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.
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
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.
As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2022, H.R. 4350 passed by the House, wording for equal responsibility for both men and women to register for selective service has been included and forwarded to the Senate. We can expect that, as has occurred in the past, the radical left will remain mostly silent and allow the conservative right to be vocal and derail equal responsibility for defense of the country.
Many of you may not be aware, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the National Coalition For Men V. Selective Service System lawsuit deferring to Congress to act. The National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service recommended ending male only selective service registration stating, “[m]ale-only registration sends a message to women not only that they are not vital to the defense of the country but also that they are not expected to participate in defending it.” In spite of this recommendation, last years NDAA was modified in the Senate to remove responsibility for females to register for the draft.
For those of us who believe in equal rights and responsibilities for all U.S. Citizen’s this is a non partisan issue and as such Republican, Democrat, and Independent alike should be voicing their support for equal rights. With SCOTUS punting the issue our remaining avenue to achieve equality is to move this legislation past those in the Senate who are blocking this legislation. As such I encourage all to contact their Senators in support of equal rights and responsibilities for men and women. Below is a copy of a letter I sent to my (Mississippi) Senators modified as a template for your use in whole or in part. My Senators are both Republican so I framed my argument from that perspective and you should modify your argument to fit your views and convince your Senators.
Date:___________________
Senator _________________, and Senator________________,
Dear Senators;
I am writing in support of equal protection under the law. Specifically, Selective Service (SS) Registration which is mandatory for males but excludes females, a fact which would be corrected under the recently proposed NDAA. Through the years the right to vote has been limited to citizen’s and tied to the responsibility to defend the country and homeland, a history of such is here for those unfamiliar, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/11/rights-with-responsibilities-voting-and-selective-service/. Today we are giving the benefit of citizenship to non citizen illegal aliens and the right to vote to females with no corresponding responsibility and in some local elections also the right to vote for illegal aliens with no corresponding responsibility.
Let me first address the fear purveyors who have responded to equal rights and responsibilities for men and women with the usual “daughters will end up being cannon fodder,” the “it will undermine unit cohesiveness and effectiveness,” and the added the inflammatory to protect the helpless women, “pregnant women will be forced into the military” portraying equal responsibility to country as a left wing anti-family agenda. Chauvinistic male chivalry and feminist gynocentrism walk hand in hand in the objections for females registering. Ironically, the radical feminist left remains publicly silent on the “equality” issue while letting Republican’s carry their water, dividing Republican’s on the issue. This propagandist rhetoric flies in the face of fact and common sense when we separate selective service from military service and assignment to duties for those drafted.
The forced registration with selective service carries with it severe penalties for non compliance, including some of the benefits granted to citizens, and individual rights up to and including possible incarceration, at this time applied only to men. Those males that are unable to serve in a front line combat role due to physical or mental ability, and those that will not be called up due to manpower needs being met, are NOT excused from registering as it is at the time of need that we determine each ones ability to serve in what capacity. To require men to register who will not be called to serve, with no corresponding requirement for women to register and be subjected to penalties for not doing so, creates an arbitrary and capricious unequal treatment under the law as a male physically unfit for combat duty and a female physically unfit for combat duty are treated differently in spite of equal inability to perform. Registration of men only is discriminatory and on its face unconstitutional. As such, registration needs to be applied to all male and female citizen’s with them both being subjected to the same penalties for non registration or the requirement for registration eliminated.
Prior to the Vietnam era the draft was run by local boards with exemptions for those in college. During Vietnam this was found to be discriminatory as minorities were disproportionately drafted and the SS instituted a lottery draft based upon date of birth to correct this. Historically SS has had exemptions from service such as the sole financial provider for a family. I expect that SS would develop rules and regulations regarding the exemption or deferment of pregnant females and parents solely, or jointly, responsible for the care of a child. And just as the last remaining son historically was restricted to non combat duty, parents of young children could also be similarly treated and any legislation should properly indicate this.
In any discussion of the military it is important to understand that it takes many persons to keep one person in front line combat. In today’s military only 10% of personnel are in a war zone and only a small percentage of these are front line combat troops. A major war with a major power would certainly increase the percentage of front line troops directly in harms way including those not assigned to combat roles. While I do not intend to belittle those who serve in any fashion the fact of the matter is that even in the worst of conditions most will not be in danger of being “cannon fodder” unless we were in a major war against a world power threatening the US itself and in such instance the entire US population would be in danger justifying all who can to serve in defense of the homeland.
The military service assignments are (supposed to be) based upon merit and ability. Many persons in the Military are in positions that they had not primarily been trained for as if there was a need for manpower and they show an aptitude to perform the duties required they are reassigned. The argument that women are smaller and weaker than their male counterparts only means that those who are will be placed into non physically demanding assignments consistent with their abilities, which is already done for males. How is it equitable and right to draft a 19 year old black male with a high school diploma and make him a cook serving stateside while exempting a white female 19 year old from being drafted to be a cook stateside?
The argument that drafting females will undermine unit cohesiveness and ability flies in the face of the fact that women are already allowed into combat positions. That argument means that the current military is already incapable of performing its duties. If drafting women would cause this is true then the argument is made that women should be restricted from joining the military to begin with. You simply cannot make one argument without the other. The fact is that 83% of the jobs in the military are non combat and can be performed equally by males and females with an aptitude for that position. In addition to combat roles it is reasonable that more men would be serving in strength necessary positions such as laborers moving heavy supplies and materials as they have the ability to do so. But this should NOT be an excuse to exclude the females who can perform those duties.
