American Fathers 4Change with a mission of helping to bring awareness that by increasing the proportion of children growing up with involved, responsible, and committed fathers it will improve the well being of children.
"The man as he converses is the lover; silent, he is the husband." ~ Honore de Balzac
Periodically we will feature either a web site and/or Discussion Group that can be most valuable in those that take the initiative to gain the knowledge to "Defend Themselves".
Keep in mind, it is vital that one carefully organizes the who, what, when, where, and why of their situation. Plus know the State Statutes, particular to their concerns... And, yes with or without a lawyer.
...NOT giving dollars to a 3rd party government agency so that they may receive at least matching dollars from the federal government and I will argue that to my grave. Our children need, want, desire and deserve nothing less than the equally active participation of both of their fit and willing parents sharing their love, support, security, knowledge and so much more with their children than any amount of dollars could ever provide.
Enslaving fathers to a lifetime of servitude to the state so that they may garner these federal dollars through the Social Security Act’s Title IV-d program will go down in our history books as the greatest travesty against the family unit since Adolf Hitler himself ordered the murder of over one million Jewish children and another 4.5 million adults based merely on their ethnicity. The United States government has ruined more families, abused more children and cost more lives than Adolf Hitler could have ever even imagined possible. All of this based upon the governments plan to switch the failed and bankrupt welfare program to the blame of fathers and fatherhood.
More to come on this subject matter but in the mean time here is my article as compiled for Fathers4Justice…
The Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 that Child Support is in fact not about one parent giving another parent money through a third party State agency.
The State of Minnesota arrested 64 year old Larry Nelson of Rochester, Minnesota 3 years ago on felony charges of failing to, “care and support” for his 2 children who are now adults. The State of Minnesota claimed that Mr. Nelson had not paid some $83,470.00 of what they considered to be 11 years of so-called “child support.” However, in a 4-3 decision it was ruled that the state had not proven their case and that Mr. Nelson had in fact “cared and supported” his children. Many of those following the case agree, the state had not proven it’s case and the word “support” does not necessarily correlate with a financial obligation. Olmstead County prosecuting attorney Mark Ostrem concurred, “The term “care and support” are too ambiguous and could create issues for other prosecuting attorneys in Minnesota.”
We at Fathers4Justice have stated for years, The act of supporting one’s children is not just about money! There are many more important factors to be considered when it comes to the term child support, factors which most states, in their lust for federal funding, completely ignore at each and every opportunity.
We believe that any and all parties who are truly concerned with the, “Best Interest of Our Children” will agree, child support encompasses a much broader scope than just financial aid. Child support, more importantly consists of giving our children what they really need and want and that is our love, guidance, time, attention, protection, emotional and educational support and so much more. Yes, our children may need financial aid as well, especially so if a parent is absent or refuses to participate in the true meaning of supporting their children. However, we believe it is time for this country to review the meaning of child support and in doing so make certain that our children’s true needs are met.
Those needs have been studied by the greatest minds in the greatest universities in the greatest nations in the world and the answer is always the same,
“In order for our children to grow up to become healthy, productive citizens within our society, it is best that they have the nurturing and guidance of both of their fit and willing parents.”
The State of Minnesota is very concerned and rightfully so! Changes to state laws to better define what in many cases is nothing more than extortion are already in the works. Justice David Lillehaug wrote in his dissent that, “The ruling handcuffs the states ability to prosecute others in Minnesota” Justice Lillehaug further stated, “Swift legislation is necessary to correct this matter, If not, Minnesota could become the only state without viable criminal sanctions for failure to pay child support.”
Fathers4Justice believes that just the opposite is true. Yes changes must be made, but not to legislation to prosecute parents for the financial gain of the state. Changes must be made to address the true best interest of our children. The toll on our society is too great, incarcerating millions of parents is not the answer to this issue.
