Parental Rights – Page 3 – Be a MAN! Take political action to support men.

It’s Time to Advocate for Parental Rights

The following is a letter I sent to the Heritage Foundation AND my Senators and Congressman requesting support for the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA). We will not see equality until such time as BOTH parents parental rights are recognized and the term “non custodial” is removed from use as a government double speak for removal of parental rights. Print, cut, copy or send the link to your federal representatives TODAY.

August 29, 2019

Kay Coles James, President, Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE Washington DC 20002-4999

Dear President James;

I am writing to encourage the Heritage Foundation to support and work for enactment of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA) which I am asking, by copy of this letter, my federal representatives to sponsor. In the years since originally proposed we have seen a never ending creep in erosion of parental rights. Well meaning but misguided teachers, child protective workers, police, and family court judges increasingly apply their standards in the place of parents. Once reserved to the strict scrutiny standard agencies now interfere in parental decisions for trivial matters under the guise of protecting children and “children’s rights”.

When originally proposed the PRRA specifically excluded “non custodial” parents, an error that undermined support as “non custodial” parents are the largest class of parents who have had their parental rights removed without cause. I suspect this oversight was due to the ‘deadbeat dad”myth which was widely debunked in federally funded studies by Sanford Braver (see Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s). With no fault divorce and out of wedlock birth’s rising combined with mother custody biases we see increasing situations where children are unilaterally removed from one of their parents, mostly fathers, care and control.

In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow the U.S. Supreme court ruled a parent didn’t have standing to sue for his child due to his “non custodial” status. This is ironic in that states apply the “non custodial” label on parents at the behest of the federal government as it is used to determine which parent pays child support to the other parent. In New York State, for example, the Court of Appeals ruled that the higher earning parent of 2 parents who had a 50-50 shared parenting time would be “non custodial for the purposes of paying child support”. Thus, an equally responsible parent has no parental rights. While it shouldn’t, the Newdow decision shows that the “non custodial” label removes a persons parental rights, this without strict scrutiny for interfering.

80% of divorces are filed by women with the number one reason being ‘we grew apart”. There is an 80%+ mother custody rate which is fueling the problem of absent disenfranchised fathers. But regardless of which parent “wins” the other parent has their parental rights terminated without cause. Worse, to “win” the parental right a family has to subject themselves to the regulatory oversight of family courts and child support bureaucracies, usually initiated by the expected “winner”. Two parents walk into family court both with parental rights and the courts “award custody” to one parent which is actually government double speak for removing one parents parental rights.

This has allowed these family oversight and regulatory agencies to increasingly place their view of what is in the child’s best interest in place of the parents. Family Court used to be reserved for cases of child abuse or neglect but it now looks at itself as the determiner of the best interest of the child in place of parents. Increasingly we see married parents having to justify their parental decision to a family court judge at the behest of a school or child welfare agency.

While due process and the lack of application of strict scrutiny towards parental rights are now the norm things could get worse. The Convention of the Rights of the Child would place government oversight over all parental decisions. In states that have enacted provisions of this into their family law we have already seen it undermine parental rights with minor children, aided by child welfare agencies, bringing parents in family court to justify their parental decisions which the child does not agree with.

Advocating for the PRRA as enclosed will bring together all parents and organizations who worry about government overreach and interference in their lives. Enactment will force courts to accept parental rights and decision making for their children as supreme over any and all government agencies. It will correct the poor decision of the Supreme Court in Newdow ensuring that parents rights are not removed with a label and without cause. It will prevent assaults on the family like the Convention of the Rights of the Child, ensuring parental rights and responsibilities are not undermined by poor legislation or treaties.

As Sanford Braver reported, the number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is a limiting court order as “non custodial” parents are limited to 4 days a month to “visit” with their children. Number two is a custodial mother who interferes with a fathers access which 50% admitted to doing. We now have 40% of children living absent their biological father (60% in minority communities). Enactment of PRRA will begin to reduce the number of children living absent one parent as BOTH parents will have retained their parental rights and their right to be responsible to their child.

I have enclosed the blog https://nymensactionnetwork.org/prra/ in support of my position.

I remain available should you require anything further.

