Category: Domestic Relations Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lt. James H. Hays (Ret)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dismissing the Beat to Death Beat Dead Dad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The idiocy of Orders of Protection and seizure of firearms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be Careful What You Ask For …

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

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

Largely overlooked in all of the sound and the fury, however, is one aspect of the broader issue itself that gays and lesbians might want to ponder before proceeding much further on their quest for the Holy Grail of the homosexual agenda.  Beyond the ideals of “marriage” and “family”, what are the realities associated with each in the late 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

The problems with Domestic Violence: an Interview with Erin Pizzey

A shout out to the Center for Male Psychology for the interview, which can be viewed here, https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/an-invisible-hero-for-invisible-victims-an-interview-with-domestic-violence-pioneer-erin-pizzey.

And I have been rendered voiceless except to throw in a Hear, hear and an Amen.

STOP blaming men; from A beat dead, disenfranchised dad on fatherless day

Being a beat dead, disenfranchised father for 25 years one would think that I would have hardened and gotten used to the anti male posts, articles, and comments about fathers on Father’s Day.  But I haven’t, the negativity and chastisements telling fathers how they are supposed to be and blaming fathers for being absent still pisses me off to no end.  I suspect it is from the idiocy and propaganda that family break down is the fault of men and not government policies, laws, rules, and regulation which is the cause. Blame which flies in the face of reality.

The most recent installment of idiocy is the Administration for Children and Families “Dadication” campaign  (https://fatherhood.gov/dadication) directed at fathers through its fatherhood.gov web site. Of course government needs to push the “responsible fatherhood” agenda as cover for the fact that the disenfranchisement of fathers and the destruction of families is the result of their own programs.  In response to a 20% out of wedlock birth rate in the African American community in the 1960’s the Moynihan Report came out (the Johnson Administration) and received immediate backlash for blaming black men.

Johnson’s war on poverty and the developing nanny/daddy state began subsidizing single mother homes.  As these federal programs increased (Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations) so too did the problem of single mother homes.  Adding to the out of wedlock fatherless homes was an increasing divorce rate which was made easier by “no fault” divorce laws.  Even though more woman initiated divorce then men the stereotype was the philandering husband abandoning his family for the younger trophy wife. Men were blamed for “abandoning” their children regardless of circumstances.

Many people are unaware that the advocacy for men’s rights and fathers rights goes back to the 1970’s.  Groups like the Men’s Defense Association published “The Liberator” newspaper advocating for equality for men in divorce and with child custody.  The National Coalition of Free Men, renamed the National Coalition For Men at NCFM.org, was formed in 1977 and is still in existence today. (Full disclosure, I was a member of MDA and am a life member of NCFM).  Sadly, blaming men for social ills continued with liberals looking at men as oppressors, “the patriarchy”, and conservatives looking at them a “deadbeats” not living up to their responsibilities.

It was under the Reagan administration the blaming men rose to new heights. A PBS special highlighted a black man who bragged of having 9 children with 9 different mothers and this was used to argue for a Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to set standards for financial responsibility for fathers. “Deadbeat dads” were to be held responsible to pay back into federal coffers money expended to pay for his children. Title IVd of the Social Security Act was amended to award states money to hold these deadbeats responsible and a massive federal and state bureaucracy was born.

Of course the gynocentric hypocrisy was ignored.  The fact that there was 9 tawdry mothers who had children out of wedlock with the same man was overlooked as was the fact that women choose to have out of wedlock children, not men who have no say in a woman’s pregnancy or abortion.  Child support payments were now separated from father access to his children, no kids no check used to be the rule.  Combined with no fault divorce, a man could be divorced from his children against his will and responsible fatherhood was redefined by government and media as did you pay your child support on time and in full.

Dr. Warren Farrell wrote “the Myth of Male Power” in the 1990’s pointing to the gynocentric hypocrisies.  Sanford Braver conducted federally funded research in the 1990’s which he published in “Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s” where he debunked the myth of the deadbeat dad.  Unfortunately truth was countered by a biased media (see Bernard Goldberg’s book “Bias”) and now a large state and federal bureaucracy funded to take money from fathers and transfer it to federal coffers or direct to mothers. 

I (with others) formed the Coalition of Fathers and Families Inc. and the NY Men’s Action Network PAC in the 1990’s and like others hoped the new technologies of email, internet, and web sites would help dispel the myth’s of the deadbeat dad and other negative stereotypes of men but unfortunately well funded government agencies and well funded by government non profits use these same tools to better advantage.  Misinformed chivalry meets biased gynocentrism supported by propaganda from government and organizations making a living “fixing” the problem.  There is no better example then the “Dadication” Campaign, unfortunately which is but one of many.

I was lifted today when I read an op-Ed in the Epoch Times, “On Fatherhood” by Paul Adams (https://www.theepochtimes.com/on-fatherhood_3863038.html). In it he points out the difference in treatment of mothers on Mother’s Day and fathers on Father’s Day with mothers receiving praise and fathers being admonished.  We are making some progress. Unfortunately right along side of it is an article about fathers manning up in a feminized world.  On the former article I commented on items which needed to be fixed, on the latter I commented on the mistake of blaming men (which pulled me from other chores to write this blog).  

We are now entering the 6th decade of government nanny and daddy state regulation of the family.  Each succeeding generation we have seen an increase in fatherless households to now 40% of families in America, 75% in the African American community.  We continue to blame men, now “soy boys”, “cellar dwellers” or “gang bangers” for being raised absent their father and admonish them to act different while the new “woke” generation blames everything on men (ignoring how good most of us have it in America). 