Sexism is rampant in family court, though not always the determining factor. Money generation almost always overrides this law. After illegal termination of one parents rights the litigation is on and everything you own, and could earn for up to 24 years is too. Honoring the 14th Amendment would mean granting equal time and custody in any case where both parents are fit, but that would not generate billions in federal kickbacks for all 50 state judicial systems - and they are now addicted to this money flow. The best interest of children will never get in the way of paychecks for their mostly unneeded jobs.
In a mixed result for the rights of indigent parents, the Supreme Court yesterday held that the year-long incarceration of a South Carolina man for failure to pay child support violated the Constitution because adequate safeguards had not been in place to ensure that his failure to pay was willful. However, the Court also ruled that parents facing jail time for failure to pay child support do not have a categorical right to a court-appointed defense attorney when the other parent is unrepresented.
The case, Turner v. Rogers, involved an appeal of an order finding Michael Turner in civil contempt because of his failure to pay child support. At the hearing, Mr. Turner had been unrepresented by counsel and had attempted to explain to the judge why he could not pay his debt. The judge did not make any finding as to Turner’s ability to pay the arrears and nonetheless ordered Turner to serve a year in prison.
Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders—all correlating more strongly with fatherlessness than with any other single factor. Tragically, however, government policies intended to deal with the “fatherhood crisis” have been ineffective at best because the root cause is not child abandonment by fathers but policies that give mothers an incentive to initiate marital separation and divorce.
During the past decade, family issues such as marriage and fatherhood have rocketed to the top of the domestic-policy agenda. The past two presidential administrations, along with numerous local governments, have responded to the continuing crisis of the family by devising measures to involve governmental machinery directly in the management of what had previously been considered private family life. The Bush administration has proposed $300 million annually to “promote responsible fatherhood” and for federal promotion of “healthy marriages.” Earlier, President Bill Clinton created a “Presidential Fatherhood Initiative,” and Vice President Al Gore chaired a federal staff conference on “nurturing fatherhood.” Congress has established bipartisan task forces on fatherhood promotion and issued a resolution affirming the importance of fathers. Almost 80 percent of the respondents to a 1996 Gallup poll saw fatherhood as the most serious social problem today (NCF 1996).
A generation of fatherhood advocates has emerged who insist that fatherlessness is the most critical social issue of our time. In Fatherless America, David Blankenhorn calls the crisis of fatherless children “the most destructive trend of our generation” (1995, 1). Their case is powerful. Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders—all correlating more strongly with fatherlessness than with any other single factor, surpassing even race and poverty. The majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists come from fatherless homes (Daniels 1998, passim). Children from affluent but broken families are much more likely to get into trouble than children from poor but intact ones, and white children from separated families are at higher risk than black children in intact families (McLanahan 1998, 88). The connection between single-parent households and crime is so strong that controlling for this factor erases the relationship between race and crime as well as between low income and crime (Kamarck and Galston 1990, 14).
Given these seemingly irrefutable findings, a case might be made that both liberals and conservatives should rethink their priorities. Rather than spending more on antipoverty programs, as the left advocates, or on ever harsher law enforcement, beloved of the right, both sides should get together and help restore fatherhood as a solution to social ills. On its surface, the government’s fatherhood campaign seems to make good sense. As currently conceived, however, it may be having precisely the opposite effect of that advertised.
Compiled by DV LEAP, Joan Meier, Director, and Andrew Hudson (intern) for consideration by the Committee on the DSM-V The following brief compilation includes cases that DV LEAP is aware of, either through its own litigation, that of colleagues, and/or press accounts. Where there are published appellate opinions, cases are cited instead in the accompanying memorandum overview of all published cases referencing PAS as of 2009. A very few cases are cited in both this memorandum and the accompanying one.