Sincerely,

Your name here

Cc: Your Senator here,

Your other Senator here,

Your Congressman here

Red Flag Laws are Anti Male, Anti Gun, and Anti Due Process

Any man who has suffered in family and/or criminal court by the false allegation of domestic abuse is well aware of the denial of due process and anti male applications of the “Order Of Protection” (OOP). What was designed as a shield for female domestic violence victims has been turned into a sword where the system itself becomes the abuser of the innocent who is denied due process protections while being presumed guilty of future violence based upon his being male. Red Flag Laws will expand the ranks of those who can claim a person “dangerous” and restrict their rights with no opportunity to be heard. It is sure to expand upon the number of men unjustly accused and treated as guilty until proving they’re innocent.

Originally OOP’s were limited in family court to married persons and those who had a child in common and in criminal court to those already arrested for an act violence. But over time the persons who could obtain an OOP was expanded from those having a family relationship to “persons in an intimate relationship” with the relationship defined by the person requesting the order. Thus a person can claim relationship and obtain an order, even where none exists. To this we now want to add police officers, teachers, social workers, and other interested parties?

And at first directed at violent individuals the application has been watered down from violence to “abuse” and applied to those who MIGHT be a danger in the future. Also, due process was thrown out as the “victim” can now file for an order and relief ex parte in both criminal and family court thus forcing a person to prove their innocence in two venues. In criminal court prosecutorial abuse has police and prosecutors filing high and settling low. Men are often charged with felony or high misdemeanor offenses and threatened with long jail sentences, many incarcerated before they can make bail. Then at trial offered a plea deal to a violation level offense and a one year OOP. In family court the preponderance of evidence (51%) means that a judge can find one party more believable and issue orders where no evidence at all exists.

Of course the idiocy that an OOP prevents any violence flies in the face of common sense as a violent person committing violent acts faces higher sentences for the violence than violating an order. Thus the only person who is restrained is a person who would not commit the violence in the first instance. Police, Prosecutors, and Judges fear the political backlash of not doing anything and as such process and issue these OOP’s on mere allegation alone with no evidence presented. “I’m afraid of him” results in a denial of constitutional rights. The process is conducted Ex Parte so the man doesn’t even know there is an allegation against him or who filed the allegation.

The slow erosion of due process and constitutional rights is part of the radical feminist socialist agenda. Mass shooters fitting the “man with a gun” profile allow those with an anti gun, anti male biased agenda to portray all men as “toxic” by virtue of their masculinity alone. Certainly a male owning a gun is evidence of the possible extreme violent nature and as a group in need of restraint. How can we allow “toxic males” to own “dangerous assault weapons?”

Well meaning laws to “protect” women and children haven’t and may indeed be harming them. The vast majority of mass shootings are young males who lacked a biological father in their life which may be one of the contributing factors to their social isolation and anger. And a person intent on harming others and lacking a firearm will just resort to another method. A person who didn’t intend to harm others may be driven to it if persecuted without cause by being red flagged. It is believed by many that the wide media reporting of the incident and notoriety of using an “assault rifle” is why these incidents are occurring with that type of firearm. If the media coverage was greater using a pick up truck you can bet that would be the weapon of choice.

One good thing with the proposed unconstitutional red flag laws is that the public may begin to realize that they already exist for many men due to a biased and broken domestic violence industry and family court system. Men are not only denied that 2nd amendment right based upon an ex parte allegation with no opportunity to be heard, they suffer the loss of ALL their constitutional rights and end up stripped of their assets, removed from their homes and children, facing public ridicule and backlash, denied due process, all from false allegations.

To quote English legal scholar William Blackstone, “It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted.” Or Thurgood Marshall who said “I was raised in the days when the prevailing maxim was: “It is better that a thousand guilty people go free than that one innocent person suffer unjustly.” I expect they, and the founding fathers, would roll in their graves in looking at the current system which is denying due process and the proposals to expand on the unconstitutional behavior already in place.

Lt. James Hays, (Ret), West Point, MS.

The writer is a 35 year police officer retiring a Lt. with the NYS En-Con Police. He was a co-founder and past President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc., a parental rights advocacy non profit, and also past Treasurer of the NY Men’s Action Network PAC, a men’s rights advocacy organization. He is a life member of many 2nd amendment, parental rights, and men’s rights advocacy groups. He retired to MS to escape NY’s unconstitutional laws and policies which deny men their God given rights.