In an effort to show that women are “equal” to men in outcome I fear and believe that standards were reduced for military personnel. But this is a military command and performance problem, not an equal responsibility when it comes to the draft problem. Both men and women in an unprepared military, indeed also the citizen’s they are sworn to protect, will suffer the consequences of improper training, drafted or volunteer alike. The critical feminist theory and the woke critical race theory which is infecting the military is a readiness issue that needs to be addressed by Congress. Indeed, an unprepared military which suffers personnel losses in conflict supports the need to draft all able bodied and competent men and women to defend the country.
The military is increasingly full of high tech careers driven by mechanization and electronics. Women are now 65% of college graduates and it seems to be a waste of talent to exclude them from these high tech positions which do not require strength to perform. How is the military served by drafting a male college graduate to sit in a facility in Nevada and fly a drone while we pass over a similarly educated and able bodied female college graduate? Females also disproportionately enter the medical care fields. Are we to exclude these very necessary personnel from the draft which will require the positions to be filled by men, many having the abilities to perform front line duties?
The short sighted view that we will not need females to serve in defense of the country ignores the fact that war with one or more super powers may result in our country being attacked. Communist China, our greatest adversary, has over a billion more people than the US, 2 million already in the military (600,000 more than the US), and 35 million excess males with which to draw on in a major conflict. Conflict with China opens the door to opportunistic conflict with Russia. Hostilities with China or Russia, or BOTH, are certain to put our Pacific territories, Hawaii, and Alaska in danger and even the West coast of the continental US. Are we going to draft 50 and 60 year old males for homeland defense against invasion while leaving 20 and 30 year old able bodied females to sit home and do nothing?
The gynocentric “daughters will end up cannon fodder” argument shows a value being placed upon females while showing a misandrist view towards “expendable” men. Simply, why would your son being used for cannon fodder be acceptable and why is ones son required to sacrifice while the daughter not? It is also contrary to the US Constitution, SCOTUS aside which bypassed the issue and punted to Congress (who also failed to uphold equal protection under the law in the last NDAA). But just as discrimination against minority men during Vietnam resulted in reduced combat effectiveness so too will discrimination against men in future conflicts. And how is discrimination against men not discrimination against the subset minority men?
The US already has a lack of patriotic support for our Constitutional Republic and Country problem. 50% of Democrats polled stated that if the country was invaded they would flee instead of fighting for the homeland. As during Vietnam one would expect a large portion of them, unwilling to stand against invasion, would dodge a draft forcing them to serve and fight overseas. Especially with the precedent that a future President will issue a blanket pardon for their illegal actions. Woke ideology is driving Conservatives and Christians from the military, these categories fostering many who volunteered to serve negating the need for a draft. All branches of service are now report having recruitment problems and recruitment goals are being missed. Clearly the patriotic are avoiding a hostile military work environment. And the millions of illegal aliens entering the US, male and female, are by circumstance excluded from defending the homeland, here for the benefit but not the responsibility, nor loyalty to the Republic.
Excluding females and draft dodgers from the draft leaves about 4% of the entire US population, roughly 13.5 million males aged 18-25 years old to fight in defense of the country. How long before a male blue collar carpenter realizes he has been forced to dodge bullets while another 18-25 male dodges his responsibility to the US in Canada? How long before a minority male realizes he is being pounded by artillery while his job at the furniture factory pounding nails is being filled by a male illegal alien, enjoying the benefit of citizenship at the citizens expense? How long before a male college graduate realizes he is forced to lead a combat platoon into battle before he realizes his counterpart female college graduate is working her way up the corporate leadership ladder, a non dangerous career path he wasn’t allowed to get on? Discriminatory draft policies undermined military effectiveness in Vietnam and we are forgetting our history and dooming ourselves to repeat it.
If the federal government is going to maintain a data base of possible persons required to serve in the time of need they need to apply it to men and women alike with the same penalties for avoiding the registration. At the time of induction, which should be based upon manpower needs, the person should then be separated into military basic training for ALL and then individual Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) training based upon aptitude and ability. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm) lists one category (MOS class) for combat personnel (164,000, about 17% of military personnel in 2021) and 12 for non combat personnel (970,584 personnel in 2021). Certainly minimum mental aptitude and physical qualifications have been developed for each specialty, as previously stated most being able to be completed by men and women regardless of sex according to the abilities of the individual.
As early as WW II the US Government used females in support roles in non combat areas to free up men to fill the personnel needs in combat areas. I am not suggesting that females be universally excluded and restricted from hostile combat areas but inversely I am also arguing that they should not be universally included. The MOS and units where men and women work side by side should be based upon effectiveness and if women should reduce the effectiveness of a unit involving males, or men reduce effectiveness of a unit involving females (a factor not even looked at) unit staffing should be then adjusted according to sex, but not otherwise.
Regarding standards for each MOS, as previously stated they should be based upon the minimum qualification needed to complete the tasks and assignments at hand and, absent unit cohesion issues as stated above, sex of the individual should not be considered. All should be required to serve but each according to their ability to serve the needs of the entirety and complete the tasks, goals, and objectives of the unit. The failure to recognize the importance of support roles undermines the ability of the whole to achieve the objectives.
By requiring all to register for selective service we would be supporting patriotism and announcing that all have a duty to OUR country in the of need. We would also be valuing past, present, and future sacrifices of each and every individual who has served, in any capacity, our country in the time of need. It would also be upholding the view that we are all created equal, with equal rights and responsibilities under the US Constitution which is what brings us together in common as citizens of this Republic.
The only failure of our Constitution has been a failure to apply it equally to all persons individually for the God given rights it defines, rights which come with a corresponding responsibility to the Constitution and the individual citizen’s of this country. The extension of the rights of citizenship without the corresponding responsibility to serve equally, each according to their ability, is undermining allegiance to the Constitution and to this Republic, and to each other. I encourage you to stop the sexist bias which undermines our military and make selective service equal for all.