1) O. v. O. (Ark. 2008) In a divorce action, the husband admitted to physically abusing the wife on two occasions, and the trial court credited the wife’s account of a third incident, but found that it did not reach the level of domestic violence. The oldest child and to a lesser extent the younger child reported abusive incidents by the father, and fear of the father, to their therapist, who testified. However, a psychiatrist – relied on by the state child protection agency - testified that the mother’s and children’s allegations of physical abuse were nothing more than Parental Alienation Syndrome. On this basis, as well as the trial court’s finding that the three known incidents did not constitute a “pattern,” as required by statute, the court denied a PO. The court subsequently awarded sole physical custody of the children to the husband, again influenced largely by the PAS evaluator. The psychiatrist testified that the mother would, if given the opportunity, spread the “condition” to the other children as well. After the trial court’s order was entered, the father was arrested at gun-point and charged with child endangerment after he fled the scene of an auto accident he caused, leading police on a high-speed chase with the three boys in the truck. Despite this and another incident necessitating temporary removal of the children from the father, neither DHS nor the court would return custody to the mother, and the father retains custody. Both the PO and the custody case are on appeal. www.dvleap.org 2) B v. D (2001-2007) Mother and father had never lived together, and father was threatening and abusive toward the mother. On returning from a visit at her father’s the daughter (then 5) told her mother that the child’s father had touched her vagina with his fingers for “a long time.” After being advised by the counselor who had been working with the child to report to DCF, DCF advised her to call the police and pediatrician. The police commenced their own investigation which included an interview of the team by the State’s abuse team coordinator, employed by the Yale-New Haven Child Abuse and Sex Abuse Clinic. The child reported several other sexual touchings to this evaluator, who found her statements credible. The Yale Clinic found that the child had been sexually abused. DCF’s social worker also reported a credible disclosure by the child. The father was criminally prosecuted but the case resulted in a hung jury. The child refused to testify again so re-prosecution was not possible. In the meantime the Family Court concluded that the father had not abused the daughter, in large part due to the opinions of several evaluators who opined that the mother and daughter were afflicted by Parental Alienation Syndrome. They claimed that the mother fervently believed that her daughter was molested, and had convinced her daughter that she was, but she wasn’t. At least one of these “diagnoses” was provided without any contact with the child. The father then sued the mother in civil court for “malicious prosecution” and received an award of $3.5 million damages, which was upheld despite a vigorous and well-conducted appeal. The father has since terminated his parental rights; the mother is sole provider for the child, and is forced to pay the father a weekly deduction from her meager paycheck. (The father is now suing the state agencies that believed the child; he also unsuccessfully sued one of the judges.)
Fathers' advocacy groups typically to focus upon some or all of the following beliefs:A "traditional" division of parental roles during a marriage should not of itself mean that the father should not be considered as a custodian following divorce;
Children are best served by being in the care of both parents, and thus there should be a legal presumption of joint physical custody and equal parenting time following divorce;
Fathers are at a disadvantage throughout the entire custody litigation process. Fathers' rights groups assert that changes of this nature will create a family court environment where both parents are treated fairly and equally, and diminish the effects of legislation and, in some cases, of judicial bias which favors the mother.
Fathers' rights groups also typically point to studies which show that the absence of a father from a child's life can lead to a wide variety of negative behavioral and educational consequences.
Advocates for the rights of our children and their parents to have meaningful life-long relationships.
The BEST Parent is BOTH Parents!!
Fathers have become undervalued, family structure has become disposable, children suffer without both parents but so often father is left out, seen as nonessential. Let's correct this by bringing attention to it! We're happy to populate the Internet with information that is helpful, supportive, and conducive to fostering father-child relationships, reducing or eliminating Parental Alienation, for the betterment of our children's psychological and emotional health, and for the future health of our families and societies.
Fathers have become undervalued, family structure has become disposable, children suffer without both parents but so often father is left out, seen as nonessential. Let's correct this by bringing attention to it! We're happy to populate the Internet with information that is helpful, supportive, and conducive to fostering father-child relationships, reducing or eliminating Parental Alienation, for the betterment of our children's psychological and emotional health, and for the future health of our families and societies
Divorce Corp Director, Joseph Sorge, interviews renowned economist and lead author of a breakthrough study on the costs of raising a child, Professor William Comanor.
Watch this video to learn the shocking facts about how child support costs are currently calculated and why they need to be revised.
