In typical gynocentric fashion the Epoch Times highlights a story of a “single mom” who is supposed to be lauded for choosing birth over abortion. Lost in the one sided telling is the story of the father who, as is the standard in support of the “single mother success stories,” is portrayed as a danger to mother and child in this case made worse than the usual unverified allegations of abuse and “fear” using mental health issues to both justify the disenfranchisement of the father and to deny their participation in driving the father to death by suicide.
We learn that the couple started a relationship in Idaho where she “fell for him super hard.” When she moved to Colorado the boyfriend moved to be with her but upon learning that he had mental health issues she decided to end the relationship. She alleges to learn of the pregnancy one week after the breakup. The father attempted to remain in contact with the mother so she filed for a restraining order to prevent him from contacting her.
At one point the “heroic single mother” considers putting the baby up for adoption to avoid a custody battle, again dismissing the rights of the father and of his entire family to be involved in raising the child. The unfortunate “complication” of the father asserting his parental rights is settled when he takes his own life to end the pain of disenfranchisement. It is then that she decides to keep the baby. To escape the “anger of the dads side” and others who blamed her for the fathers suicide the mother returned to Idaho, further alienating the fathers family.
The article ignores the systematic denial of fathers rights to be a parent by a system which sees no value other than paying financial support and which fosters Parental Alienation by one parent which excludes the other parents entire family. The number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time raising his children is a limiting court order and number two is a mother who interferes with his access to his children.
Further, Men suffer suicide rates at 4 times that of women but in child custody case this jumps to 10 times that of women, a good indication of the systemic abuse that fathers have to endure in trying to be a parent. This article blames the true victim for being unable to endure the pain of being forcibly removed from your child without cause. The denial of care and concern for the father is used as “proof” of the justification for disenfranchisement.
Blaming the victim allows all involved; mother, maternal family, courts, social services, and the media, to wash their hands of the blood that is on them as “there was something wrong with him.” Obviously it was “his own fault” and they had no part in driving a man to suicide. The heroic single mother is so “magnanimous” she has “let go of the anger she felt at Josephine’s father.”
I suspect that the father’s family would view this “inspirational” story differently, the father’s and his families perspective which was ignored in the entire article.
With fathers day upon us we’ll certainly see in the MSM a bevy of pseudo father stories of “father figures,” including mothers as father figures, who stepped up and “did it right.” This is one of the reasons I don’t read or watch any MSM. But even in so called father friendly pieces we see the gynocentric bias towards viewing fathers from the perspective of the wants and needs of women and how society thinks fathers should behave towards their children. The obligatory virtue signaling “I’m one of the good fathers” and social distancing from those other “deadbeat dads” will be loud while ignoring the pitfalls of marriage and fatherhood for men which are, in part, driving down marriage and birth rates.
As is the norm the writings regarding fathers on fathers day ignores the fathers who were there financially and emotionally there for their children, who were disenfranchised by a system which demands their financial contributions to the point of debtors prison and which does nothing to foster and reward active involvement, indeed a system which punishes any attempt to be more than a visitor. It will ignore the father who had a unilateral divorce forced on him controlling his assets and income in the present and future, losing his custody and children in a court system which sees him the same as the out of wedlock father, a wallet and a visitor. Marriage is now made a negative over out of wedlock couples as the married father is subject to alimony and loss of his residence and business in addition to being made to pay ‘child support” for children he isn’t allowed to raise.
ACFC Flyer distributed widely to national and state governments and multiple media outlets over 20 years ago
Misandrist gynocentric and chivalrous white knight views abound in all media outlets, the Epoch Times, New York Post, Heritage Foundation, and ABC/WFTS Tampa Bay examples follow. Being active in the parental/fathers rights movement for over 25 years I have submitted multiple op eds, letters to the editor, and rebuttals to coverage including to Epoch, the Post and Heritage and the response has been mostly crickets. And year after year we get the same “(’m a morally superior) married father and your should be also or the (I’m a morally superior) actively involved father unlike the “deadbeats” around me stories, which are many and the norm. Stories of disenfranchised fathers who are struggling and fighting to be a father are few and far between. Even if they do appear they have the obligatory “unlike those other deadbeats” commentary, as if active involved fathers are the exception and not the norm.
In From Neglect to Nurturing: A Fathers Day Transformation (6-16-23 Epoch Times) Adam B. Coleman relates his experience with his absent (deadbeat) biological father. He relates how he treated “his extramarital children as the least important.” From this I surmise he had extramarital siblings. While I can see the negative emotions his lack of relationship with his father placed upon him I see no similar negative emotions in this piece for having a mother who chose to have a children out of wedlock with a married man. Why is a man’s unwillingness to be a father denigrate while a woman is free to abort, abandon with no penalty, or give up for adoption without the “deadbeat” mom label?
He further speaks of the abandonment when they became homeless twice and he didn’t help them and how his mother would try to force the relationship. Missing here is the fathers perspective on the matter. Was the father paying “child support” which is actually an excise tax if the mother is on welfare as it returns to state coffers which financially strained him? Was he beholden to his current wife under threat of divorce, facing loss of access to his other biological children, loss of his house and further financial strain? If he paid his child support on time and in full didn’t he meet his paternal obligation as defined by government and much of society?
I’m glad to see Mr. Coleman had a good relationship with his own son but missing from his piece is did he marry his son’s mother and raise him (and his other siblings?) in an intact 2 biological parent home? If not, can we pass judgement on him for not doing so and for being an “absent” “visiting” father? He says his son understands he isn’t perfect and I can only wonder if his life circumstances cloud his understanding of why his father did what he did which removes his ability to see his father (and mother), as individuals? It’ not that I agree with what he did, but I wasn’t him so who am I (or anyone else) to pass judgement? One of the challenges of family is to accept and understand them as individuals with their own set of life challenges and move on in life not making the same mistakes as them as we ourselves mature.
As evidence of the one sided perspective of the media, even balanced or conservative media, Adam B. Coleman continues his discussion in This Fathers Day, let’s encourage dads to be in their kid’s lives – and maybe save some in the process (6-16-23 New York Post). His discussion here is more general regarding the problems of single parent (mostly single mother) homes and the decision to form them by divorcing our spouse is harming children. He has valid points, many of which parental/fathers rights advocates and disenfranchised fathers agree with. Yes, children do fare better in a 2 biological parent home and absent that a shared parenting arrangement (no less than 35% of access time for a parent).
He states Fathers Day should be a “day for advocating reconciliation for the fathers of America who regrettably choose themselves over their children” and further states, “Our Government can’t pass a law to make fathers get involved in their child’s life” showing ignorance of the federal government policies which have disenfranchised fathers and continue to do so. It is common to blame the father, this has been occurring since Moynihan’s Report pointed out the crisis of 25% out of wedlock birthrate in the African American community in the 1960s. Unfortunately across all communities and across time the focus is on “what is wrong with men and fathers.”
Mr. Coleman points out his mother told him that his father encouraged her to abort him. I highly suspect if she had considered it herself she would not relay that to him. That said, men have NO reproductive rights. Men who are willing to be fathers have their children aborted against their will. Further, men who do NOT want to be fathers are forced to be financially responsible regardless of their wishes. And in our gynocentrically oriented society we vilify a man who doesn’t want to be a father but is forced into it yet the over 620,000 women who chose to get an abortion in 2020 get a pass on the “deadbeat mom” label.
African American women are about 14% of the population and yet they are 36% of abortions, over 130,000 in 2020. Even given the lack of male reproductive rights, can anyone show that the number of “deadbeat” non involved dads is greater than the non involved through abortion “deadbeat moms?” My experience with out of wedlock fathers is they go to extraordinary efforts to try to be an active father in their child’s life, this with no support or assistance from the groups which are publicly cajoling them to be more active. The majority are at the hospital at the birth of their child and the majority sign on as father on the birth certificate.
Once a woman decides to have a child the federal government encourages paternity establishment by paying the states incentive dollars under Title IVd of the Social Security Act (SSA). This also provides incentive payments for the establishment of the total number of child support orders, amount collected versus owed, collection of arrears, and the cost of the program. What is missing is incentive payments to states for father involvement and/or marriage. Many fathers find out that paternity offers them NO protection to access and ability to parent and raise their child.
An example is “The Good Dad Act” in Florida, recently passed legislation which proclaims to give unmarried fathers the same rights and responsibilities that the mother has. That said, Bernard Jennings was on the birth certificate as the father of his child and was primary caregiver of him for 7 years when the mother took the child and moved away. He finally located her and served papers for “visitation,” said case being put on the calendar 5 months away. The primary caregiver reduced to 2nd class parent and, if he’s lucky, visitor. See New Florida law to give more parental rights to unmarried biological fathers (6-12-23 ABC/WFTS Tampa Bay).
Also highlighted is the story of Ulysess Carwise. His daughter was given up for adoption 2 days after birth without his consent. DNA paternity was conclusive that he is the fathers, but as the court battle drags on his child was allowed to stay with the adoptive parents and she is now 5 years old and believes the adoptive parents are her parents and her father a “visitor” as the battle to terminate his parental rights drag on through multiple courts. The adopting out against the wishes of the father is a common event across the country.