NY MAN endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor

The New York Men’s Action Network endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State. Larry Sharpe, running on the Libertarian Party line has come out strongly for shared parenting as natural and normal and believes parental rights should not be restricted unless a parent is proven bad and an unfit parent (see his campaign meme above). You can see Larry Sharpe speak to these issues on Long Island Back Story.

For the parents, men and women, and families abused by New York States incompetent and corrupt (anti) family courts the choice of Larry Sharpe is a no brainer for he is the FIRST statewide candidate in the last 20 years to come out publicly calling for family court and child custody reform. He has gone so far as to include it on one of his campaign buttons and other campaign materials.

available here

Let’s address the nay sayers who will dismiss this endorsement asking for support for their party. For the last 20 years each party has controlled one house of the legislature and held the Governor’s Office about 1/2 the time, yet neither party has seen fit to pass ANY reform legislation. Additionally, NO candidate for statewide public office of either major party has publicly come out in support for reform of the system in any fashion.

Republican’s will point to the anti family policies of NY Democrat’s, and while it is true Assembly Democrats like disgraced leader Sheldon Silver and (then) Judiciary Committee Chair Helene Weinstein have blocked ALL legislation, especially shared parenting legislation (which enjoys over 80% support from all New Yorkers) Senate Republican’s have also been active in opposing shared parenting, with Senators like Republican Betty Little leading the opposition to reform. It is an unholy alliance of “opposing” parties which blames the other for inaction to reform a system they put into place together.

The “deadbeat dad” legislation introduced by Republican Sen. Kathy Marchionne is a classic example of the unholy alliance of Republican’s and Democrats. Studies have shown that the reason for default on child support is due to high awards and inability to pay. Thus the system impacts poor fathers, disproportionately fathers of color, and yet Democrats readily jump on the “deadbeat” bandwagon, even though these fathers are beat dead and dead broke. Democrats and Republicans alike turn a blind eye to fathers incarcerated for non payment, a debtors prison for poor men, mostly men of color.

Republican support to label disenfranchised dads deadbeats 2013

A constituent letter to Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara and Senator George Amedore has went unanswered by both deadbeat politicians for over a year now. Now that they are running for reelection they freely contact constituents for support. Deadbeat Santabarbara sent a snail mail notice with contact information on his office stating, “I encourage you to call me, send me an email, or visit my web site… I want to hear from you”. A blatant lie given the non response to parental rights issues before him which went unanswered, without even a form letter of acknowledgement. Deadbeat Amedore announces his “lime disease” Committee work and “FREE document shredding” by snail mail. Taxpayer money spent on reelection while he ignores the plight of children and destroyed families. Deadbeat Santabarbara went so far as to block the constituent on LinkedIn when he posted about the death of Gabby Boyd due to his legislative inaction on reform.

Vote for me because the other guys is worse is NO reason to vote for them. The 2 party status quo (crazy) do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome people (Republican Molinaro) will tell you a vote for a “3rd party” candidate (LARRY SHARPE) is a “split vote” working for the Incumbent (Democrat Cuomo). Perhaps if the supporters of either major party wished the support of father, mother, and family advocates they would have done something to reform a system instead of creating this one which is harming children and destroying families.

Can Larry win? What we say is does it matter if another status quo do nothing for reform politician wins (Democrat or Republican)? But if recent elections are any indication, the answer is yes, he can. But even without a win we have established the need for reform and if any future candidates want the support of family advocates they will have to begin to address the issues. A good showing on election day for Larry Sharpe is good for reform advocates, families, children, and parents. See Larry Sharpe on the Rubin Report speaking on this topic. He’s also on Joe Rogan here.

NY MAN is a non partisan political action site dedicated to men, father, and family issues. We believe in the EQUAL rights of BOTH parents, the right of children to BOTH parents, and in PARENTAL RIGHTS as superior to government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians who act as as if they know best how to raise your children, treating them, and you, as dependent on and working for the state. Morally superior “professional” busybodies telling you how to live your daily life and raise your children “in your best interest” while they plunder your assets while telling you the tyranny is for your own good need to be voted out of office.

Let your voice be heard. We encourage you to support and VOTE for Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State.

Request to US Senators to Support Parental Rights

August 7, 2018

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

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

Dear Senators:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undermine Parental Rights to Undermine all Other Rights

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

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

Why is this important to constitutional rights advocacy organizations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parents’ Rights and Responsibilities Act of 20??

