists theories undermining science most recently in a Dartmouth Review interviewwhere she not only takes to task those who would distort the truth for their ideology, she points to how those who put the social construct theory into practice with their own toddlers soon learn of its fallacy. A recent article in Intellectual Takeout, “Neuroscientist: Gender-neutral Parenting is Futile” quotes neuroscientist Debra Soh who cautions against treating children as blank slates with no biologically determined sex characteristics. The articles author, Annie Holmquist asks the valid question, “Are we actually degrading both male and female by encouraging them to ignore scientific fact and abandon the natural differences between the two sexes?”

I would answer her, yes we are. In my mind gender feminists are the sexists as they would define the behaviors of both male and female by theirdefinition of acceptable behavior based upon unproven theory all the while ignoring science based avenues of study with proven outcomes. Theirs is not a social science, it is a dogma to be followed with religious fervor. And treating children as blank slates and forcing them into unnatural gender roles can be damaging to their development.

Boys will be boys, girls will be girls, with a little bit of nurture piled on top of that. And it is our responsibility to ensure that each one, individually, is allowed many varied experiences and many opportunities so that they can decide what they enjoy and how to be for themselves. The argument of the weight of nature versus nurture will go on unsettled as individuals don’t fit into any one category. By definition nurture is to care for and encourage growth and development and I see in neither nature or nurture where it is beneficial to force upon or remove sex based roles upon a person.

What of men’s EQUAL right to reproductive choice

Published 2-26-17 on the old NY MAN site.

Before we jump into the morality and start to discuss the “right” of a woman to get an abortion let’s accept the fact that it is now the law of the land. Let’s add the other “reproductive rights” of women to the discussion also. She has the right of abstinence, to use birth control of her choosing prior to sex, the “morning after” pill the next day, the right to carry a pregnancy to term, the right to abandon the baby in a “safe” location without question, the right to place it for adoption, and no obligation to inform the father of any of her decisions.

And of men’s reproductive rights? Abstinence, condoms, and trust in your partner to be telling the truth about her reproductive status. As the NYS Court of Appeals has ruled, “a man has no right to reproduction post ejaculation”. This unequal application of rights and responsibilities of many is codified in judicial opinion. This is evidenced in multiple court decisions which held men FINANCIALLYresponsible for children even where the female sabotaged the condom by putting pin holes in it, “stole” his sperm from a discarded condom or other means, and even when it is taken by means of rape such as a recent case shows us, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/. Men who claim they do not want the child of an unintended pregnancy are held responsible anyway, indeed, are even labelled ‘deadbeats” for not “standing up” and accepting paternity.

Recently a bill in the OK legislature has brought the issue of equal rights in reproductive choices to the forefront as the bill would require the approval of the father before a woman is allowed an abortion. There was an immediate backlash from the left leaning women’s groups, the shout of “my body, my choice” resonating with posts spread all over social media to awake “women” to fight this “injustice”(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/0214/Oklahoma-lawmakers-debate-bill-requiring-men-s-permission-for-abortion-video?cmpid=FB.).

I felt compelled to post on the CSM Article an opposing view in the form of a question: Domen have no reproductive rights? We seem to be able to find a father when she wants child support. So if a man says he doesn’t want to pay for a child of an unwanted pregnancy he is a “deadbeat” but if a women wants to abort that child she is exercising her rights? A woman who has a child against a mans wishes is again exercising her rights, but a man who would ask that the pregnancy give him the child he wants he is then “forcing” her? So we’ll just give all reproductive rights to women and disregard that their choices affect the father, the child, and society at large? And can we say anything about responsibility for these “unwanted” pregnancies when women have so many means of birth control at their disposal?

In addition to the “my body, my choice” and the “women carry the baby” what also followed was a host of “men be responsible” comments, the “HE got HER pregnant” perspective which, ironically, failed to see the irresponsibility of women who find themselves in need of an abortion. The argument was framed around “her rights” and “his responsibilities” and when pressed both sides of the argument dismissed a man’s reproductive rights as ending at ejaculation, where his responsibility begins for her choice.

