Sexism towards males – Page 2 – Be a MAN! Take political action to support men.

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.

Undermine Parental Rights to Undermine all Other Rights

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

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

Why is this important to constitutional rights advocacy organizations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parents’ Rights and Responsibilities Act of 20??

_______ CONGRESS _____ Session

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

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 20??

A BILL

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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) requires a parent to initially demonstrate that–

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 5. STRICT SCRUTINY.

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

SEC. 6. CLAIM OR DEFENSE.

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

SEC. 7. ATTORNEY’S FEES.

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

Letter to NY State Legislators

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

Senator George Amedore
20 Park St., Fonda NY 12068

Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara
2550 Riverfront Center, Amsterdam NY 12010

Dear Senator and Assemblyman:

January 25, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child Excise Tax Freedom Day for “Non Custodial” Parents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Custodial Parent 2. Non Custodial Parent

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

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

Net Income CP $38557 NCP $7487

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

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

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

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

Taxation without representation?

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

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

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?

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.