_______ CONGRESS _____ Session

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

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 20??

A BILL

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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) requires a parent to initially demonstrate that–

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 5. STRICT SCRUTINY.

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

SEC. 6. CLAIM OR DEFENSE.

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

SEC. 7. ATTORNEY’S FEES.

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

Letter to NY State Legislators

Sent to these legislators with attachments on 1-25-18. Copy, Paste, and Modify to fit your desires AND SEND IT TO YOURS!

Senator George Amedore
20 Park St., Fonda NY 12068

Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara
2550 Riverfront Center, Amsterdam NY 12010

Dear Senator and Assemblyman:

January 25, 2018

I am writing as your constituent to obtain your assistance in securing legislation which will benefit families in NYS.

Most states and the Federal Government have failed to move with the times and have lagged in updating and modifying their laws, policies, and procedures to stay with current trends of two working parents, often unmarried and living apart, yet both actively involved in the raising of their children. Unfortunately, NYS is worse. New York’s “standard visitation order” is stuck in an outdated sexist and biased system from the 1950’s of a stay at home mother and a working father. The presumptive order of a “custodial” mother and a “Non Custodial” visiting, child support paying father is the norm with almost no deviation from this “one size fits all” model.

Worse, NY Courts are biased against men and fathers. As far back as 1986 a NYS Office of Court Administration study of bias against women in the courts found not only bias against mothers but also extreme bias against fathers concerning child custody and support payments. Studies, Commissions, and revues over the years bear this out, yet nothing is done to correct the problems. False allegations and perjury are an accepted norm, fostered by attorneys with “a wink and a nod” coaching their clients to “win”.

Long delays in court are the norm, most people can’t afford the attorney fees to navigate it and end up going Pro Se (especially men and poor people). Our nine tiered court system is widely recognized as antiquated and confusing, even to those who work within it, yet court restructure and reform remains elusive and undone to the detriment of NY citizens. Family and Supreme Courts operate with no oversight, a virtual star chamber, which seems to serve no man, woman, or child with balanced blind justice. This made worse when you don’t have adequate legal counsel.

To correct this I am calling on you both to sponsor or co-sponsor legislation which would:

Legislation for proper terminology by replacing “visitation” with “Parenting Time”.
Legislation to make shared parenting and equal parental rights and responsibilities
the law of this state.
Legislation to provide mediation and/or collaborative law as an option to litigation.
Legislation to secure Court restructure and reform.
Legislation to remove the “star chamber” under which family courts now operate by opening courts to the public (unless a finding for closure is on the record), mandating electronic court recording, and allowing the parties to individually record ALL court proceedings.
Legislation to provide for access enforcement of parenting time by law enforcement agencies for clear violations of a court order.
Legislation to modify Child Support consistent with parental involvement and direct expenditures to ensure payments don’t restrict parenting time or result in a child having reduced standards of living with one parents household versus the other.
Legislation to ensure both parents have access to child’s to records health care, education, and welfare unless restricted by court order.
Legislation to mandate at birth DNA testing for out of wedlock births to determine paternity and allow for DNA evidence of false paternity to be introduced at any time and false paternity shall relieve the person from mandatory parental obligations.
Legislation to establish a fathers parental rights at the time of paternity establishment.
Legislation to mandate that the OTDA conduct quadrennial reviews as required by Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and that stakeholders input include organizations which represent parental, children, and family rights during the review process.

Discussion:

Terminology changes. We need look no further than the 2010 Review of the New York State Child Support Guidelines (2010 Review”) to find support for terminology change. Not only does it propose to eliminate the negative term “visitation” it also proposes to eliminate the term “custodial” and “non custodial” as not descriptive of todays social norms. Long proposed by parental rights advocates, it is high time this piece of legislation passed into law.

Shared Parenting. A cornerstone of family rights and children rights advocates is enactment of shared parenting as the law of the land. Although hiding behind the excuse of “judicial discretion”, NY now currently employs a default “visitation schedule” ironically referred to in the NY Courts as “the standard NY order” of visiting every other weekend and one mid week visit of 4 hours. This denial of one parents access to children has been shown to be detrimental to a child’s health and well being. In effect the “standard NY order” is NOT in the best interest of the child. And in cases where there is cause Judges could still restrict a parents access. The 2010 Review of NYS Child Support Guidelines recommends shared parenting be the norm.