The terms “non custodial” parent and “visitation” are insulting and reprehensible to parents who want to exercise both their (supposedly guaranteed Constitutional) parental rights and their parental responsibilities and they are most often applied to fathers who are relegated to second class parental status. We label fathers a “non” parent and offer them every other weekend and one mid week 4 hour dinner visit, the standard “visitation” order across the nation, and then lament the fact that fathers are not more involved in their children’s life. The right of access and enforcement for interfering are non existent and so the visitation order is a suggestion “allowed” at the discretion of the mother. 50% of mothers admit to having interfered with a fathers time with his children (Sanford Braver 1995).
ACFC Flyer distributed widely to federal and state governments and multiple media outlets over 20 years ago
Deadbeat Dad was a term often used as a pejorative applied to fathers across the board as Title IVd of SSA put fathers into a financial provider role only and was designed, not to collect ‘child support” for the mother but to recoup payments made to “single mothers” who were receiving government benefits of any kind. When the system failed due to the fact that poor mothers needing assistance had poor fathers for their children who were unable to contribute financially, the system was expanded to capture the formerly married divorced (most against their will) fathers who were already paying child support direct to the mother of their children based upon individual state laws. As such it morphed into an income transfer from husbands to wives and is touted as a government “success” for women and children.
No Fault Divorce started in CA and moved east with NY being the last state in the nation to enact it. There is a perception that married fathers are treated better than out of wedlock fathers but in fact they are labelled “non custodial” and given the same standard order of “visitation” and “child support” as out of wedlock fathers. “Child Support” (Child Excise Tax) is set as a percentage of income based upon number of children (i.e. 17% for one child, 25% for 2, etc.) with the money paid through the child support system (a federal bureaucracy with 50 state bureaucracies in each state). Unfortunately for fathers the percentages were set pre tax and as such the payer suffered the tax liability and a father of 2 children could see his $50,000 a year gross income reduced to $7487 net income and the mothers pre divorce income of $25,000 increase to a $38,557 net. “Single mothers” have a perverse incentive to have multiple out of wedlock children with multiple fathers (i.e. 2 children x 2 fathers = 34%, 2 children x 1 father = 25%).
Thus the federal system placed perverse incentives for the states to make fathers “non custodial visitors and payers of child support” regardless of the former marital status and perverse incentives on women to divorce their husband or have multiple children out of wedlock. Historical two income blue collar families kept the father, mother and child out of poverty but now, by placing the father into poverty for the years of his children’s minority, and often beyond as many state mandated payments for “children” until 21 years old regardless of their relationship with their father, fathers are reduced to poverty to keep mother and child out of poverty. Further, arrears can not be reduced for any reason so a poor father in arrears often suffers collection by the state after his children reach majority and no longer need financial support, often until his children have children of their own.
The problem is not a liberal or conservative one with the federal uniparty giving incentives to the states to create single mother homes and then make fathers, and if not them, taxpayers pay for women and children. As Ronald Reagan would say, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” should strike fear in an individual, and in his case it is poetic in that as Governor of CA he initiated No Fault Divorce and as President initiated the federal child support system which put mandates’ and awarded perverse incentives to the states, to create “single mother” homes and “non custodial fathers” whose responsibility was only financial. The liberal government subsidizes “single mother” homes and the conservative government forces the disenfranchised father to pay the costs, at the risk of debtors prison, of her decision to marry the daddy state.
One need look no further than The Heritage Foundation, the useful idiots of Reagan policy, to see the federal think tank which pushes such ideology. Yelling from the roof tops, “marriage before carriage” and the “success sequence” (We Need Committed Dads To Quiet Our Cultural Chaos 6-17-23 The Federalist), colloquialisms of the just get married and be happy crowd as they fail to recognize that men have no reproductive rights, a large part of women control who gets married, marriage is a hostile environment for men, and women file the majority of divorces as it is financially in their interest and now socially acceptable to do so. Jump in boys, a mere 50% will burn a slow death, even odds, but it worked for (morally superior) me!
Worse they ignore the assault on parental rights which began with the denial of fathers rights. Heritage denied fathers rights while still holding them responsible while inversely claiming to uphold the parental rights of mothers while holding them to no responsibility whatsoever. Enter here the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, pushed forth by Heritage but excluding the “non custodial” parents, fathers, of course. Here is my updated version which includes all parents, sent to them in 2019 and several times a year thereafter with no response.
Early on I had been warning of the assault on parental rights, with both the left and right taking a blind eye to the injustice, as it was bound to impact BOTH parents, including married parents. Indeed, many a “custodial” parent found themselves (after much litigation and expense) reduced to “non custodial” status and to now be poorly treated by a system they once thought their advocate but quickly learning the system is out to benefit itself. In Albany, NY in the 1990s we saw married parents dragged into family court by a school system which demanded the parents do as ‘the professionals” said, which we warned was a harbinger of things which are occurring now. The denial of fathers rights and government control of them in the 1970s has been a slow crawl to the denial of parental rights and government control of children for ALL parents in the 2020s.
Coleman would show himself to be an involved father, morally superior to his own father even though admitting the reasons for his actions were never relayed. Jennings also makes sure he’s differentiated from those “deadbeats” stating, “There are some men out there that are not doing what they’re supposed to do to be a father, but there are other men who really want to be a part of their child’s life, married or not, they want to take responsibility, they want to parent their child.” Roberts and Squires with Heritage would lecture us fathers, “We need men who are unafraid to stand up for their wives and children and who see protecting and providing for their families as their most important vocation.” How will we do that if we can legally be beat dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised form out families? And will we see the same treatment for mothers who “walk away” from their responsibility by abortion, abandonment, or adoption of their children this next mothers day?
Here’s a thought for those men that think to virtue signal themselves as a superior father to other fathers, woman who thinks they can define what a good father is, and government which forces fathers into visiting wallets, yet all demanding fathers be more involved, get your head out of your gynocentric orifice and recognize it is a hostile environment created by government for men to get married and for men to have children that is the problem, not men and fathers. Morally superior chastisement does nothing to fix the hostile environment and fails to recognize government created this environment and caused the problems. You can save your lectures and virtue signaling, for us fathers who were willing to be financially and emotionally responsible for our children but were beat dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised from our parental rights and our children your hypocritical misandrist totalitarianism is just more of a reason for us to hold you in contempt on what is for us, Fathers missing our children Day.
The DOJ is asking SCOTUS to overturn a decision overturning a federal conviction for felony possession of a firearm due to restrictions by an order of protection (OOP). Zackey Rahimi had agreed to a civil OOP after a physical altercation with his girlfriend which according to 18 United States Code 922 prevented him from possessing firearms as it “prohibited” him from harassing, stalking, or threatening her or their child. Police later found him in possession of a rifle and a pistol and he was charged with a federal felony. On appeal his conviction was overturned as it conflicted with the SCOTUS Bruen Decision and the Second Amendment.
The left wing is in turmoil over this decision with many a headline shouting “domestic abusers” have a right to own firearms. The anti gun crowd has always worked in concert with the liberal feminists who perceive men as dangerous, and those with guns even more dangerous. A search of “female domestic violence use of firearms” reveals a bevy of left wing, anti gun (including government) sites framing the debate from the gynocentric perspective of female victims and male perpetrators. The anti gun lobby would like to make this into a public health debate and is willing to vilify men as dangerous perpetrators of violence to justify restrictions on firearm ownership.
The ignoring of male victims of domestic violence and abuse with the one sided portrayal of woman as victims and men as perpetrators has been pushed by not only the political left but also the political right with “white knight” TradCons stepping up to “protect women” at the expense of the rights of individual men. None of the national Second Amendment organizations, indeed no conservative or justice organization at all, advocate on behalf of men who are daily subjected to false allegations of abuse which restricts their right to possess firearms issued by biased judges in biased courts systems. Issued on the flimsiest of allegations of fear and based upon no evidence of actual violence the OOP’s remove mens Second Amendment Rights without due process.
It appears that Rahimi isn’t a good poster boy to argue the injustice of seizing firearms which occurs daily in the US under OOP’s and Temporary OOP’s but the case supports the argument that the only person limited by these orders are the people who would not violate them to begin with. It also shows how a civil matter can be made into a federal case and expanded into a felony. 18 USC 922 makes it a felony to possess a firearm if an OOP is in place prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening a “significant other” and it has been shown there is a reasonable fear of bodily injury. Civil cases are determined based upon a preponderance of evidence, often defined as 51% in favor. While entitled to a hearing, this low threshold allows a judge to believe a woman making a claim of fear in a he said, she said situation with no other corroborating evidence.
Rahimi agreed to a civil protection order in Feb 2020. In regards to harassing, etc. the mother of his child, it appears there were violations of the OOP with charges filed for violating the court order. However, in December of 2020 and into January of 2021 it is reported that Rahimi had at least 5 incidents involving a firearm, shooting into a residence after a narcotics deal, shooting a driver of a vehicle he got into an accident with, shooting at a Constable, and shooting into the air at a restaurant after a friends credit card was denied. When serving an arrest warrant he was found to possess a rifle and pistol in his residence and was charged with a felony and convicted under 18 USC 922, said conviction overturned under appeal.