Then share this interview with your state legislators to support child support reforms.
Together we can end unnecessary fighting over one of the most contentious aspects of any divorce; child support.
The coauthors of the study are Mark Sarro, Principal of The Brattle Group and R. Mark Rogers, Founder and Principal of Rogers Economics, Inc. Lead author, William S. Comanor is Professor of Economics at UC Santa Barbara and Professor of Health Policy & Management at UCLA. The full paper "The Monetary Cost of Raising Children" published in the journal "Economic and Legal Issues in Competition, Intellectual Property, Bankruptcy, and the Cost of Raising Children" Volume 27, can be found here:
This letter is written because of my concern to our Family Laws and the 60 million dollar business supporting them: It is my concerns that the laws are causing harm to our children and only help the Lawyers making Thousands in their present form. I understand that the awareness of abuse in the past and that the discrimination against men that they flee from their responsibility of children is the basis that these laws were incorporated, but the facts stated in background listed below shows just the opposite.
Lets deal the facts concerning the first of the incorporation of the understanding of the abuse issue: The mercury reported in 2014 that “the legal system is not the place to domestic violence in majority of cases. Ploughing more money into prosecutors and creating criminal offenses will not assist in dealing with the root causes of family violence”. Science Debunks the “women are the gentler sex”, Medical Daily Jan. 30, 2014, in a symposium (June 25, 2013) on intimate partner violence at The British Psycholical Society”s division of forensic Psychology annual conference found women are more likely to be “INTIMATE TERRORIST” or PHYSICALLY AGGRESSIVE to their partners. Medical Xpress reported that Dr Elizabeth Bates study of 1000 students revealed that just as many women as men could be classified as abusive, coupled with controlling behavior with SERIOUS levels of threats, intimidation, and physical violence. This study also found that women demonstrated a desire to control their partners (and family, children?) And more likely to use physical aggression then men, ”it wasn’t just pushing and shoving”
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence “men and boys (children) are less likely to report the violence. Sixteen percent of adult males who did report being raped or physically assaulted are victims of current, or former spouse, cohabitation partner. Harvard Study 2010, revealed that 70 percent of domestic violence is committed by women against men. 2001 CDC survey of young adult in heterosexual relationships provided answers to violence-related questions Researchers found that women were more likely to insight violence then men. Australian Institute of Family studies, Australia biggest childhood study reveals found girls are more devious then boys in the torment of their classmates. All states in the USA, using the case load and statics from child services, Human resources shows that 70 to 75 % of abuse, neglect, and emotional issues are against the Biological mother (CHECK YOUR OWN AREA).Moving to the discrimination thought that fathers do not accept their responsibility: This idea only hurts the fathers that want to be with and care for their children, fact is that a father who wants his kids in his life WILL HAVE A LIVING ARRANGEMENT THAT ALLOWS THE CHILDREN THEIR OWN ROOMS, WILL BUY SCHOOL CLOTHES AND SUPPLIES, HAS EXTRA FOOD IN HIS HOUSE, PAYS FOR CHILD CARE WHEN HE WORKS, AND HAS ALL THE EXTRA BILLS FOR HAVING CHILDREN. We will discuss this further in child support laws.
For women under 30, who bear two-thirds of all children, that rate is 53 percent.
Many unmarried women are cohabiting with partners at the outset of their children’s births, but those couplings disintegrate at twice the rate of marriages.
By some estimates, this means more kids are growing up with televisions in their bedroom than with both of their biological parents.
Boys are especially affected by this trend. Without positive and consistent male role models, society misses out on much of their constructive potential.
It’s no coincidence 70 percent of male inmates did not grow up with both parents, for example.
Even for those with fathers, the average school-age boy spends just half an hour per week in one-on-one conversation with his father, according to David Walsh, founder of Mind Positive Parenting.
“That compares with 44 hours a week in front of a television, video game screen, [and] Internet screen,” he says. “I think that we are neglecting our boys tremendously. The result of that is our boys aren’t spending time with mentors, with elders, who can really show them the path, show them the way of how it is that we’re supposed to behave as healthy men.”