Mandatory Mediation and/or Collaborative Law. The cost of divorce/separation and settlement of child custody and support issues is now a very expensive endeavor which removes assets which could better be used for the child. The adversarial “winner” mentality of court has parents focused more on not losing their children (rightfully so) and less on the needs of the child. Mediation and/or collaborative law has been shown to reduce animosity between parents and result in reduced litigation and increased compliance with orders post legal action. It reduces burdens on the court as the only issue which have to be litigated are those where agreement can not be found between the parties.

Court Restructure and Reform. Has bipartisan support and is supported by the Judiciary. As it requires Constitutional changes reform enacted this cycle will have to be considered in the next cycle. As the Constitutional Convention is not being held I call upon you to get this done.

Open Courts and recording of ALL actions before the court. While certainly there are situations where the court of its own volition, or at the parties mutual consent, where the courts would restrict all, or some, public access for cause. This does not negate the right of the parties themselves to have accurate video and/or audio recordings of all proceedings. In any minor traffic infraction we require the proceedings be recorded to protect the rights of the individual, yet when litigating family matters we ignore the rights of individuals to a true and accurate accounting of the facts? Let’s secure legislation to end these star chambers.

Access Enforcement. Right now there is NO access enforcement for parents save for a costly return to court which after the fact results in the parent losing time with the child even when it was ordered by the court. It is criminal contempt in the penal law to violate the order of a court yet law enforcement agencies will not enforce custody orders. Just as we have mandatory arrest for violating an Order of Protection we should have equal mandatory arrests for violating custody orders of the court.

Child support reform. The 2010 Review calls on modification lowering percentages for higher income brackets. Additionally, it reports that deviations from base amounts, currently authorized by law, are not being used by lower income brackets, most likely caused by the lack of legal representation and also the systems not adequately explaining the guidelines and deviations to people. I encourage you to work with OTDA to enact reform to correct this.

Access to official records. Right now schools and other institutions tend to view the designation of “non custodial” parent as removal of parental rights. Many parents report difficulties in accessing their child’s records. While the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) guarantees a parents rights to school records I encourage you to put forth state legislation which guarantees that parental rights not be infringed based upon a label or designation and unless the parental rights are specifically restricted, applying strict scrutiny, and removed by the court.

At birth DNA testing. And false paternity is a fraud perpetrated on both the man and the child. Responsible Fatherhood starts with identifying the biological father and a child has a right to know who his real father is. Unfortunately over 30% of DNA tests of men identified as fathers find out that they are not the biological father of the child. And once a man signs on as the father he can not challenge the fact even if DNA later shows he has been daddy duped into thinking he was the father. I encourage you to put forth legislation which mandates mandatory at brith DNA testing for all out of wedlock birth’s and additionally to put forth legislation removing a man’s responsibilities to children found not to be his by DNA testing regardless of the length of time he had been duped.

Paternity AND parental rights establishment. Paternity establishment is one of the federal reimbursements under Ttitle IVd SSA. 80% of out of wedlock fathers are at the hospital at the time of the birth of their child and were already willing to admit paternity. Unfortunately, in addition to the problems with false paternity, the signing on as a father makes him financially responsible but does NOT secure his parental rights. I believe the OTDA should be mandated to aid and assist a father obtain his parental right in addition to securing his financial responsibility and ask for legislation to do this. Child support is BEING THERE and I believe we should all work to ensure a child has both parents.

Quadrennial Reviews timely and to include father participation. To my knowledge NO father or “non custodial” parent has ever been invited to submit comment for a review. Nor has an electronic forum ever been provided to collect their views. Simply, how is it that OTDA can address the issues of men/fathers if they do not bother to ask what they are? They can’t, and they haven’t. The recent review for 2010 was completed in 2017 and to my knowledge has never been up to date. Outdated information excluding the needs, wants and desires of men/fathers and “non” custodial parents is sure to produce policies and laws which do not meet their current needs and this is the current system that we have. Let’s get up to date, and include fathers views.

Child Excise Tax Freedom Day for “Non Custodial” Parents

The U.S. Tax freedom Day is estimated to be on April 19, 2018 but for those who pay a child excise tax (AKA Child Support) the tax freedom day occurs later, much later, in the year. Our estimate is that a non custodial parent has to work until August 1 to pay the combined tax load. That’s into the 8th month of the year before you see a penny of your hard earned dollars.

