Bias against fathers is killing children

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

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

Our original post regarding the incident:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many other innocent children have to be sacrificed?

Bob the Non Custodial Father – NYC Fireman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fix Federal Child Support Laws to Lower Welfare Costs

August 7, 2018

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

Dear Sir;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What of men’s EQUAL right to reproductive choice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men in the Middle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t tell me what the other guy didn’t do, tell me what YOU have done?

As of June 26, 2018 there has been no Republican response (to my letter which follows) with a platform or policy from either the Republican National Committee or the NY State Republican Committee, any Republican Candidate for statewide office, nor any action during the 2018 legislative cycle from either major party.

Republican support to label disenfranchised dads deadbeats 2013

January 30, 2018

Chairman Edward F. Cox, NYS Republican Committee, 315 State St. Albany, NY 12210

Dear Chairman,

A simple question from this registered Republican; At what point will NY Republican candidates realize that pandering to Democratic votes doesn’t result in Republican Candidate victories? I put forth as an example of this the loss of the NYS Senate majority these past 10 years. This question is not new as I have asked it for 15 years now, it goes all the way back to Rick Lazio running against the carpetbagger Clinton and Gillibrand’s rise in NY politics first as Congresswoman.

I personally worked with legislators on the Family Court Reform Act (currently http://nyassembly.gov/leg/?bn=A06054&term=2017) which was originally introduced by Jay Dinga and then carried by Bob Prentiss (my Assemblyman, at our request). As Brian Kolb took over sponsorship of this legislation when I noted he was running for governor I immediately began to lobby men’s rights/father rights/parental rights organizations (MRA/FRA/PRA) to support him. Then the Assembly Minority Report on DV came out and the question was why we should support a candidate who puts forth anti male propaganda such as this? When I brought up sponsorship of the reform act I was asked what had the Republican’s actually delivered for us these past 20 years? I had no answer for indeed the answer to the question is they have achieved nothing for us.

Years back, in my lobbying for MRA’s, etc. I had the opportunity to meet with Lazio and his people in his run for US Senate against Clinton. In discussing support of his campaign it was stated we had to support them, “after all what are you guys going to do, vote for Clinton”. I expect that mentality resulted in zero support for him. Congressman Sweeney had put forth anti male federal alimony legislation. We met with his staff and Saratoga County Republican leaders and got the same response, even when he was challenged by Gillibrand they stated, “What are you going to do, vote for her”? This time public support for the Democrat was given, the dismissiveness enough to drive votes to her, and cost him the re-election. Ironically we had asked him to modify domestic violence legislation for protections for the accused (often falsely) and it was his failure to act which contributed to his loss under the shadow of mere allegations.

Political party enrollments within the ranks of the men, fathers, women, and families who suffer the injustices of this anti family court system mirror statewide enrollments. Given the large enrollment edge of the Democrats it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Republican’s need to pull a large portion of not only independent voters, but also democrats to make any headway into returning Republican’s to power in NYS, especially in a statewide election. These disenfranchised dads, moms, and families are a prime target for votes, yet not only do Republicans not go after disenfranchised Democrats, they disenfranchise their base, registered Republican voters like me who were beat dead, driven broke, and disenfranchised by the system. If local, state, and national Republicans wish to garner the votes and support of these disenfranchised Republican, Democrat, and Independent voters you need to not only take policy positions which address these injustices, but actually achieve some level of reform.

The portrayal and treatment of men as if they are “deadbeats” and “abusers” of women and children has got to stop if you expect any support from MRA/FRA/PRA groups. The Parental Rights of BOTH parents needs to be protected (which also protects the rights of the child and is also in their best interest). Domestic violence programs need to be reformed to serve ALL victims of domestic violence, including men. The rights of individuals accused need to be protected with equal application of laws and due process. False allegations need to be addressed and in those instances where it rises to perjury and false statements on the record the violators prosecuted.

Many of these problems are driven by federal monetary incentives such as Title IVd of the Social Security Act (More HERE) and the denial of Parental Rights through government double speak (More HERE). By labelling “non custodial” parents at the state level to increase the perverse financial incentives under the act the label is then used as a basis to deny parental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The $1 Billion a year funding of the Violence Against “Women” Act based on the Duluth Model is nothing more than financing of liberal policies regarding families which is detrimental to Republican’s. There is, however, much the state can do to lessen these violations of parental rights which are destroying families. By supporting policy changes and passing legislation supporting families, parents, and equality for individuals at the state level Republican’s can expect to increase their support from these disenfranchised people.