There is no mention of Rahimi’s conviction for any of the multitude of firearms incidents that he had allegedly committed. In the ruling overturning his conviction it is noted that Rahimi is “hardly a model citizen,” however, he was not a convicted felon. It appears, for whatever reason, the decision was made not to pursue state charges which were at a felony level, at least at the time of prosecution under 18 USC 922 (g)(8). Conviction of a domestic violence misdemeanor for violating the OOP by approaching his ex (18 USC 922 g9) or conviction of a felony in state court (18 USC 922 g1) would have subjected him to enforcement under these federal regulations.
The actions of Rahimi post acceptance of his OOP shows that the OOP is pretty much a worthless piece of paper which does not prevent a person from committing violence as the violent acts themselves carry more punitive punishments than violating the order (if properly charged and convicted of the violence). What the OOP’s do is subject a person in a civil matter who is not inclined towards violence to criminal charges under the vague term of “harassing.” Many Temporary OOP’s are issue ex parte, often on exaggerated or outright false allegations to gain leverage in divorce or family court.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Ho found 922(g)(8) difficult to justify because it disarms people based upon civil protection orders and not criminal proceedings. This has long been a problem with OOP’s issued in matrimonial and family courts as the preponderance of evidence standard requires much less evidence than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, trial by jury is mandated only in criminal cases thus people are subjected to the biases of the judge. Once an OOP is issued actions, such as a verbal disagreement over custody, can result in criminal charges against a man who is charged criminally with a domestic violence misdemeanor for which he has to spend time and resources to avoid incarceration and loss of his right to possess firearms. A second “violation” results in felony charges.
This I know from personal experience. At a custody dispute I was charged with 2 simple violations (akin to traffic tickets), charges so low I did’t even have to notify the police agency I worked for, I had a “temporary” OOP issued which seized my firearms and put me out of work for months until I cut a deal to carry a firearm at work but was otherwise restricted (Lets red flag unconstitutional red flag laws). Faced with a lifetime order of protection I agreed to plea to one simple violation and paid a $50 fine. Her repeated false allegation of “reaching where I keep my gun” and the one year OOP prevented me from accessing my children due to the possibility of arrest for a felony. And my story is not the exception but the norm.
As previously mentioned search “female – DV – firearms” and up pops #1 the Brookings Institute, 2 is The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence which is now the John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 3 is National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and on and on. Liberal anti male, anti gun organizations form a loose coalition all advocating for restrictions to your second amendment rights by arguing that gun ownership is a public health and safety issue. They would use incidents like Rahimi to blame all men and blame all guns and gun owners ignoring that Rahimi is an exception to how most gun owners conduct themselves. Justice is undermined under the guise of doing good by ignoring the innocent persecuted individuals.
In its Writ of Certiorari the AG’s office argues that the Fifth Circuit decision “misses the forest for the trees” but we can see in their argument the same biased “men are abusers of women” argument adding that guns add to the danger in domestic violence situations. Supporting the argument they are biased and gynocentric is the statement that “the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” It is the AG’s Office which misses the forest for the trees ignoring both male victims of domestic violence and persons involved in mutual violence. They also ignore the fact that civil matrimonial and family court do NOT provide due process, indeed, many are “courts of equity” not bound by the standards of criminal courts and often the “defendant” is forced to operate without legal counsel as none are provided free of charge as they are in criminal court.
If national gun rights organizations, conservative organizations, and individual justice organizations are serious about upholding the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially due process for individuals they need to seriously look at their handling, or lack thereof, of persons (the vast majority men) who are denied due process and railroaded by government policies and government agencies which believe they can violate your rights under the guise of doing good. As to why they do so I close with a quote from C.S. Lewis, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
As President Biden signs the “Respect for Marriage Act” I am reminded that after NYS was the last state to oppose unilateral divorce we switched our support for marriage to advising MEN – DON’T GET MARRIED. Be careful what you ask for was authored by Randall L. Dickinson, FaFNY VP in 2004! Shamefully, the problems outlined are still relevant today. Here it is in its entirety.
The recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision granting gays the right to marry and the highly publicized same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in San Francisco, are only the latest examples of what some are suggesting may become the most important social issue of the upcoming presidential election. As the debate intensifies, those on both sides of the social and political spectrum continue to define their positions on gay marriage, indeed, on the very definition of the institution of marriage itself. While those on the political left, backed by the Democratic Party and aided by the liberal press/media attempt to frame the issue as one of civil rights, conservatives on the right, backed by the Republican Party, promote a more traditional definition of marriage. Indeed, most recently, President Bush, himself, has called for a Constitutional Amendment that would clearly define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Largely overlooked in all of the sound and the fury, however, is one aspect of the broader issue itself that gays and lesbians might want to ponder before proceeding much further on their quest for the Holy Grail of the homosexual agenda. Beyond the ideals of “marriage” and “family”, what are the realities associated with each in the late 20th and early 21st centuries; how have they evolved, what are the implications for those wishing to enter into the bonds of matrimony, and what happens when it all ends, and couples no longer wish to remain married.
Changes in state laws beginning in the early 1970’s have given a legal preference to any spouse wishing to leave a marriage, even if the other spouse wants to preserve the marriage and has done nothing to give the deserting spouse “grounds” for a divorce. Such laws have essentially acted to empower whichever party wants out, leaving the spouse who wants to preserve the marriage powerless to prevent its dissolution and with no recourse but acquiescence.
The marriage contract has, thus, been described as having been reduced to little more than a contractual economic partnership devoid of any legal protection. Maggie Gallagher states, in her book The Abolition of Marriage, that it has become “less binding than the average business deal. Marriage is one of the few contracts in which the law explicitly protects the defaulting party at the expense of his or her partner”. If all of our business transactions were conducted in a similar fashion, our national economy would collapse. With the marital contract now worth less than the paper it’s written on, why should we deceive ourselves into thinking that it is not having the same devastating impact on our marriages and our families.
Adding to laws that help facilitate the divorce process are others that drive the decision to initiate it. Research has shown that the single greatest factor in determining which party is most likely to file for a divorce is the expectation of being awarded custody of the kids. Along with the kids usually comes a whole range of other financial benefits, as well, including child support, alimony, the marital residence, and one half of the remaining marital assets. With most states still adhering to the standard sole custody model, wherein one party receives the kids, while the other is left to pay, it’s not difficult to understand how at least one of them may perceive little or no downside.
The elimination of any need to establish grounds for a divorce was based on the presumption that both parties are equally motivated to end a marriage, and was supposed to make the process less adversarial and more amicable. Today, 50 percent of all first time marriages and 60 percent of all second marriages will end in divorce, 80 percent of them initiated against the wishes and the will of one of the parties. Ooops!
Such public policies as these have been supported by both liberals and conservatives alike. Ironically, many elected representatives, jurists, legal “experts”, and social services “professionals” who advocate for the right of gays to marry, at the same time continue to resist any reasoned consideration of the impact these same policies may be having on the dual institutions of “marriage” and “family” and the trap that may await those who sail blindly into these uncharted waters.
Nor has the institution of the Church been any great help. While continuing to pay lip service to the ideals of strong marriages and healthy families, most churches today appear reluctant to address the issue of divorce for fear of offending their congregations, large portions of which having experienced the phenomenon of divorce either directly or indirectly in some manner. Preferring to go along in order to get along, many churches that haven’t chosen to ignore the elephant in the room altogether, have simply adopted a policy of acceptance. Rather than providing assistance for couples struggling to save their marriages, and admonishing them that the Church will not condone divorce as an option, some churches have, in essence, begun to legitimize divorce by performing so called “New Beginnings” ceremonies designed to help divorcing couples “move on” with their lives. Today the divorce rate among those professing to be Christians and who claim to attend church on a regular basis is higher than it is for the general population overall. Coincidence? Maybe, but it’s difficult not to draw certain inferences.
Before the gay and lesbian community becomes myopic in its passion for the equal right to marry, it might be wise to consider, as well, the need to lobby for the equal right to certain protections under the law following divorce. Matrimonial and Family Law, including those dealing with the custody of children, the “equitable” distribution of marital property, and child support standards are in desperate need of a major overhaul. Without such reforms, rather than embarking on a journey toward nuptial bliss, many gays and lesbians may find that they have unwittingly entered into a Faustian bargain, ending in the inferno of Divorce Hell. The message for gays and lesbians is crystal clear: be careful what you ask for; you might just get it.
Randall L. Dickinson resides and works in the Albany, New York, area and is Vice President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. The Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. is a not-for-profit public information, education, and lobbying organization dedicated to the advocacy of family related issues and to preserving the relationship between fathers and their children. Its national affiliate is the American Coalition of Fathers and Children
Call for inputs (deadline Dec. 15, 2022) https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2022/call-inputs-custody-cases-violence-against-women-and-violence-against-children
I am writing in response to your call for inputs regarding custody cases and parental alienation. You can find my personal story of alienation here, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2022/12/a-story-of-parental-alienation/ but I submit not as an individual but as an advocate for parents suffering in the current (anti) family courts. I include my bona fides at the end of this testimony.
First I must call out your bias in this review. You focus on violence against women and children, specifically violence in the home, ignoring the fact that what is occurring in family courts is the violent removal of one parents rights and the violent removal of a child from one parent and that parents family tree. It is the sole custody decree which causes this. This focus on false allegations of parental alienation (PA) ignores the fact that PA occurs to both mothers and fathers. It also ignores that men are also the victims of domestic violence. I ask is there a Special Rapporteur on violence against men? If not, why not?