Why is it a Child Excise Tax and not “child support”?

Matrimonial issues, including child custody and support are issues reserved to the states. But the federal government’s “war on poverty” begun under President Johnson was increasing in costs over the years. The federal government formed the Office of Child Support under the Reagan administration which worked on Child Support GUIDELINES (developed in 1987) to be given to states with a mandate that they have a system in place to ensure working non residential fathers were financially supporting their children to reduce the monetary impact to benefits paid out of federal coffers. As an incentive to comply (passed in 1988) the federal government tied payments to the states with a deadline of 1989, a scant one year to comply or lose $$. (See “Child Support Reform” for current incentive payments to states and “Parents; Declare Your Independence” for the unconstitutional nature of child support)

Prior to the guidelines state courts were free to set child support payments based upon a showing of need, a “Costs Shares” Model which allowed both residential and non residential parents to share in the actual costs of raising the child. Income transfers from one parent to the other were minimal and usually occurred as an exchange when the non residential parent was exercising their parental time with the children, an incentive to both parties to pay and allow access pursuant to the court order. A non residential parent could be ordered to pay expenses directly, such as medical insurance coverage or costs or school extra curricular expenses.

The Guidelines sent out by the federal government, however, were an “Income Shares” Model, a set percentage of income with an increasing sliding scale upwards based on the number of children. As it is a fixed percentage dependent on quantity it is an excise tax and an income transfer, with the government as middle man, from one parent to the other. The model is flawed as it presumes the custodial parent makes the payments benefitting the children directly and it transfers the money from the non custodial parent to the custodial with no accountability for the custodial parents child expenses actually paid. Further, it has no relationship to the actual cost of raising a child in that state or the costs based on actual circumstances of the child. The guidelines themselves were derived from income and expense models for intact families and thus ignored the real world economics of maintaining two households for the children. Health care, child care, and extraordinary expenses are added on after the income transfer is set, thus skewing the percentage even higher.

It should be noted that the Income Shares submission from the feds to the states was a guideline and states were free to modify, change, or put into place any plan, but the short turn around (enactment 1988, deadline 1989) and the fact that ALL states had guidelines in place on time indicates the states just enacted the guidelines generally as proposed. The federal governments own studies on enactment showed the states did little more than quick reviews, minor changes and enacted the guideline as a mandate. This simply to maximize the states reimbursements $$ from the federal government. For New York State the income transfer amounts were set at 17% for one child, 25% for 2, 28% for 3, etc. and were based on GROSS income plus add ons and a expenses based on pro rata income of the parents.

1st Rule of Accounting; Net Income = Assets – liabilities.

Using general numbers we can break down the actual cost for a custodial parent and a non custodial parent who has the standard NY visitation order of every other weekend and one day mid week for 4 hours with 2 children. Assuming a $16 an hour 30 hour work week for CP and a $24 an hour 40 hour work week for NCP, rounded numbers and general tax bracketing.

Custodial Parent 2. Non Custodial Parent

Gross Income (after FICA) $25000 $50000
Federal Tax – $0 -$11000*
State Tax – $1250 – $3250
Federal EITC + $6444 + 0

After Tax Income $30194 $35750
Medical Insurance Premiums $0 – $7500
Child Care Expenses – $3467 – $6933
Extraordinary Expenses – $670 – $1330
Excise Tax Income Transfer +$12500 – $12500

Net Income CP $38557 NCP $7487

Tax Freedom Day 0 days – January 1 213 days – August 1st

*This is filing status single for the NCP and Head of Household and both child deductions for the CP. If an agreement in the order is in place NCP may be able to file head of household with one child exemption but it is not guaranteed (abt $2000 reduction). NCP medical insurance cost shown is increase due to keeping a family plan to carry the children, cost of single plan deducted from both. Child care expenses are set by CP and beyond NCP’s control, even if NCP has available kith or kin care for free and lacking a “right of first refusal” for care of the children specified in the order. Extraordinary expenses are dental (braces), eye care, etc. and again the choice of provider and expense levels are controlled by the CP.