I have enclosed a few items in support of these positions and can provide further discussion and/or information on request:

Bill memo for A06054 The Family Court reform Act,
Letter to President trump in support of reform to Title IVd of the Social Security Act,
Discussion and text for the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act,
NY Men’s Action Network blog regarding the lack of political support for men in NY,
“Duluth Model Buries Key Facts on DV”, by Erin Pizzy (founder of the first refuge in the world for DV victims).

I thank you for your time in this matter and look forward to working with you in the future for Fathers and Families.

Sincerely yours,

Lt. James Hays, (Ret.)

CC: RNC; Ronna McDaniel, Bob Paduchik, NYGOP Staff; John Burnett, Jason Weingartner, Pierry Benjamin, Oliver Tan, Marie Mclam, Jim Thompson.

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

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

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

How many other innocent child have to be sacrificed?

Photo: Gabriella Maria Boyd: Credit to Martin Rose and the Mamaroneck Daily Voice (used under fair use doctrine).

Welcome to adulthood Gen Z: advice for boys aging into men.

Originally posted April 2017

As reported by Reason.com (Welcome to adulthood Gen Z) Pew research has moved up the millennials (19 to 36 years old in 2017) to welcome the next generation into adulthood under the moniker “Gen Z” (born after 1998). Now that you’re 18 you’ve probably researched the “important” stuff, night time driving privileges and the age you can legally consume alcohol but there is some stuff that impacts men which you are probably not aware of. So this paternalistic baby boomer card carrying member of Friends of Protection For Men and the National Coalition For Men, and a Men’s Rights Activist will give you a few pointers. At 18 you are an adult and will be treated like an adult. Mistakes made now can have life changing and long lasting effects on your future.

MEN – Life isn’t fair, be ready for it. You’ve probably been fed a regular dose of men are privileged and women downtrodden. Edgar Allen Poe advised that we should believe only half of what we see and nothing that we hear. This applies to what you have learned about men and society. When faced with a “truth” which doesn’t apply to our actions we often accept the “truth” but figure it must be the other guy. As you begin to navigate in the adult world you’re going to find that many of your assumptions about how things work are wrong. Part of growing up is learning your own truth’s and what works for you in an ever changing society. Unfortunately, some things you do have serious consequences if you are wrong. Knowledge is power, so don’t take any one piece of advice as factual (even mine here), question everything, verify everything.

First up is Selective Service. As a male you need to sign up for the military draft and if you fail to do so there are multiple penalties at both the state and federal level, including being charged with a felony, fined, and jailed. The government tells us, “If a draft is ever needed, it must be as fair as possible, and that fairness depends on having as many eligible men as possible registered.” Missing from their information is HOW IS IT FAIR THAT MEN HAVE TO REGISTER AND NOT WOMEN? Most people will point to combat roles, indeed, it was the exclusion from combat in the volunteer military which was used to exempt women from the draft in the first place. This is a ludicrous excuse as it takes 2 to 3 people working to keep one man in combat. So we’ll draft men to work in finance, planning, as quartermasters but not require women to do the same? Now that the military has opened combat roles to women this lame excuse has no bearing on serving. Either EVERYBODY needs to register or NOBODY needs to register. I would direct you to put this question onto your Congressman’s twitter or web page and ask them direct, remind them that at 18 you are now a voting member of society. More is here at NCFM.

Second is reproductive rights. As a man YOU HAVE NONE! Again, understand that MEN HAVE NO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS! The NYS Court of Appeals has even ruled that “a man’s right to reproduction ends at ejaculation”. This is true even if she pokes holes in your condom or steals your sperm from a used condom in the garbage (and even if not used on her!). If a woman gets pregnant she can abort the child against your will and has no obligation to notify you of this. If she decides to have the child she does NOT have to notify you of that. She can ask, and will receive, child support even for a child you did not want (no male aborting allowed) and if she hid the child from you for years and then seeks you out for child support you will be assessed back to the time of birth! What sage advice do I have for this? PROTECT YOURSELF AT ALL TIMES! Short of abstinence there is no 100% effective method to protect yourself. Women CAN, and DO, lie about their reproductive status so WEAR A CONDOM! I suggest, “How To Avoid “Getting Screwed” When Getting Laid” by RK Hendrick, Esq. for practical suggestions. Get it, read it, abide by it.