Not a single person seems to want to address the issue of how can we say men and women have equal rights when we deny men rights which woman have. Lost also in the discussion is RESPONSIBILITYfor the decisions. For we see a woman can give away her financial responsibility by giving the child up for adoption or even dropping it off anonymously. A man suffering an unintended pregnancy is forced to pay for her decision. Her choice is his being forced to 21 years of income execution, the sacrificing of his body at work without compensation. A poor woman witt a child gets welfare, a poor man with a child gets a garnished.

Perhaps the worst part of the denial of men’s reproductive rights is the fact that most men don’t walk away from the responsibility of her choice. Most are like Nick Olivas, our rape victim. At 14 he was statutorily raped by a 20 year old. Fast forward 6 years and Olivas learns he has a 6 year old child as he is served with child support papers demanding payments from the time of the child’s birth, even though he was not old enough to consent and was never informed of the existence of the child and allowed to decide to be a part of the child’s life.

Now, at 24 Olivas is trying to be a part of his child’s life stating, “I can’t leave her out there. She deserves a Dad”. Here he’s finding out that the state isn’t concerned with a fathers emotional support and raising his children for they consider the financial support as separate from access. And as he is sure to find out, there are a multitude of means to collect, even incarceration into a debtor prison if he can’t pay. But there are no avenues to help him with, much less guarantee, his time and emotional support for his child.

And what of a child’s rights? Is there no right to both parents? In going after Olivas for financial support the state says they are “doing it for the child”. Really? So why didn’t the state demand to know the father up front? Isn’t a child the product of both parents and doesn’t a child have a right to know both sides of their family tree and both heritages? Can someone from the state explain how it was in the child’s interest to be denied her father, his love and support, for 6 years, and then to collect retro dollars on her behalf? I’m waiting for that response? Why is a fathers dollars more important than his love and nurture?

In arguing for his legislation, Rep. Justin Humphrey stated he believes excluding the man out of these decisions is adding to the break down of society. Once again a man’s rights and a child’s rights are lost in the discussion and the requirement for the mother to notify the doctor of the child’s father was more to make him responsible than to protect his rights. His bill did do one thing, it exempted rape from the notification requirement, something we do not do for boys who are raped.

The bill was described as being opposed by “reproductive rights advocates” on unconstitutional grounds. The regional director of planned parenthood stated that “Oklahoma should trust women to make the choices that are best for them”. I suspect the choices are made easier when others bear the responsibility for your choices but have no choice themselves. The article should clarify that the advocates are for a woman’s reproductive choices without regard for the father, child, or society.

But as I read the U.S. Constitution I see it guarantees God given rights to every individual equally. And so I close with the question, What of men’s EQUAL right to reproductive choice?

Men in the Middle

First published 2-19-17 (on the old NY MAN web site)

The bulk of us in the middle of the bell curve of male perspectives and issues regarding family are being shouted down by the din from the echo chambers on the right and left. A polarized media spin which ignores the voices and opinions of men. Regardless of liberal or conservative it is a cacophony of moral busybodies advocating for the “rights” of women while holding men responsible to pay for the choices made by others. And unfortunately our perceptions and policies on men, father, boys, and families, are derived from the loud extreme ends and not from the needs, wants, and desires of men and boys in middle America as expressed by them.

Years back (2004) we at the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. (FaFNY.org) complained to the Albany (NY) Times Union about sexual bias in reporting with them having more woman’s perspectives than men’s. Of course they denied it. So we did a content analysis over a 30 day period where we cut over 60 articles about women’s issues with none of them negative and 5 articles about men, 3 negative. We met with the editorial board, they again denied being biased and we then plunked the paper articles on the table in front of them in 2 piles. The long pregnant pause set over the room. This, we said, shows great sexual bias in reporting against men, a regurgitation of the NY Times bias against men.