In NYS there is no set proportional offset for time with the children. On the remaining $144 a week net income the NCP needs to ensure adequate space for children during parenting access time. It is plainly apparent the NCP will have to seek extra work and income to survive thus reducing the time available to interact with the children. Additionally, increased income may result in the court revisiting the order and increasing the child excise tax based on higher income.

Once income is set, any reduction is considered a voluntary reduction in income and income levels can be imputed and set at the higher level. The child excise tax is an order for the employer to deduct and is taken out before net pay (just like the other taxes) leaving the NCP the take home pay. Should a NCP be assessed a child excise tax which results in garnishment of greater than 65% of his gross income, the level of deduction is capped HOWEVER, the amount is still owed and is added to the NCP’s arrears which, when hitting certain levels results in automatic suspension of drivers licenses, seizure of registered automobiles, suspension of professional licenses, and even incarceration. Loss of driving privileges or professional licenses, and even involuntary incarceration for the non payment of the child excise tax is considered a VOLUNTARY reduction in income and the assessment still accrues and adds to the arrears during this time.

Taxation without representation?

It’s important to note here that the NCP never financially abandoned their children and there was no clear and convincing evidence that being a “non custodial” parent would lead to them NOT financially support their children in the future, a clear violation of parental rights and the strict scrutiny standard for government to intervene. The limited time “visiting” with the children, against the wishes of the NCP, is further violation of the individuals constitutionally protected parental rights. Worse, the transfer of income has an inverse action on time with the children for as the income transfer increases the ability to spend time with the children decreases. Taxation without representation.

Stripped of our children without our consent. Without our consent, taxed for the violation of our right. Our petitions for redress of these grievances answered only with more injury. Given the assault upon out natural, God given parental rights, by a government which is supposed to be protecting those parental rights, one does wonder when the tea will hit the harbor.

Parents; declare your independence from a despotic government

Why do we continue to allow the denial of parental rights on a routine basis, without cause, and contrary to the U.S. Constitution? The problem lies in acceptance of the system by those of us within the system believing it has authority over our parental rights and decision making. As a movement we need to understand the unconstitutional nature of these government actions against parents. Unless you abandon, abuse, or neglect your child the removal of your rights is unconstitutional. Unless you abandon or neglect your child financially then child support (actually a child excise tax) is unconstitutional. Any process that does NOT take into account you have not abandoned or neglected your child is a violation of your parental rights.

It seems to me that the beauty of the Declaration of Independence was that one need not be some legal scholar or person of high learning to understand it. Simply, we all individually have unalienable God given rights which the government can NOT remove. Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is mine to define and pursue how I see fit. It is tyranny when government controls my life and restricts my liberty and in so doing removes my pursuit of happiness and violates my God given rights. All men are created equal, we all have equal protection under the law (14th Amendment).

Parental rights are a fundamental right and the state must apply strict scrutiny to interfere with them and child custody shall not be removed without clear and convincing evidence of abuse and/or neglect. As a parent I, as the vast majority of parents do, placed the health and welfare of my children above even my own. A standard I believed to be well above the threshold of a clear and convincing showing of abuse and neglect which should keep me free from government intervention. And should allegations to the contrary be made I certainly expected to be given due process prior to removal of my parental rights for easily no cause to do so existed. I was wrong, so terribly, terribly, wrong.

The decision to remove my children from my care and custody and to garnish a large percentage of my income for “child support” was all against my wishes and more importantly, all without cause. I stood ready to exercise care and custody of my children and to provide for them financially, and absent abuse, neglect, or abandonment the courts had no clear and convincing evidence to interfere with my fundamental right of parenthood. Worse, I was DENIED due process of law and the strict scrutiny standard for state intervention was never met. I expect your case was exactly the same.

Make no mistake about it, the wholesale removal of parental rights without cause is the NUMBER ONE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE OF THE 21ST CENTURY. The unconstitutional nature of this is made worse as all 3 branches of government at both the federal and state level operate in collusion to violate your rights. The entire Orwellian system is so lacking in common sense it is almost laughable were it not so tragic for men, women, children, families, and society. Many published legal argument exist for reform of the unconstitutional system (see Parental Rights and Due Process by Donald C. Hubin as an example) and books have been written about the injustices (see The New Politics of Sex by Stephen Baskerville as an example). Yet many, if not most, of those negatively impacted still do not fully understand the violation of their basic rights.