My (former) organization, FaFNY, was an educational and advocacy organization working towards shared parenting arrangements to be the norm in NYS. Based in Albany, NY we were the umbrella organization for various father, mother, grand parent, and children’s organization. In fact my earliest introduction to PA was by “Elizabeth” who was with the NYC Chapter of the Children’s Rights Council. An alienated mother herself, she explained to me that my ex was using alienating actions similar to what her ex had done to her.
I also attended the Battered Mother Custody Conference (BMCC) which was held annually in the Albany area and am familiar with the discussions around their opposition to PA. I noted there that many of the non custodial mothers were the victim of PA in their personal cases. I note for the record that PA is NOT recognized in NYS Courts. That said, individual actions to undermine the other parents relationship with the child can be entered as evidence of a need for primary physical possession with one or the other parent. This is what happened to the NY mothers who lost custody of their children, many involving multiple false allegations of child sexual abuse which were determined by the courts to be false, the parent put on notice to stop, and when they didn’t then a change of custody occurred.
If shared parenting was the norm we would not have an issue of a parent denied access to their children. And in our proposed presumption of shared parenting legislation in NYS the evidence of child or spousal abuse was a listed factor in denying shared parenting and awarding sole custody to one parent. I believe this evidenced based method is the best way to determine the need for placement with one parent over the other and absent a showing of abuse the presumption of shared parenting should be used in the best interest of the child.
Many of the earlier pioneers in researching PA did not advocate a change in the custodial arrangement unless the actions were severe and harmful to the child and instead advocated for family counseling by professionals to reduce the conflict between parents and decrease and eliminate any negative impacts to the child. Exaggerated and outright false allegations run rampant in family courts which never punish for even the most egregious provable cases. In my years of advocacy I know of no cases where an allegation of abuse resulted in a loss of custody of children.
Those opposed to PA claim that it is a ruse used by abusive fathers/husbands to gain custody and I am sure that there are cases where an abusive spouse, husband or wife, attempts to use the legal process to exclude the other parent. My personal case of three years of litigation to deny me access to my children by a physically abusive spouse provided anecdotal evidence of this. Again the solution to this problem is evidence based family court decisions and absent a showing of abuse or neglect on the part of one parent, a presumption of shared parenting.
My attendance at the BMCC revealed that many attendees advocated for ignoring the rulings of family courts and some even openly talked of custodial interference and development of an “underground” support network. About half of the attendees who suffered loss of custody suffered that fate due to the fact NY is a sole custody state and their spouses happened to be among the 15% of fathers who win custody. They would have been helped by a shared parenting law.
A 1986 study on bias against women in the courts found blatant bias against MEN with well over 80% of custody awarded to mothers. Using the family courts own report I was able to determine that 80% of Orders of Protection (OOP) were dismissed or withdrawn with many of the remaining OOP’s mutual orders of conduct against both parties. False allegations of child and spousal abuse run rampant in family courts, the solution, as it is for PA, is proper adjudication of the evidence in the case.
As a victim of physical abuse I was again victimized when my reports were ignored. I was then victimized by multiple false allegations of abuse which were never sanctioned and thus continued and I was further abused by PA, incessant bad mouthing and denigration of me to my children. Ironically, even given all that I would not have restricted my ex to our children and would have been satisfied in a shared parenting arrangement.
Given the biases against men in custody awards I expect that a portion of the men who win custody use tactics, such as PA, to gain an advantage. So even if we dismiss fathers who are alienated from their children, the fact that mothers are similarly situated and alienated would dismiss any and all theories that PA is a male sex linked activity to abuse women.
I hung up the Waving Santas which I made with my young daughters in 1991. Little did I know then that by Christmas 1998 the Waving Santas would be a reminder of children that had been alienated from me, the primary caregiving parent. The “we’ve grown apart” and the “I don’t know if I want to be married” discussion in 1995 was to turn into 3 years of domestic violence and abuse through hellish litigation with me fighting to be a father and my ex fighting to exclude me. The $30,000 I paid in “child support” offset the (estimated) $50,000 spent to remove me from my child’s life.
Middle aged with 2 pre teen daughters, we had focused on my career and now settled my ex went back to school and then working as a nurse. She then began to denigrate and insult me, often disguised as humor, fat, don’t make enough money. I became the primary caregiver as she was in school and now with both working full time expected equal help around the house, which I didn’t get. She then announced that my money was to pay the bill, hers was hers. She started dressing up and going out to night clubs staying out late, drinking and smoking weed.
She opened up a bunch of store credit cards and ran up bills to the point I paid them off and then cut them up. She then began to run up the joint credit card we held for “emergencies.” She was spending a lot on personal items, to great excess such as 15 pairs of jeans. A year into the split a friend advised she was using the “Divorce War” strategy, the book “Divorce War: 50 strategies every woman needs to know to win” which was the number one seller of books on divorce by women. I got a copy and realized I had been duped, fighting to keep my marriage together while she was plotting the divorce.
When the marriage was breaking down we were arguing incessantly about her appearance of infidelity (she claimed none) and one evening she punched me in the lip, a right cross, and then doubled up with a roundhouse right to the ribs leaving me with a fat lip and a bruise on my side. I stated we were done and told her the next day I was going to get an attorney and suggested she do the same. I met with my attorney but she went to (anti) family court and got an ex parte “temporary” Order of Protection (OOP) and a temporary child custody order. When served by the local police I complained of my Domestic Violence injuries which were apparent and was told “we don’t take counter complaints.” My children were removed and I was denied access for months.
I’m a police officer and as a condition of employment had to maintain a home office in my area of assignment. I had “settled” the custody and visitation in (anti) family court. I started in family court with an attorney but when I ran out of money discharged him, an incompetent waste of time and money he was anyway. I went pro se and managed to get my kids dropped off each weekday where I brought them to school. Unfortunately my ex moved to an adjoining school district and the kids start times were an hour apart but I toughed it out and spent 2 hours each weekday getting them to school. I also had them every other week on my days off which rotated.
About a year into the process my ex got a new steady boyfriend. Unknown to me at the time, the attorney’s relied on a “how to” manual by a local attorney in which he advised if your client didn’t have a solid chance at full custody to agree to a liberal access order with them as “primary physical possession” and then cause conflict as the courts would eventually award custody to the “custodial” mother. “Primary physical possession” is government double speak for custody. She started causing conflict including marching into my house and threatening me. I started recording EVERY interaction with video cameras and voice recorders, plainly visible which prevented her from causing conflict but in effect had me as a prisoner to the fear of false allegations.
She escalated and began to call the police and allege I had threatened her “reaching behind where he keeps his (off duty) gun,” but the local and state police would just make a blotter entry of the provable allegations and refer us back to family court. Filings in family court were continuous and I was forced to counter file to protect myself and the status. One day she picked up and was in the car in the driveway and waited until I turned off the video camera and came back to the door, opening it she threw a bunch of papers at me and then refused to leave the porch, putting her face on the screen and daring me to “go ahead and hit me” and to “make her leave” as she berated and swore at me. Luckily a neighbor saw the encounter and agreed to testify on my behalf.
I ended up with an OOP against her and the current custody arrangement was continued. The DV Advocate, by policy, was forced to interview me. She stated that being a 6’ 220 Lb.+ police officer who carries a gun I shouldn’t be afraid of her. I asked if I could arrest me ex? No. Can I beat her up? Of course not! Can I shoot her? Absolutely NOT! “Then how is being a 6’ 200 lb. policeman with a gun going to prevent her from abusing me? She just walked away at that point. Over a year and a half of litigation resulted in her gaining no leverage towards alienating me. I had battled the unjust leviathan to a stalemate.
By the custody order the children had to remain in their present school district, upheld by the recent litigation in family court. I had filed for divorce, unbeknownst to me she had also begun divorce filings but in hers she asked for a temporary ruling allowing the children to be moved to an adjoining county which her boyfriend lived in. She had listed about 10 items she didn’t gain in family court such as $2000 toward her attorney fees while I was forced to go pro se. The preliminary conference turned into a fiasco as the court clerk went down her bullet item list and I said no to each and every item as I had just spent 2 years litigating them in family court. The conference ended with my ex and her attorney both hollering at me and me asking the clerk how long I had to endure the abuse.
In the Judges chambers in 2 weeks, he obviously mad at the pro se trouble maker where I again refused to negotiate and advised i wanted a trial. He then ordered me to pay her attorney $2000 and lifted the custody order allowing the children to be moved and just like that the past litigation was thrown out as was stability for my children. But here’s where it gets even weirder. My girlfriend lived about 2 miles from my ex’s boyfriend, and she knew this. But then she moved into a rental kitty corner across the street from my girlfriends. I tried to enforce my OOP but it had no distance listed in the “stay away from.”
Due to my employment I couldn’t change my residence to my girlfriends and transferred into an open sector 20 minutes away from them to get closer. I no longer had the kids in the morning before school but as I was at my girlfriends unless actually working I made the best of it and would walk them to the bus each morning. My ex tried to get an OOP forcing me to drive “away from her residence” and not use the common walking trails to no avail. What she did do was to deny me my time with the children when there was a change in my normal day off schedule (which occurred often as I was on salary).
