The following is a letter I sent to the Heritage Foundation AND my Senators and Congressman requesting support for the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA). We will not see equality until such time as BOTH parents parental rights are recognized and the term “non custodial” is removed from use as a government double speak for removal of parental rights. Print, cut, copy or send the link to your federal representatives TODAY.
August 29, 2019
Kay Coles James, President, Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE Washington DC 20002-4999
Dear President James;
I am writing to encourage the Heritage Foundation to support and work for enactment of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA) which I am asking, by copy of this letter, my federal representatives to sponsor. In the years since originally proposed we have seen a never ending creep in erosion of parental rights. Well meaning but misguided teachers, child protective workers, police, and family court judges increasingly apply their standards in the place of parents. Once reserved to the strict scrutiny standard agencies now interfere in parental decisions for trivial matters under the guise of protecting children and “children’s rights”.
When originally proposed the PRRA specifically excluded “non custodial” parents, an error that undermined support as “non custodial” parents are the largest class of parents who have had their parental rights removed without cause. I suspect this oversight was due to the ‘deadbeat dad”myth which was widely debunked in federally funded studies by Sanford Braver (see Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s). With no fault divorce and out of wedlock birth’s rising combined with mother custody biases we see increasing situations where children are unilaterally removed from one of their parents, mostly fathers, care and control.
In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow the U.S. Supreme court ruled a parent didn’t have standing to sue for his child due to his “non custodial” status. This is ironic in that states apply the “non custodial” label on parents at the behest of the federal government as it is used to determine which parent pays child support to the other parent. In New York State, for example, the Court of Appeals ruled that the higher earning parent of 2 parents who had a 50-50 shared parenting time would be “non custodial for the purposes of paying child support”. Thus, an equally responsible parent has no parental rights. While it shouldn’t, the Newdow decision shows that the “non custodial” label removes a persons parental rights, this without strict scrutiny for interfering.
80% of divorces are filed by women with the number one reason being ‘we grew apart”. There is an 80%+ mother custody rate which is fueling the problem of absent disenfranchised fathers. But regardless of which parent “wins” the other parent has their parental rights terminated without cause. Worse, to “win” the parental right a family has to subject themselves to the regulatory oversight of family courts and child support bureaucracies, usually initiated by the expected “winner”. Two parents walk into family court both with parental rights and the courts “award custody” to one parent which is actually government double speak for removing one parents parental rights.
This has allowed these family oversight and regulatory agencies to increasingly place their view of what is in the child’s best interest in place of the parents. Family Court used to be reserved for cases of child abuse or neglect but it now looks at itself as the determiner of the best interest of the child in place of parents. Increasingly we see married parents having to justify their parental decision to a family court judge at the behest of a school or child welfare agency.
While due process and the lack of application of strict scrutiny towards parental rights are now the norm things could get worse. The Convention of the Rights of the Child would place government oversight over all parental decisions. In states that have enacted provisions of this into their family law we have already seen it undermine parental rights with minor children, aided by child welfare agencies, bringing parents in family court to justify their parental decisions which the child does not agree with.
Advocating for the PRRA as enclosed will bring together all parents and organizations who worry about government overreach and interference in their lives. Enactment will force courts to accept parental rights and decision making for their children as supreme over any and all government agencies. It will correct the poor decision of the Supreme Court in Newdow ensuring that parents rights are not removed with a label and without cause. It will prevent assaults on the family like the Convention of the Rights of the Child, ensuring parental rights and responsibilities are not undermined by poor legislation or treaties.
As Sanford Braver reported, the number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is a limiting court order as “non custodial” parents are limited to 4 days a month to “visit” with their children. Number two is a custodial mother who interferes with a fathers access which 50% admitted to doing. We now have 40% of children living absent their biological father (60% in minority communities). Enactment of PRRA will begin to reduce the number of children living absent one parent as BOTH parents will have retained their parental rights and their right to be responsible to their child.
I have enclosed the blog https://nymensactionnetwork.org/prra/ in support of my position.
I remain available should you require anything further.
Sincerely,
Your name here
Cc: Your Senator here,
Your other Senator here,
Your Congressman here