Understanding that men are disposed to suffer abuses before acting on them, we suffer a long train of abuses of our parental rights here which forces us to recognize that government regulates the family not in the interest of the family but in the interest of government itself, a series of bureaucratic despots removing life, liberty, due process and happiness at every turn. With 40% of children disenfranchised from their fathers and living absent them one wonders how long before parents throw off this absolute tyranny? Do we accept that the nanny/daddy state is superior to families and fathers to raise children?

I ask, can the court award me air? I have this right to breathe, as all do, and need no court to award it to me. Yet when I stood in court with an equal parent the court “awards custody to the mother” which she already had in concert with me. And so in fact it was government double speak for what the court was really saying is that I was denied my parental right to the care and custody of my children. There was no equal or equitable distribution of both parents rights. I was made a “Non Custodial” Parent and removed from my children. What ludicrous government double speak is next, an award of air to another which deprives me of life?

I had a 15 year history of providing for my children financially and there was no evidence presented to indicate that I would not do so in the future. Yet without a showing of neglect or abandonment, nor with a showing of need on the part of the children, I was assessed an excise tax. It was a percentage of income based upon the number of children (48% of my gross salary), income transferred from my control to the other parent. Apparently I was adjudicated a pre-crime sentence with no showing of cause to prevent a future neglect or abandonment which might occur.

Even though matrimonial matters and child welfare are rights reserved to the states the federal government operates a system of financial incentives to create single parent homes. The Constitutionally illegal Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (USOCSE) was created to collect “child support” as reimbursement for welfare benefits paid out and to be returned to government coffers, in other words an excise tax on non residential fathers of mothers choosing to receive public assistance. A “non custodial” parent is necessary for a child support order which the state needs to receive federal reimbursements and as such the state has a perverse incentive to keep parents apart, or to break up existing marriages.

The USOCSE bureaucracy feeds a State Office of Child Support (S-OCSE) which also serves to maintain proper accounting to maximize collections from the federal government. Another incentive to the states is the collection of “child support arrears”. Thus the state has an interest in setting the child excise tax as high as it can to ensure arrears occur. Temporary orders of support are often set below the standards, with the bureaucracy working months before a final order is entered, ensuring that there will be arrears right from the get go. And payers will be forced to pay at the rate set, any change in job is considered a “voluntary reduction in income” and ludicrously, even incarceration is considered a “voluntary reduction” with the arrears building.

Married parents present a problem as it is built in shared parenting arrangements, no orders to add to incentive payments. So enter “no fault divorce” to provide incentives to break families apart. Unilateral divorces of convenience, “we grew apart”, are now common. An 85% mother custody rate and the resulting child support income transfer fuels the filings, about 50% of all marriages. Combined with out of wedlock births, the system has steady continuous supply of “clients”.

State family courts have no legal restriction to not award shared parenting but this would minimize federal reimbursements so it is not done. Ironically, in arguing against shared parenting the NYS Bar Association stated that it would “limit judicial discretion” this in spite of the system referring to the every other weekend of visitation and one mid week 4 hour visit by “Non Custodial” Parents as “the standard NY order”. These court of equity (and not law) are designed to work “in the best interest of the child”, yet never does a court go on the record to explain exactly how “the standard NY order” is in the interest of a child.

The greatest shame within the system, over and above the violation of parental rights, is that the system which is supposed to protect children from harm is putting them in harms way. The volume of evidence to support positive outcomes for children with two active and involved parents is overwhelming. Societally, support for shared parenting is well over 80% among the population, liberal, libertarian, and conservative alike. In spite of this, state legislatures fail to act to reform the system. The courts continue to order parents and children apart. Executive Agencies continue to plunder parents assets. All under the guise of doing good, ‘in the best interest of the children”.

While often portrayed as a conservative v. liberal issue, or a man v. woman issue, the rightful point of blame is with an overbearing intrusive government which has overstepped its Constitutional authority and violates individual God given rights. Many celebrate July 4 and recognize this National Day of Independence as freeing us from tyranny. But for us beat dead with no due process, dead broke for payment of child excise taxes, abused by a tyrannical omnipotent morally superior government, disenfranchised parents there is no freedom or justice.

The yoke of unjust bureaucratic despots is the same as the yoke of unjust kings. I encourage all to call on the government to modify Ttile IVd SSA and to enact the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act.

and most importantly…

Get your free copy of the US Constitution here