Third up is False paternity. Mommy’s baby is Daddy’s maybe. If you are identified as the father of a child and you you accept paternity it can NOT be rescinded even if DNA testing later in life proves you are not the father. There are many men paying child support for children that are not theirs (estimates run as high as 10%) and there are even legal instances where you can be named the father and have had no relations with the woman and are forced to pay anyway. Women CAN, and DO lie about their reproductive status and the number of sexual partners and relations that they have. Many are known to “Daddy shop”, naming a man who earns the most money as the father to maximize their child support even if they are not sure who the father is. The system is designed so you pay more for one child than for two so it is in a woman’s interest to have TWO baby daddy’s paying for “her” two kids instead of one paying for two. Again, wear a condom, bring your own, and dispose of the used condom away from females. and ALWAYS get an at birth DNA test before admitting paternity!

Fourth is Consent for sex – and false allegations of sexual abuse and rape. Everyone understands that no means no (and this should apply to MEN also) but here are 3 areas where YES MEANS NO; Age of consent, intoxication, and her regret the next day. It is the biased perception that all sexual abuse is perpetrated by men towards women (all women “need” protection) which has made it so that normal legal protections, the right of due process and innocent until proven guilty, have been thrown out when men are accused of rape or sexual abuse. This applies to criminal charges but is even worse in some institutions such as at colleges and universities and at work, especially those needing professional licensing. Even if adjudicated “not guilty” the allegation and the negative perceptions of you will follow you throughout your life. And, except in rare circumstances, there are virtually NO repercussions for making false allegation.

If you get intoxicated with a female the intoxication will be determined to remove her ability to consent to sex but it will NOT remove your responsibility for having sex with her. If equally drunk or stoned there is a very good chance you will be charged with rape because you are male. There are even circumstances where a third party reports the “rape” of a female having drunken and/or consensual sex and the male is investigated and charged civilly. The federal government has pressured colleges, threatening to remove funding, if they do not combat “sexual abuse” by applying “affirmative consent” rules to private sexual relations between consenting adults. These rules have undermined due process on colleges. The best way to protect yourself is to NOT have drunken sex. The issue of colleges, affirmative consent, and the loss of protections for the falsely accused is reported on by Reason Magazine here.

Find out the age of consent in the jurisdiction that you are in! And understand that there are different rules in each and every state and that also there are federal rules and criminal penalties. As an 18 years old you will be treated and tried as an adult if you are having sexual relations with a female who is statutorily determined to be a child by age. Sexting is a big problem as the transmittal of “child pornography” is a federal crime, and the transmission of a photo of an underage female in her underwear to a male can be construed to be “child pornography” and you can be arrested for a felony, tried and/or coerced into pleading guilty, and have to register as a “sex offender” for the rest of your life. You can find coverage of an individual case here and Reason Magazine has a good overview of the overreach and over reaction here. Stop any “underage” sex and NO SEXTING!

Regret reported as abuse will result in investigation and possibly criminal charges and civil actions. The Duke Lacrosse case is a good example of the impact of false allegations. People sometimes do regret the sexual situations they get themselves into, especially females, and especially if it is talked about or sent around on social media. False allegations of rape and sexual abuse have been used by females to solicit sympathy and/or jealousy. Allegations of sexual abuse can, and have, been made weeks and months after the incident and even if you are found to have not committed the act you can still suffer the stigma as the “Mattress girl” case shows. Be careful not to put yourself into situations which could be construed as non consensual sex when looked at AFTER THE FACT! You can get more information at SAVE-Stop Abusive and Violent Environments.

Fifth is Domestic violence, specifically disorderly incidents and false allegations by females. IF YOU ARE A MAN YOU WILL BE TREATED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVEN IF IT IS MUTUAL, YOU ARE DEFENDING YOURSELF, OR YOU ARE THE VICTIM! The fact of the matter is our response to domestic violence is a one sided affair which looks at men as perpetrators and women as victims. What was designed as a shield to protect abused people is now a sword used regularly through false allegations. Inversely, if you are a male victim there are almost no services available for you and most likely, if you are to report, you will end up being the one investigated.

Statutory protections and due process. Every person is protected from assault by the penal code and if you are involved in an altercation with another person you can press charges or, in the case of a mutual disagreement or their being extenuating circumstances, decide to not press charges. For the district attorney to prosecute they would require you to make a statement and then appear at trial. If you declined to make a statement or appear then charges would not be pursued. YOU decide to press charges, to make a statement, and to pursue a trial. In cases of mutual combat between males (most often) charges would not be filed. But remember, even in defense, most physical acts towards a female by a male will be viewed negatively and result in charges field against you. However, the only recourse is through criminal court where you would need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (high standard of proof). But that’s not true for domestic “abuse”.