Multiple complaints of custodial interference were filed by me with the state police and DA’s office declining to prosecute or even take a report, referring me back to family court. One day when she denied my custodial time I was standing in the front yard and she drove by with the kids so I walked to the end of her driveway with my ever present voice recorder running. I calmly asked for the kids and she declined yelling “I’m calling the police” to which I replied, “Please do.” I waited for their arrival expecting the same do nothing and referral back to family court.
When the police car came down the road my ex’s boyfriend started getting my kids out of the car and I walked 10’ down the driveway and told him to get away from my kids. I was then slammed forward onto the trunk of the vehicle by the state trooper with my ex’s boyfriend pushing me from the front. The trooper asked if I had a firearm and I told him my off duty was on an ankle holster and I held up my leg and told him to go ahead and take it, which he did. I started to complain of his treatment and he then told me to shut up or he would arrest me to which I replied I should arrest him for interfering with my court ordered custodial time. Another car arrived and he said we should go to the barracks to straighten things out, which I agreed to thinking it to just be referred back to family court.
There were about 3 troopers and a station commander when I arrived and I was seated at one of the desks calmly talking about my continued custody battle with my ex and her multiple false allegations of abuse which ended up with me getting an OOP. The original trooper came in and told me to shut up stating “you don’t have any rights to your kids.” A Lt. from my outfit had arrived and I looked at her and said, “with that I say nothing without an attorney.” My Captain and Lt. arrived and was meeting with the station commander and the trooper and then the trooper walked back into where I was and gave me 2 appearance tickets to appear in court for simple trespass and simple harassment, charges so low I was not required by policy to notify my agency of.
He went out and returned throwing my wallet on the desk and when I looked inside my badge and ID were gone so I walked into the meeting room and asked my Captain my status and he advised I was suspended without pay. So, tickets in hand I headed towards the door of the station intending to walk the 10 minute trip back home but was grabbed and asked where I thought I was going. I have he appearance tickets and I’m walking home I answered but was then advised the tickets were being pulled and I had to go for an immediate arraignment.
I was only charged with simple violations as I would not be entitled to a jury trial. And when I advised I had a tape recording to refute the ex’s statement the Judge advised he wasn’t going to allow it into evidence. I heard through the grape vine that the Judge was going to find me guilty and sentence me to consecutive 15 day in jail terms, 30 days in county jail and to be place in population followed with a lifetime OOP restricting firearm possession and putting me out of work. The system was going out of its way to prevent me from showing the system was a sham and any injustice to silence me was acceptable to them.
The temporary OOP put me out of work as I couldn’t legally carry a firearm. I was in both divorce and criminal court and hired an attorney for each with the last of the money I could scrape together and then filed for personal bankruptcy. I had the clothes on my back and a few changes, $20 in my pocket, no income, and a borrowed vehicle. The deal to get out left me with an OOP for a year but allowed carrying a firearm at work. A violation of the OOP would be a felony charge and put me out of work again. Given her past false allegation and the fact I was now a “convicted” abuser any future allegations would be added to the others on record and I would be sent away to prison.
And so 1998 was the first Christmas without my kids, the Parental Alienation having worked. I tried to get the divorce Judge to order exchange at a neutral location but she said no, in effect denying me the ability to get my kids. To add salt to the wound she ordered me to pay another $2000 to my ex’s attorney, arguing my recent bankruptcy “freed up credit” to pay him. I told my ex she could send the kids down the road at any time and she responded that I had to get them at her place, or not at all. I said I wasn’t going to risk another false allegation and arrest and she said, “I guess you’ll never see your kids again”. She was right. Within a couple of month’s she moved away.
Of course friends and family blamed me for “losing” my kids. I was supposed to not fight the system and just pay the “child support,” shut up, and visit my kids when allowed. Even other fathers, beat dead and disenfranchised, would pass judgement on me for not getting my kids when “I had the chance” as most don’t understand the two questions of fatherhood, fatherhood by whose definition and fatherhood at what cost? And for me the every other weekend visiting dad (no parental rights) didn’t justify the cost (risk of prison) with expected continued litigation costs to boot. Correspondence by mail continued for 3 month’s but slowly faded over a year as it was one sided, not a call or card in return, and I suspected not reaching them.
The hardest part is watching your kids ripped apart by a system which denies one parent their parental rights, forcing a parent to fight to be a part of their child’s life. Not a day goes by where you don’t wonder if just giving up and walking away is healthier for your children. But I expect in the long run the fight for your rights conveys to them that you care, even if they have to suppress those thoughts under the sharp tongue of an alienator. The narcissistic alienator having no such thoughts or care for their children are willing to use the kids to abuse you as the only way the abuser can get to you is through the kids. The abused alienated parent if forced to either walk away from the abuse or fight it and ultimately end up losing anyway, at least knowing you did what you could.
I heard through the grape vine that work might argue that I was mentally unable to continue as a police officer so I decided to apply the old adage of “I’m more sane than you as I have papers to prove it.” So off to the psychologist I went and at the 3rd visit he summed up my plight as, “with all the injustice you suffered it’s a wonder you didn’t lose it and kill somebody.” I was then diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from government persecution and he advised I needed to get out of the system. He didn’t understand, the system is designed to put a box around you, floor, four walls, and a lid to keep you as a beat dead, driven dead broke, disenfranchised dad who has been denied your parental rights without cause. At least now I’m sane and I have papers to prove it.
I lived on 35% of my gross pay for 10 years, paying “child support” and attorney garnishments, until they both hit majority. When people would inquire abut my kids I would initially try to explain the Parental Alienation and they would inevitably respond with a “when they are older they’ll come back,” the feel good statement which isn’t true. Ironically similar to my first which was a stillborn with people responding “it’s probably for the best,” in both instances masking their own inadequacy if faced with the same circumstance. Eventually I got tired of the people passing judgements about me and just started stating “they’re dead” as they are dead to me and which served to stop the asking in short order.
And yet, year after year I put out the Waving Santa’s now 25 years without a response. You can only change the things that you can change and accept the things that you can’t change, including your kids. But I suppose it is important as a parent, on the off chance it might occur, to convey to your children that the door is open and always has been, holding onto that slight sliver of hope while accepting the inevitable no show.
In the late 1970s and I get hauled into the vice principles office to be interrogated for an alleged property damage offense as I was seen in the area. He tried the brow beat me, tough guy routine and at one point in my denials of guilt he said, “if you deny it one more time I’ll slap you backwards in that chair” so I shut up and said nothing. Sent home to “get a parent” I got my recently retired US Army veteran of 3 wars Master Sergeant father who was advised of the allegation and the threat of physical violence to me.
The meeting went along the usual lines, Dad, “How do you know he did it?” “No proof, So nothings going to happen to him then? …pause… “Now that that’s settled, did you threaten to harm my child?” The Vice Principle responded, “Well, yes but”… and Dad cut him off “Let me tell you something Mr., you ever lay a hand on my child or endanger him in any way and I’ll kick you ass up and down the street in front of this school for everybody to see! We clear on that?” “Yes sir” was the answer.
By the standards of 2022 my father, a hero of the greatest generation who fought for your freedom, would have been labelled a sexist and racist (the Vice Principle was an “oppressed” man of color). Dads reaction was a natural fathers parental response to protect his child, but now that would be unacceptable. At a minimum a complaint and criminal investigation would begin, the resulting legal expenses born by the blue collar working family. His “war record” would be used to show his “violent tendencies” and in spite of his depression era his life in the dust bowl of Oklahoma he would be portrayed as exhibiting “white privilege.” Being a male, of course, he had “male privilege.” Charges might be laid and if the drawn out procedure lasts long enough a plea deal would be made, not due to guilt but to stave off bankruptcy. Think not? Search “Loudon County Father” and “School Board.”
From 1970 to today men have been labelled as “deadbeats,” “abusers of women and children,” “patriarchally controlling,” and now “toxically masculine”. We disenfranchised fathers from families and made it so their sole responsibility to the family to pay their “child support” (which goes to the government and not their family) on time and in full. We have an 80% plus mother custody rate resulting in 30% of American homes being single parent, mostly single mother, homes. This is the highest percentage in the world. The erosion of fathers rights was the beginning of the erosion of mothers rights and eventually both parents rights.
Parents have police called on them and lose their children to “child protective” services (CPS) for letting their child walk home alone from school or go to the playground unsupervised. Schools turn parents into CPS for not putting their child on drugs for a school diagnosed Attention Deficit Disorder and are dragged into family court to which orders them to do it. Divorced parents have to place themselves under the courts and one of them is going to lose custody to the other resulting in both being regulated by that court. Out-of-wedlock birth mothers who get government services are similarly placed under the jurisdiction of family courts with Out-of-wedlock fathers also where the only expectation of them is to pay child support back into the state for benefits given to the mother.
With the destruction of fathers parental rights and “experts,” advocates, and Judges regulating parents actions as THEY determine the “best interest of YOUR child” is it hard to imagine that deterioration of parental rights wouldn’t continue with school boards, administrators, and teachers now believing that they determine what’s in YOUR child’s best interest? And when administrators determine that a Covid vaccine is needed will they listen to parents who say it shouldn’t be mandatory contrary to the “experts?” And is it any wonder that government, and especially law enforcement, would investigate any parent who tells these “experts” that they are wrong and the parents intend to do something different? Ask the mothers speaking out at school boards in Virginia.
