Due process – Page 2 – Be a MAN! Take political action to support men.

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 New York’s “standard visitation order” is stuck in an outdated sexist and biased system from the 1950’s of a stay at home mother and a working father.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

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 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.