Across the board, children with intact families have more advantages than their fatherless peers.
A report published by The Center for Disease Control and Prevention says children of married biological parents or adoptive parents are healthier, have fewer definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties and are less likely to grow up in poverty.
They also have more friends.
When Gen-Y children were surveyed in elementary school, those who were living with their fathers scored better on 21 of 27 social competence measures.
The gap between rich and poor will keep getting worse as fatherlessness rises among those of lower socioeconomic status.
Children who grow up without fathers are more likely to become single mothers or absent dads, use drugs, have low academic achievement and are less likely to believe in marriage or have successful marriages.
The charts below illustrate this point:
On average, a little over 3 million children in the US receive welfare benefits, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or State Supplemental Program (SSP), each month during the fiscal year.
A recent report from Pew Research indicated 18 percent of American adults have received assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or “food stamps,” at some point in their lives, and Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans to have used food stamps.
Women were about twice as likely as men, and black people were twice as likely as white people to have received food stamps.
People over 65 years old were the least likely age group to say they had received food stamps, while people with less education – a high school diploma or lower – were three times more likely than college graduates to have received those benefits.
Women who marry or maintain a home with the biological father of their children can face the reduction or loss of their benefits, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services:
“Our main finding is that if a male has financial resources, TANF provides the greatest disincentive to form and/or maintain a biological family, and the least disincentive, if not an incentive, to form an unrelated cohabitor family. In a biological family, where the male is the father of all the children, he must be included in the unit and his resources counted.
In an unrelated cohabitor family, where he is father of none of the children, he is not included and his resources are not counted. In addition, most states disregard unrelated cohabitor vendor and cash payments to the TANF recipient and her children.”
In other words, the current structure of TANF actually promotes having nearly any man but the biological father heading the house.
Women are also about six times likelier to get sole custody of their children after separating from their fathers.
In some cases, men even go to jail for falling behind on child support payments.
In South Carolina, for example, about one out of seven inmates are imprisoned for this very reason, and 75 percent of them were unemployed or having trouble finding work.
How sending them to jail will help them, their families, or taxpayers is a mystery.
And. again, for children with fathers, dads are missing out on crucial bonding time.
Children who had frequent and positive interactions with their fathers, such as the father paying attention to the child’s interests, offering encouragement and smiling, during the first year of their lives were calmer and better behaved than other children at age two.
This was especially true for boys.
Involved dads also reduce the chances of their infants experiencing cognitive delays, and fathers themselves feel more confident about their job skills, parenting skills and social relationships.
The US is an oddity among Western nations in not granting statutory paid maternity or paternity leave or providing childcare at a reasonable cost.
This creates a situation where women are forced to choose between work and family (to “lean in” or “lean out”), while men have no option but to “lean in” or just opt out altogether.
These trends paint a very disconnected picture, but that can change.
The government can step up by commissioning a White House Council on Boys and Men.
There is currently a White House Council on Girls and Women, but they have yet to support a similar platform for men, even though it has been proposed and endorsed by a number of experts.
Creating policies that support a father’s right to be present in his children’s lives during divorce and custody battle situations, eliminating perverse welfare incentives for parents to live apart, offering men paternity leave equal to maternity leave, providing childcare for both mothers and fathers and encouraging family members to visit inmates would also be steps in the right direction.
Sponsoring a nationwide male mentorship program to bring more positive male figures into children’s lives would also help reverse these trends.
To be number one, America must strengthen its families, not lead the way in fatherlessness.
[Ed. note: This post originally appeared at Elite Daily and is reprinted here with the author’s permission.]
"So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none. When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home." (Tecumseh).
American Fathers Liberation: ALL Men’s Rights are Human Rights. ’nuff said http://bit.ly/1JgMgEm
Periodically we will feature either a web site and/or Discussion Group that can be most valuable in those that take the initiative to gain the knowledge to "Defend Themselves".