The government subsidizes single mother homes and has made generations dependent on government benefits and looks to increase their control over people by increasing government dependence. Just search “Life of Linda” and you’ll see this administrations ideas for cradle to grave government dependence. Government provides perverse payments to states to break up families and drive one parent (usually the father) out of the child’s life. Erroneously labelled “child support” the money actually goes to federal coffers if the mother receives any assistance from them. It is government programs and policies which have broken up families and disenfranchised fathers from their children.
When you wonder where are the fathers understand that many have suffered great injustices in family court and have been beaten dead, driven dead broke, and disenfranchised from their families. The remaining men work under a system which considers them dangerous and “toxic” and as such they risk arrest, loss of job and income, and a long expensive fight with a large bureaucracy. With America having the highest rate of single parent households and the life of Linda showing a single mother with one son, do we really think these anti-male, anti-father, anti-family government programs were an accident? And do we think they will stop increasing unless we Citizen’s demand it to stop?
by Lt. (Ret.) James H. Hays West Point, MS Prepared Sept. 11, 2022
2005 ACFC/FaFNY letter to the Parents of America
I want to start by thanking Senator Nicole Boyd, Chair and Honorable Senate Committee Members for taking this testimony on this most important topic. I am a 65 year old Retired NYS Environmental Conservation Police Lieutenant with 33 years of Law Enforcement experience in various agencies, a U.S. Army Veteran, and a Semiretired Parental Rights Activist now closing in on my third decade of advocacy on behalf of parents and families. Based upon my advocacy and studies of the issues I obtained a Bachelors Degree in Family and Society from the State University of New York Empire State College and have sat on panel discussions, attended conferences, and presented testimony to the NYS Legislature and the NYS Court System. I have over 1000 hours of individual and group counselings for parents denied access to their child. I’ll include a full list of my bona fides at the end of this testimony.
Bias against fathers:
When I read of the formation of this committee in Y’all Politics I was saddened to see that fathers were excluded from the discussion and that the focus was on women ahead of children. You will note I included a 2005 open letter appealing to the parents of America and another to Elected Officials (pg.2 and 11) regarding the destruction of the American Family due to the removal of fathers from them. Indeed, the negative consequences for children of a father absent family was well known in 1995 when I began my advocacy. The negative outcomes for children and the impact on Mississippi was recently discussed in Dads Matter: the Taxpayer Cost of Fatherlessness unfortunately only suggesting a “father figure” program to address the issue. Auditor White received immediate pushback from Representative Zakiya Summers who called it “the so called fatherlessness issue” claiming the emphasis was on traditional roles, not on individuals.
Unfortunately both White and Summers, as is the committees focus, are off the mark as the issue IS about biological fathers being involved in their children’s lives. I direct you to Fatherneed by Kyle D. Pruett and suggest a copy be obtained for the committee. I also direct you to the Boy Crisis web site at https://boycrisis.org and the book by that name which addresses the problems of families with fathers absent. The need for an active involved biological father is important for both boys and girls and it contributes greatly to their early development and improved outcomes later in childhood and in life.
Bias against shared parenting arrangements:
Sen. Boyd is quoted as saying a focus is on growing the child care workforce and “looking at how we can help women get back in the workforce.” Might I suggest an active and involved father coparenting which would allow this? Karen DeCrow, past President of the National Organization for Women (NOW) advocated for shared parenting to allow women the freedom to pursue career and family at the same time. She was also the attorney who argued for the inclusion of changing tables in men’s rooms on behalf of father organizations in the fight to allow both parents involvement in emotionally and physically raising their children. Why is there no encouragement for couples to marry, cohabitate, or work out a shared parenting plan to benefit them and their child?
I’m not sure about the level of knowledge in the MS Legislature regarding Marxism and its focus on destroying the nuclear family. Both communist Russia and socialist (NAZI) Germany viewed both parents as workers and the children wards of the state and I am honestly wondering how does the system where fathers are sperm donors and assessed “child support” paid to the government and mothers are returned to work with the children in institutional care differ from the socialist and communist systems?
As a member of the general public I am interested in answers to all of these questions. Are there any studies or evidence that a woman returning to work and putting her child in day care makes her happier? The child happier? Why do we look to subsidize day care but not to support the active involvement of a mother and a father in raising their child? Is society served by having a “single mother” and an excluded father with a child raised institutionally? Who is it good for individually and at what expense to the other parties? At what expense to society?
A Mississippi father:
Before I continue further I want to introduce you to a Mississippi father I met recently. Joe (not his real name) related his father story to me thus;
“My wife decided she didn’t want to be married anymore and we got divorced but kept it amicable. We get along for the kids, 2 daughters. She ended up getting a boyfriend and before long she ended up pregnant but was unwilling to get an abortion. The boyfriend didn’t want kids and advised he would have nothing to do with the kid. When I go to get my girls I couldn’t leave the boy out so I started taking him also. I’m now the only father the kid knows but what are you going to do?”
I asked about child support, curious to know how the system worked in MS and he responded;
“It’s weird, but we have been getting pressured to pay child support through the system even though I pay direct and am not behind. We have a good relationship regarding the children so why mess with the arrangement.”
When I told him that under Title IVd of the Social Security Act the federal government reimburses the states for each child support order and since he was paying direct they don’t get any reimbursement in his case, he said, “well, that explains it.”
Excluding fathers nurturing and emotional support:
The aforementioned abandonment of parental duties by the boyfriend in the Joe story is the exception and not the rule. 80% of out of wedlock fathers are at the hospital at the time of birth and they are pressured to take responsibility for their children. Unfortunately, they are not advised that there will be no access enforcement for parenting time for them and worse, should it be established at a later date that they are NOT biologically the father they CANNOT escape the financial responsibility even if it is proven by DNA testing. The government has defined a “responsible father” as a sperm donor who pays his “child support” on time and in full.
Unequal responsibility:
Auditor White was quoted as saying, “Don’t want to care for the baby you fathered? Just walk away, we won’t criticize.” Further stating, “By teaching people they don’t have to take responsibility for their choices, and deserve to be saved from the consequences, they are training people to think of themselves as victims.” But actually we have a dual system in place where fathers are held responsible and mothers treated as helpless victims not responsible for their actions. A father who doesn’t pay child support is labelled a “deadbeat,” this in spite of the fact that multiple studies over time have shown the number one reason a father doesn’t pay is poverty, ironically impacting men of color more as they have a higher per capita poverty rate.
I’ll save my tirade against the pharmaceutical industry which holds back reversible male contraceptives so as to maximize income from female hormonal birth control methods but will point out that pregnancy prevention has been placed almost solely on women, and here women have failed greatly even with a multitude of options available to them. Sen. Boyd points out that many pregnancies, and abortions, occur in women at higher educational levels and wants to enhance pregnancy prevention education for these women. I would hope that, like the mother in Joe’s story, these women know how babies are made. Perhaps if we stopped subsidizing single mother homes and giving the states perverse incentives to make single mother homes by the federal reimbursement standards we wouldn’t have so many unwanted pregnancies?
Outdated get the deadbeat dad rhetoric:
Attorney General Lynn Fitch is vocal about tightening down on “child support” enforcement “90% of which are men” and “maximize child support” is part of the committees agenda. Right now if you are behind on child support you are turned in a a credit risk, paychecks are garnished up to 65%, checking and savings accounts and tax refunds can be seized, drivers licenses and vehicle registrations can be suspended as can fishing and hunting licenses, you can be incarcerated, and if you cross state lines in arrears (even to get a better paying job) you are a felon. Ironically, incarceration is considered “a voluntary reduction in income” and the child support owed accumulates while a man is incarcerated.
Pray tell AG Fitch, and I ask this committee also, what’s left to do? Tar and feather or some water boarding? Perhaps a reeducation forced labor camp? Prison and solitary confinement? Like in the Joe story, a father who has parenting time with his children is more apt to pay his child support on time and in full. And a child living with his biological father gets 100% of his financial support, as does the mother who lives with them. If she isn’t working and he isn’t working she gets the kid and welfare and he gets jail. Where’s the equal rights and responsibilities here?
Bias against fathers in custody awards?
I haven’t looked at Mississippi’s parenting time awards but as AG Fitch has child support at 90% of father payers I’ll note that is a reflection on the mother custody rate in MS. I see no shared parenting laws on the books and the National Parents Organization gives MS an “F” rating noting its lack of presumptive time offsets violates federal standards (link to report here, https://www.sharedparenting.org/csreportcard). I would ask this committee to look at shared parenting legislation and presumptive offsets to child support to be consistent with federal guidelines and to ensure that competent quadrennial are conducted in a timely fashion.
Maintain fathers rights pre-adoption:
The look to ease adoptions and foster care needs to be balanced by mandatory father acceptance of the adoption. No better argument for this can be had then the book “Finding Fish” or the movie of the book “Antoine Fisher.” Taken from his junkie mother Antoine is beat and sexually abused in foster care and then later in life he finds out that his father, and the fathers extended family, was living in the city he grew up in and was ready, willing, and able to take him in. Excluding fathers excludes an entire family tree. If we foster the involvement of BOTH parents then should something go wrong we have a much greater chance of extended family being available for foster care.