While domestic abuse laws used to apply only to those related by blood or marriage or those who had a child together they have now been expanded to persons in an “intimate relationship” (intimate partner). Thus the domestic abuse laws now apply to heterosexual and same sex dating couples including teenagers which is YOU. Worse, there is no definition of “intimate relationship” so if she says she’s in an intimate relationship with you, you will be treated as if she is even if you do not consider her so.

This is important because if you are an “intimate partner” then the domestic violence laws apply to you. Now both criminal court AND family court have concurrent jurisdiction. There is Mandatory Arrest for any injury and if there are injuries to both parties (such as a mutual spat) then the police have to determine the Primary Aggressor. Being a certified police domestic violence trainer I can tell you that “Primary Aggressor” equals “arrest the man”.

You also lose control of what will be done. Should you both say neither wants to make a statement a regarding a private matter, one will be put on file anyway (Domestic Incident Report-DIR). Should she say it was mutual and doesn’t want to press charges, but has a mark on her, you will be arrested anyway based upon Primary Aggressor and Mandatory Arrest Laws. If she tells the district attorney’s office that she will not make a statement and press charges, you will still be arrested, arraigned in front of a judge, and made to either post bail or spend the night in jail. You will have to hire an attorney and show up for a trial date and submit a motion before the case is dismissed for lack of evidence.

Should a woman be mad at you for any reason she can claim to be an “intimate partner” and file for an order of protection. As family court has concurrent jurisdiction she need not file any criminal charges as she can go direct to family court and request the order. Temporary Orders of Protection (TOP) can be obtained based on ex parte testimony (her word alone) and for even slim allegations such as “I’m afraid of him” and “I feel threatened by him”. Once issued you will be ordered to stay away from her, including if you go to school together, work together, or live in the same neighborhood, thus disrupting your life. They will even seize any and all firearms that you own.

It will be months before you get into family court for a hearing on the need and validity of the TOP and unlike criminal courts high “reasonable doubt” standard it is the civil court standard of “a preponderance of evidence” (51%). In a “he said, she said” the judge will believe her and rule favorably. Should you inadvertently violate the TOP, even if it is found later to be without merit and thrown out, you will be charged with a misdemeanor (up to a year in jail) and a second violation is a felony!

MEN, If you are involved in a disorderly, harassing, or physical altercation of any kind DO NOT STATE YOU ARE IN AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH ANYONE, and if asked state it is a casual relationship only with any participants (the other party should do the same). If it is determined to be a “domestic incident” the police lose all of their authority to use discretion in arresting and/or filling out a report. You BOTH lose your right to NOT press charges or file a report. If it was physical in any way state that you were trying to retreat and defending yourself from their attack and you do not (or do as the case may be) wish charges to be pressed against them AND MAKE NO OTHER STATEMENTS WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY. There are severe repercussions for police NOT following domestic violence protocols so they are protecting their own interests and not yours and/or your friends.

I’ll close here with a welcome to the “life isn’t fair man’s world”. I know this is a lot to consume, and in fact there is even more wrongs you’ll suffer as a man, high suicide rates, high work death rates, DV victimization yourself, loss of access to your children post separation/divorce and punitive “child support” payments. You can find more on these issues at the National Coalition For Men web site. Domestic Violence and false allegations is covered at Stop Abusive and Violent Environments or Stop Abuse For Everyone.

You can also find more on men’s and boys rights and issues on Facebook at Friends of the Protection For Men, PFM/Boys Rights and Issues, PFM/College and University, PFM Men’s Human Rights Movement, and PFM Men’s and Boy’s Health among others. PFM was founded by RK Hendrick, the author of “How to Avoid “getting Screwed” When getting Laid” and you can reach him there. Feel free to join the discussion.

I can be reached through Facebook on the PFM sites or at the “Coalition of Fathers and Families NY” Facebook site or at NY MAN. Information used here is based on New York State and US Laws although much of it has practical applications in all jurisdictions. This is NOT legal advice and we direct you to seek competent counsel for your specific jurisdiction and circumstance.

The author, Lt. James Hays (Ret.) is a recently retired NYS Law Enforcement Officer of 34 years, 9 as a supervisor. I am also a 20 year plus men/father rights activist co-founder, past President and current Treasurer of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc., (501c3 Educational and Advocacy Organization) and Director of the NY Men’s Action Network (Blog link), (a grass roots political action group founded in 1997. The opinions expressed herein are those of Mr. Hays and are not necessarily the opinion of any organization or individual mentioned herein.