“We don’t see it that way” said the mostly male editorial board, flat-out denial of the evidence before them. Perhaps our response to their continued head in the sand denial of bias was a little extreme when we gave them the “Pretty Pig Award” for 2004 as “You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want but at the end of the day it’s still a … pig”. We even offered to provide little votive boxes with pink ribbons to the male editors so they could carry their testicles around with them and put them safely away while at work. It doesn’t hurt to burn a bridge that they won’t let you cross anyway.

One would have hoped over the next 10 plus years that social media and competing news outlets would have made things better, but it hasn’t. At best it is the same, perhaps even worse with truth second to belief. This past year I found the same NY Times regurgitation of anti male bias in the Schenectady (NY) Gazette online edition. I complained to the editorial board that they had more NY Times content than local news, mostly anti-male. I posted this opinion on their web-based comments section for each anti male article but when I didn’t even receive a form response to any of my inquiries I cancelled my subscription.

Over the past few days Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/07/better-sex-better-health-more-money-what-men-really-get-out-marriage.html#) Science Daily (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170207135943.htm#.WJ9qHLLgizs.facebook), and National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444746/marriage-benefits-men-financial-health-sex-divorce-caveat?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=wolfinger) have had pieces advising men to get married for their own good. This on the heels of a podcast by Prager University which resulted in an outpouring of negative “what planet are you on” responses by men. All the articles are based on one recent study by a pro marriage sociologist that marriage is good for men resulting in “more sex, better health, and more money”. Don’t be a selfish oaf going your own way they advise as there is obviously something wrong with men. We see the echo regurgitation in multiple outlets of the “marriage” party line, even in the face of push back from men who point out the 50% divorce rate, the vast majority filed by women, which results in the destruction of many men.

This on top of a January NY Post hit piece on men, “How to make deadbeat dads do more to help out” (http://nypost.com/2016/12/21/how-to-make-deadbeat-dads-do-more-to-help-out/). Even though the myth of the deadbeat dad was busted back in 1995 finding that the majority of men were beat dead, dead broke, and disenfranchised, they hold to the “deadbeat” label. Recent studies have shown that the bulk of unpaid child support is due to poverty on the part of men. Ironically the focus of the article is NOT how to get poor men out of poverty for their health and well-being, it is to try to get them to pay into federal coffers to reimburse for welfare and entitlement payments given to women. In this day and age of “gender” equality one does wonder why we don’t hold mothers accountable for financially providing for their children and have developed a social safety net for women and children only.

In 1975 we had a divorce rate in single digits as was the rate of homes with children absent a father. The echo chambers of right and left have pushed policies which caused a divorce rate of 50% and 40% of children living in homes absent a father. Contrary to the din which would lay the blame on men and fathers as “abusive deadbeats who forego marriage” the result is from the negative consequences for men. Over two-thirds of divorces are unilaterally filed by women against men, men lose custody of their children over 85% of the time, and they are then forced to pay for the children they aren’t allowed to raise. There are no family violence programs for male victims of family violence nor are there any financial social safety nets for men.

I have been a men, boy, father, and family activist now for over 20 years with organizations like FaFNY (http://www.fafny.org/), the National Coalition For Men (http://ncfm.org/), NY Men’s Action Network (http://www.nymensactionnetwork.org/), and Friends for the Protection of Men (https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectionformen/). Maybe it’s time you stopped telling us how to be men, fathers and families. Maybe it’s time you stopped turning a blind eye to our problems. And maybe it’s time you stopped turning a deaf ear to our issues. You could learn more with your mouth closed and your ears open. That is my “Dad” advice, direct to you from my father.

Undermine Parental Rights to Undermine all Other Rights

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

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

Why is this important to constitutional rights advocacy organizations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parents’ Rights and Responsibilities Act of 20??

_______ CONGRESS _____ Session

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

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 20??

A BILL

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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) requires a parent to initially demonstrate that–

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:

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

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

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

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

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

(4) RIGHT OF A PARENT TO DIRECT THE UPBRINGING OF A CHILD-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERING WITH OR USURPING RIGHTS OF PARENTS.

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

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

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

SEC. 5. STRICT SCRUTINY.

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

SEC. 6. CLAIM OR DEFENSE.

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

SEC. 7. ATTORNEY’S FEES.

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