Perverse incentives for out of wedlock birth’s:
As currently in place the system presents perverse incentives for a woman to have multiple children with multiple fathers. Two children with one father garners 20% of adjusted gross income but if she has 2 children with different fathers then she garners 14% of the gross income from each of them. Further, she can live with a 3rd man rent free and his income or free rent is NOT used to offset the child support paid nor to reduce her welfare benefits if any. Nor is there an offset for the time that they have their children, the emphasis and definition of a “good father” is paying child support on time and in full and not on nurturing and raising your child.
I note here that “child support” is a misnomer as the system was developed to reimburse federal coffers for aid paid out to single mother homes. As such it is a per child excise tax based upon the fathers income and not on the cost of raising a child. The system was a boondoggle as it tried to get money from poor fathers who had no ability to pay so it was broadened to cover divorced fathers, most of whom were already paying on time and in full as payments were tied to access to their children. The federal system removed that, the “child support” is owed regardless if the mother withholds access and 50% of mothers ADMIT to restricting a fathers access.
“Deadbeat Dad” myth debunked in the 1990’s:
The deadbeat dad myth was debunked in the late 1990’s by Sanford Braver who reported his federally subsidized studies in his book, “Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s. Although published in 1995 the book is relevant today and should be available for the committee to read and reference. It is ironic that a 25 year old book is still relevant to the issues faced and speak volumes to how misinformation has been applied to the problems faced by families.
Mississippi’s divorce, alimony, child custody, and child support laws outdated:
In NYS, as President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY (FaFNY) I fought Unilateral No Fault Divorce in NYS unless there was a statutory and enforceable protections for BOTH parents rights which includes the child’s RIGHT to both parents and their extended families. NYS was the last state in the nation to enact No Fault Divorce. After review of Mississippi’s divorce, child custody, and child support laws I was displeased to see that they are virtually the same as NYS, nay – worse. Shamefully, MS is in lock step with the left coast with no statutory protections for parental rights, no protections for the marital contract holding persons responsible for destroying the family, and a focus on holding men financially responsible, behind them the daddy state, for the irresponsibility of women.
Fathering Changes Men for the Good of Society:
Many young man are a bit wild and marriage itself does nothing to curtail this. It is the addition of children which refocuses men on their responsibilities to them, their wife, and further to society. This is the norm and not the exception. Chapter 8 of “Fatherneed,“ ”How Fathering Changes Men for Good” addresses this and should be mandatory reading for the committee. While you focus on “Women, Children, and Families” you forget that we are social beings each reliant on the other for our happiness. When we reduce the family into its individual organisms we remove the natural social environment and with it the meaning and purpose of life. Mothers reduced to workers focus on themselves before their children. Fathers reduced to “visitors” focus on themselves and not their child and potential spouse. Ultimately it is the child which loses.
God, work?, country. or is it God, family, country?
The focus on individuals working has long range negative impacts on society as a whole. Has any man or woman gone to their grave stating “I wish I had spent more time at work?” Does any child wish their parents spent less time with them? Are your co-workers going to give you care and comfort when you are sick? Dying? Is a thanksgiving dinner at a restaurant with a boyfriend or girlfriend du jour preferable to a trip back to grandma’s and a packed table of extended family members including grown and young children? Will the child care facility relate the family history to your child? Your Religion? Beliefs? Morals? Are the hugs to a child by a paid caregiver the same as a parent or grand parent? Will they tell humorous or sad stories about your siblings, parents, and grand parents?
Government interference in the family, STOP blaming men:
In the 1950’s the rate of father absence in black families per capita was lower than white families, this in spite of Jim Crow laws and prejudices against them. By the mid 1960s Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote the Moynihan Report (The Negro Family and the Case for National Action) as the African American household father absent rate had increased to 25% which was considered a crisis. In it he described the “Moynihan Scissors” where typically as unemployment went down filings for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) went down also. But in 1963 in the African American population unemployment went down and the filings for AFDC went UP! This was the beginning of the daddy state and the subsidized single mother homes.
From the 1960’s to today we can see the ever increasing federal government interference in the family and parental rights for BOTH parents. As the federal government has continued subsidizing single mother homes we have seen a steady increase in them corresponding to ever increasing interference. Mothers have been turned into “baby mama’s” and fathers have been turned into visitors and “father figures”. The African American single mother rate hovers near 80% of all homes and 20% of White homes, 5% of them single fathers. Clearly our laws, policies, and procedures are taking us in the wrong direction.
The Moynihan Report was widely assailed for focusing on and blaming Black men. Unfortunately the “blame men game” continued into the 1980’s and 90’s with the creation of the mythical “deadbeat dad” where it was OK to label Black Men as such as long as it also included Asian Men, Hispanic Men, and White Men. When “Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s” came out it was widely ignored by policy makers, especially by unelected “experts” who doubled down on their cognitive dissonance and who continued to focus on helping “single mother” homes while the policies had the effect of removing fathers to the crisis levels we see today. The “deadbeat dad” roundups continued of blue collar men, mostly men of color, assessed at rates they could never pay while “single mother” homes were subsidized.
STOP BLAMING MEN! The number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is a limiting court order. Number two is a mother who interferes with his time with the child. In spite of these restriction fathers have continued to be there for their children and many manage to stay involved. There are a multitude of state and federal organizations working to help disenfranchised parents stay involved yet I know of NONE which advocate for the removal of mothers and sole custody to be placed with fathers. Most, Like the National Parents Organization argue for SHARED PARENTING regardless of the marital status of the parents as absent 2 live in biological parents this is the best arrangement for children.
Flaws in Title IVd – federal child support:
Title IVd of the Social Security Act provides perverse incentives to create single parent homes and is a large part of the problem. The federal government reimburses states for establishing paternity (even if incorrect), number of child support orders entered (incentive to have one non residential parent paying through the system), amount collected versus amount owed and collection of arrears (incentive to set high awards leaving the poor to fall behind and then collect the arrears), and the cost of the program (collections versus expenses). The program provides NO incentive for both parents to live together (married or not) and to share parenting with both providing financial and emotional support.
It should be noted that there is NO accountability to how the support is spent nor any accountability to allow access to the non custodial parent to spend emotional support time with the child. Based on the income shares models and not cost shares (the actual costs of raising a child in that state) it excludes the costs incurred by the non custodial parent to raise their child. As previously stated Mississippi has no set proportional offset for increased residential times with the children (contrary to federal guidelines) thus moving the responsibility for physical raising of a child to one parent and forcing the other parent in a financial provider only.
Worse, the income transfers are in post tax dollars. In other words the payer bears the tax responsibility for the receiver. A custodial mother with 2 children earning $25,000 a year gross and a non custodial father earning $50,000 a year gross can see after tax net incomes of $36,000 and $9,000 respectively. It is easy to see that poor non custodial fathers, mostly men of color, will be driven to poverty and be denied any government benefits as they are based on his pre-tax salary. Even if he does have liberal access he will be unable to be there for his children as he’ll be scrambling to earn enough to feed, house, and clothe himself, much less provide space for 1 or 2 children.
Denial of parental rights without cause:
The committees focus on the mother is contrary to the US Constitution as it denies the fathers parental rights. SCOTUS has ruled in multiple cases that parental rights are fundamental rights yet this committee would deny the fathers rights outright and without cause yet while still holding him responsible (maximize child support), responsibilities without rights, taxation without representation. I seem to recall the founding of the country was based upon similar injustices? Both parents need to be held equally responsible for a child created by their union and the child has a right to BOTH parents financial and emotional support.
Ironically, the denial of parental rights by family and/or matrimonial courts across the U.S. (Chancery Courts in MS) has emboldened the courts to interfere with all parental rights regardless of the marital status of the parents. It has served to undermine parental rights when dealing with all other parts of government. Unelected bureaucrats can insert their view of “the best interest of the child” over those of the parents which is reinforced by a judge inserting their opinion in place of the parents.
“It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” Frederick Douglass
Focus on families:
While the committee is focusing on young families with children under age 3 we should understand that the first pregnancy is the seed which can grow a larger family. Encouraging a young couple away from marriage, cohabitating with their child, or entering into a mutually beneficial shared parenting is to force a child into a broken family. To quote David Levy, founder of the Children’s Right’s Council and author, the Best Parent is Both Parents and both parents and their extended families are the right of each and every child. The harm to children in single parent homes is widely recognized and to deny children at a minimum shared parenting is to risk their, and societies future.
2005 ACFC/FaFNY Letter to Legislators
Conclusion:
The safest place for a man, woman, and child is in an intact 2 parent (often married) home. It provides economy of scale and increased financial security while alleviating one parent to bear all the child rearing responsibilities. Absent that the best arrangement for a child is to have the active involvement of both parents, a shared parenting arrangement with income transfers kept to a minimum and correlating to the costs of raising that child.
2 biological parents living together with their child reduces the need for financial support from the government and as such this arrangement should be encouraged. Absent that the parents should negotiate a shared parenting arrangement to provide financial and emotional support for their child and each other.
In an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy BOTH parents must sign off on their parental rights before the child displaced for adoption.
Any support programs available for “single mother” homes must be made available to intact 2 parent (married or not) homes and also to BOTH parents in a shared parenting arrangement.
In closing I want to thank the committee and Chair, Sen. Nicole Boyd for allowing me to submit testimony as part of the official record. My recommendations follow in appendix A (pg. 14) and the draft Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act in appendix B (pg. 16). I remain available for clarification and discussion of any points within this testimony which I submit as an interested Mississippi citizen
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Mandatory at birth DNA testing for out of wedlock births.