Government regulation of fathers and families has made marriage a hostile environment for men and we wonder why nobody wants to get married and women lament the “lack of marriageable men”.  Child support has gotten so draconian that having a child, in or out of marriage, is a hostile environment for men and we wonder why the birth rate has dropped below 2 children per woman, not large enough to sustain our population.  We raise children without their biological father then we wonder why they suffer greater anti-social behaviors. As long as we continue to blame men, give women a pass for not being responsible, and ignore the problems of government regulation of the family, we are not going to see any change for the better.

The DRO and defined benefit retirement plans – Things to be aware of BEFORE retirement

Public employees and others – take note and definitely READ THIS BEFORE PUTTING IN YOUR RETIREMENT PAPERS! (note this is based on the NYS System and retirement as a public employee and all individual circumstances differ. We highly recommend a DRO review before putting in your retirement papers. In NYS the DRO is often called a “Qualified” DRO or QDRO)

First we reiterate DON”T GET MARRIED as it allows government interference and control of your finances. This is true if you have savings, a 401k (and deferred compensation plans), or a defined benefit plan. NYS (and most others) look at marital property as a 50-50 split (or thereabouts) at the time of the divorce. This is true regardless of who contributed towards the marital asset in what proportion, even if nothing and regardless of who wants out unilaterally. For many of us it is past the time for this sage “don’t get married advice”.

Savings (that isn’t plundered by the system) will be split into separate accounts. 401k’s (and deferred comp) may need an accountant to determine the split, especially if you contributed to it (and had gains or losses) before the marriage or if there is competing accounts with different values. But in each of these instances the numbers are crunched, amounts and methods agreed upon, and you walk from the divorce knowing what you have left and it is yours to control from here on out (If anything is left).

But in the case of defined benefit plans the courts issue a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) directing the administrator of the retirement system how the value of the retirement is to be split at the time of retirement. Let’s make this clear, the retirement value is NOT set at the time of divorce like a 401k, it is set at the time of retirement. And unlike your 401k which amounts and control of are is finalized before the judge the defined benefit plan disbursements are finalized by the administrator of of the plan. Any errors in the DRO’s, and his interpretation of what the DRO says, are only discovered AFTER retirement when it is often too late to correct them!

Unfortunately for most the issue of division of the retirement comes at the end of a long custody and divorce battle. In NYS the attorneys will usually refer to the Majauskas Formula, established by the NYS Court of Appeals in that court case. While you can enter into agreements different than this formula, the fact it was put in place by NYS highest court leads me to believe that any contested divorce action will ultimately end up in this fashion, even upon appeal.

Occurring after the divorce decree is filed, the DRO’s are usually prepared by a clerk or paralegal. Attorneys will try to slip in items, such as payments to occur at a specific date even if you’re not retired, improper number of the years of marriage, or an option selection which guarantees the spouse survivor benefits. And if it makes it past unknowing litigants and uncaring attorneys, Judges will just sign the order as entered – done deal.

Attention: especially NYS Public Employees!

Fast forward another 20 years. It’s time to retire and you’re ready to put your papers in. STOP RIGHT THERE! In the NYS Public employee pension system and the NYS teachers retirement system, among others, once you have submitted your retirement they will lock in your option and do the math according to your DRO. IF THERE ARE ANY ERRORS THEY WILL NOT CHANGE THE RETIREMENT OPTIONS AND AMOUNTS! The only recourse is to go back to court and try to get a restraining order and file for an amended DRO.

Even with a restraining order filed to stop the retirement processing the NYS Comptrollers Office argued that they could not change anything as the 30 days to withdraw the retirement were over even though the restraining order was filed within the 30 days (them sending it over the 30 days in responding). The “option election” was in place they said. In the teachers retirement system once the option is selected there is no changing it. DO NOT FILE FOR RETIREMENT UNTIL YOU GET A FULL REVIEW OF YOUR DRO!

Several days in court, postponements, letters to the retirement administrators, and $7500 later an amended order was obtained with specific wording that the DRO’s did not match the divorce order and as such were defective on their face and removed by the court and corrected orders were filed. It took the administrators another month to respond they would accept the amended orders. It was 2 month’s after that the math was corrected and the deficit reimbursed. Retirement filed in June of 2017 wasn’t finalized until March of 2019.

Needless to say the faceless bureaucrats running large retirement systems don’t care about you. As I tried to straighten things out and get answers I got the run around, answering machines, and no calls back, delays in letters sent, all while time limits ran. I got lucky and got the restraining order in within 30 days, otherwise add $5000 plus to get an attorney from the system into court and make the Comptrollers Office part of the divorce action. Another $5000 for an appeal. I expect a fight between the executive branch and the judicial branch (who was irate not at the injustice of wrongly worded orders passed by 2 attorneys and the divorce Judge but at his authority being denied) was the only reason they capitulated. That, and 20 years removed from the divorce I had the money in hand to fight, and nothing but time to fight the system.

NY MAN doesn’t endorse or recommend any professional nor do we accept any financial support outside of the small cadre of participants. But it was the skillful arguments and documents which made it hard for the administrators to ignore the action and it was her discussions with the Judge which fired his anger at the executive branch for not accepting the “NYS Supreme Courts authority” over matrimonial matters (the Judge even asked who she thought the Comptrollers Office would offer up to go to jail for contempt of court!). email jh@nymensactionnetwork.org or respond to this post if you need her name in the greater Capital District area of NYS.