Mandatory at birth DNA testing for out of wedlock births would alleviate the problems with false paternity, that is later “Jerry Springer” domestic strife should it come out at a later date whether true or not. By making it mandatory the conflict between a requesting father and mother are removed and additionally, economy of scale says the price will come down which can be born by the higher earner of the parents to be reduced by any future child support payments. Fathers can still accept paternity at the hospital and be on the birth certificate but it will not be legally binding until results are presented to the court and affirmed.
2. A mandatory rebuttable presumption of shared parenting regardless of the marital status of the parents.
A mandatory rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared parenting does not necessarily mean that the parents will have 50-50 physical custody (although many do opt for a week to week exchange of custody). What it means is that the parent start negotiations on a parenting plan understanding if they do not work out a plan it will revert to a 50-50 split of time.
Further, child support should have a proportional offset based on the amount of time each parent has the child. This is mandated in federal guidelines on child support which Mississippi is missing in its laws. Child support payments should further take into account the actual cost of raising the child and what direct financial expenditures the parents are making towards the child.
Regardless of their marital status, reproductive status, or birth control used young people should understand that if a pregnancy occurs because of their sexual liaison then both parties will be held responsible and have to deal with each other until the child reaches majority at 18. This should cause young people to look at their partner choice and casual liaisons in a different light. It holds both equally responsible for the agreed upon act which produced the child.
Shared parenting has a further bonus in that states that enact shared parenting see a drop in the divorce rate. A parent can’t use divorce and child custody as a financial windfall, a guarantee to get the house, custody of the kids, and child support payments providing a perverse incentive to file a unilateral divorce.
3. Enact the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (see Appendix B)
The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act was designed as an amendment to the US Constitution but in original form it excluded “non custodial” parents which prevented it from getting widespread support. ACFC/FaFNY presented an updated version including ALL parents. This protection of parental rights in the face of interference in parental decision making for their child in areas such as schooling and medical decisions has brought to light the erosion of all parental rights to make decisions for their child.
The Act should be codified into law at both the federal and state level and consideration should d be given to Constitutional Amendments at both the state and federal level. As written the Act does NOT interfere in states rights to manage matrimonial and child custody matters.
4. Promote marriage by reforming Mississippi’s alimony laws.
Mississippi’s alimony laws appear open ended with no clear guidelines subjecting people to the whims of the individual court they appear before. Unclear laws foster increased litigation, clogging courts and wasting family assets on legal fees. Further, it is difficult to promote marriage when there are no protections for the parties involved.
Alimony should be a temporary payment to allow a non working spouse to gain education and or training and meaningful employment. Sen. Boyd points out that many unplanned pregnancies are among college educated women. Women with a college degree earn 104% of their equals and increasingly they find themselves paying alimony as they are the monied spouse, often after an attempt to do right by marrying the father of their unplanned pregnancy which then doesn’t work out.
5. Promote birth control education for men and women equally.
Mississippi women who want an abortion will be able to travel to another state (Illinois within an 8 hour drive of most of Mississippi) regardless of the wishes of the father. Especially the college or working women who have more means. Additionally, women can, and do, lie about their reproductive status to get pregnant on purpose, again regardless of the wishes of the man. Indeed, even stolen sperm from a discarded used condom results in responsibility on the man’s part if a pregnancy occurs. Birth control education for men and women needs to be truthful and directed at both.
As the baby boomer generation of judges retire out they are bound to be replaced by younger judges without the woman as caregiver-father as financial provider mindset and are bound to move towards shared parenting arrangements regardless of legislation. Fathers Right’s groups are getting better at gaining full or partial physical custody for fathers.
Young people need to be educated on the fact that a child will result in BOTH of them being held responsible until the child reaches majority. Further, failure to come to a parenting agreement will result in them both expending resources on litigation and losing control of decision making to a Judge.
Appendix B
(Q. & A. follows text of the Act)
Parents’ Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2022
_______ 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 2022 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 2022.
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.”
(1) 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.
PRRA Q. & A.
What is the PRRA?
The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act declares that parents’ rights to direct the upbringing of their children are fundamental rights which the government can curtail only under conditions of “compelling interest” and with strict scrutiny. It stipulates that “No federal, state, or local government, or any official of such government acting under color of law, shall interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to direct the upbringing of the child of the parent.”
What would be the effect of this bill?
This law has more potential to halt the destruction of the family than any measure that government is now undertaking or can possibly undertake and to do so safely, with minimum government interference, because it guarantees the most essential foundation of the family: the parent-child bond. It is fully compatible with other measures now being proposed to strengthen the family, but it will have far greater efficacy. It will do more to hold marriages together than expensive and questionable marriage psychotherapy programs proposed by the Bush administration. It will do more to promote and restore fatherhood than the similarly questionable fatherhood programs of the Clinton administration. It will do more to strengthen family integrity than futile attempts to censor the media. It will have more efficacy than programs that nag at people to get married or stay married. It will do more to reduce divorce than rolling back no-fault laws, and it may even do more to ensure that children have two parents than shared parenting laws (both of which can be circumvented by judges). Yet it is consistent with all these measures, which can still be pursued at the state or federal levels.
Would this act federalize family law?
No. States could still enact any laws they wish on marriage, divorce, and custody, and state courts would remain the venues for handling these matters. But they would have to respect the parent-child bond and could not disrupt it without compelling cause, and the federal judiciary would be explicitly required to guarantee that bond.
Would this bill create new rights or a new protected class of “victims”?
No. It would simply codify rights that have been recognized in Anglophone countries for centuries.
What is the origin of the PRRA?
The original PRRA was introduced in 1995 to protect home-schoolers and other intact families from school authorities and other government officials who might usurp their right to raise their children as they see fit. But the original bill had a major weakness: It exempted from its protection parents who lose their children through involuntary divorce (or false allegations of child or domestic abuse). In other words, the proposed law stipulated that the government could not interfere with or separate children from a parent unless the other parent requested it by filing for divorce, in which case the government could seize control of the children with no further explanation. By specifically exempting divorce, the proposed law could even have been interpreted as endorsing government-enforced separation of children from parents. We propose to close this loophole (Section 7 of the original bill), so that the act does protect parents and children of divorce.
Perhaps most important, it will accomplish all this not by involving government in the family but by keeping government out of the family.
It may not solve every family problem — that is for families to do themselves — but it will get the government out of the family so they can do so. Government’s role will be limited to the negative one of guaranteeing and protecting family integrity against external violation by anyone, including itself.
Why should it be enacted when it failed before?
The original bill had support among professional pro-family groups: home-schoolers, family advocates, social conservatives, the religious right, and some libertarians. But a huge constituency of parents themselves, who could have been mobilized to support this bill (viz., non-custodial parents and victims of child abuse laws), was specifically excluded from its protections. The 1995 bill was defeated not only by special interest lobbying (primarily by teachers’ unions), but also by a lack of enthusiastic public support.
Closing the loophole and including non-custodial parents would create a broad-based coalition, uniting the original bill’s advocates with a much larger constituency of parents themselves, who have watched their authority over their children be not simply eroded by the culture but, more seriously, usurped by the government.
Non-custodial parents, couples who lose their children through spurious child abuse accusations, parents who have their children improperly adopted against their wishes, and others would have a clear stake in this bill. It would also give the pro-family groups a proactive agenda and place them on the moral high ground as the as the defenders of individual and family rights.
It would also put fathers’ groups in alliance with mainstream political groups. We would be the vanguard of a parents’ revolt: Not because we are another groups speaking for parents. Because we are parents.
Wouldn’t it provoke massive opposition, just like the first time?
Yes, perhaps even more. Not only the teachers’ unions but probably social workers’ and other white-collar unions would mobilize against it, and of course feminists. (On the other hand, blue-collar unions might well sympathize with us.) But in a sense the whole point is to provoke controversy and create a long overdue national dialogue on the family. After decades of fatherless children, divorce-on-demand, and government impotence in the face of myriad social problems stemming from these ills, the country is ripe for it.
Family issues are now on the front pages every day. Even childless people are fed up with the destruction of the family and its huge social and economic costs to us all. But many are uncertain what can be done about it, and little clear leadership is being provided with this. Government marriage counseling and fatherhood programs promise solutions but are hopelessly vague about what precisely they can do. Attacks on pornography and abortion and public schools do not readily translate into clear prescriptions for saving the family. The country and the world are demanding leadership to rescue the family.
A clear and straightforward statement unequivocally defending the family as the guardian of a private sphere of life and asserting the rights of parents to be left in peace with their children constitutes a principle that would be virtually impossible to oppose. Defenders of the family would take the moral high ground and challenge opponents to explain why they oppose such an obviously just, sensible, and universally recognized principle as the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit and the rights of children not to be torn from the arms of loving parents.
We must not shrink from this challenge. In a sense, the battle could be almost as important as the bill. Congress could pass this bill as a resolution tomorrow, and it would sit ignored alongside the case law. By provoking a national dialogue over the family and mobilizing a grassroots constituency, we would build the structures and watch-dog institutions to monitor the judiciary and bureaucracy and foster a political culture that values parents generally, fathers in particular, families and households as zones free from government intrusion, and children as something other than weapons and tools and justifications for expanding government power.
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.
