A terrible day for global economy, another pointless day for Western feminism.
As Christina Hoff Sommers explains in this article, while women overseas face true oppression, modern feminists look the other way and come up with petty grievances. Universities are no longer a place where you can learn from exposing yourself to different ideas: campuses are now supposed to be “safe spaces” where students need to be protected from harmful ideas, topics, books and discussions. These young students who are going to be leading the world in a few years are so weak that they can’t even bear listening to people speak, if they don’t like what they are saying. It’s “triggering”. It’s the end of free speech.
“Today’s young feminist activists are far too preoccupied with their own supposed victimhood to make common cause with women like Farghadani. This past year I visited and spoke at several US campuses, including Yale, UCLA, Oberlin, and Georgetown. I found activist feminist students passionately absorbed in the cause of liberating themselves from the grasp of the oppressive patriarchal order. Their trigger warnings, safe spaces and micro-aggression watches are all about saving themselves from the ravages of the male hegemony. And they can cite a litany of victim statistics from their gender studies class that shows their plight. Someone needs to tell them that most of those statistics are specious and that, although the threat of harm is a human constant, they are among the most liberated and privileged — and safest — people on earth.”
And we are indeed the most privileged and safest people on earth and yet we think it’s OK to dismiss on the people who allow us to be so privileged, which is, men. They are the hand that feeds us. If a war starts and the world goes crazy, women are doomed and that’s when women are gonna start to appreciate men.Why does it have to be like this? Why is it that only war, poverty and destruction can bring some sense back and bring us back together?
These students don’t know what it means to have to struggle, they don’t know what it means to be poor, to have to fight to get rights, they already have everything. And if that is what a parent wants for their children, to have everything they need, a good life, a better one then the one we had, yet we have failed them. We have spoiled our kids, let them rule us, we haven’t taught them how to be strong and practical, how you need to earn what you have.
Fathers, you have such an amazing power! You have the power to change things, a lot more than you think! I am not saying that you should o the work for us, I’m saying that you need to respect and appreciate yourself and that there is something – a lot – that you can do.
I know feminists have told you don’t matter and your manhood is toxic and you should be as “feminine” as women are, but it’s not true. Teach your kids, both boys and girls, about HONOR, hard work, discipline, teach them, as Karen Straughan says, to own their shit. Teach them that actions have consequences. Even if that means you have to argue with your partner, you have a right to educate your children too.
I argue that caring is contagious. One cannot ask a jury or a judge to care if the lawyer does not care. We tend to like caring people. That’s because we like to be cared about, and some of us like to be cared for. We tend to trust caring people. I say caring is a disease that can easily be caught. But true caring is sometimes hard to come by. Trial lawyers are asked to care for vicious killers, for people who commit horrible acts of cruelty, persons who do evil things, hurt children and cheat old people out of their life’s savings.But the accused were once innocent children. As all of us, they began life with a clean, pure unmarked canvas. Much of what is written on the canvas is the cruel psychic graffiti, the ugly splashes, smears and slashes laid on the canvas by those who were parents qualified for that sacred trust only by virtue of their reproductive organs, by those who themselves were never cared for. To that extent, not caring is also a disease – one that is often fatal to a useful and productive life.
I suspect that we could put a wiggly little loving Spaniel puppy in a cage, starve it, poke it with sharp sticks, never pet it, ignore its need for love and sustenance and convert the pup into a vicious attack animal when it was grown. But there still remains in that dog the puppy.
The metaphor is imperfect and sentimental, but you get the drift. One wonders if we are not placing our condemnation in the wrong place. Ought we not be prosecuting the puppy’s owner? Extending the argument, are we not often prosecuting the wrong person – the parents, those who were responsible for the child, those who by hate and ignorance molded the child into the killer and the rapist – ought they not be the accused in the case?
My view is simple: I see the innocent child first. When I see the monster the child has become I feel sadness at the waste and horror at its consequences, and I feel helpless over my inability to change either the accused or the system that created the accused, a system that now prosecutes him with more of the same – more fear and more hatred. Indeed, hatred and fear are the most contagious diseases of all. But one thing a trial lawyer can do – and must do. He or she must give the accused, the first victim, a caring and competent defense.
You can fight for years, spending your life savings, your retirement, sell the house, even cash in the children’s college funds you have been putting away for them and spend it all, just so your children can have an involved father in their life and you still only get 4 days a month with your child. If your lucky they might throw in a weekday “visit”.
The point of this post is to bring to light that glaring issue of gender discrimination in today’s world.
Mothers have the power. Given to them by gender biased courts.
Piss your BM of your child off and your child will grow up with a “new daddy”.
I know men who have spent everything financially given everything emotionally, spiritually and mentally
Attempting to be involved fathers but are still restricted to no more then 4 days a month.
I know men that have been given shared custody of their children by a court order, yet haven’t been allowed access to their children in years. Not even allowed a phone call to them to tell them that they Love them and are all they think about and that they didn’t just abandon them.
Yet, is there a custody enforcement division to make sure these children don’t grow up without the fathers who love them? No there isn’t.
It’s too bad…
But if one of these fathers becomes unemployed or falls on hard times and misses a few child support payments for the children they are denied any access to, it’s off to the slammer.
Cause that’s “in the best interest if the child.”
These are not isolated cases either.
We have 72k people (men and women) on the TFRM page in these situations and It grows by another 1-200 a day. Each and every day.
The gender bias in the family court system is out of hand.
When mothers are awarded SOLE custody 8 times as often as fathers you cannot say it has nothing to do with gender.
It has everything to do with gender and is flat out gender discrimination against fathers and men and the true victims are the children.
I am no less capable of loving, caring, and nurturing my child than a mother, simply because of the gender to which I was born.
Two absolute requirements for a trial lawyer, yes, any lawyer are (1) a conscientious caring for his or her client and (2) the credibility of the lawyer. One cannot exist without the other and absent either, the lawyer is but an actor, usually a poor one, a gross pretender.
I argue that caring is contagious. One cannot ask a jury or a judge to care if the lawyer does not care. We tend to like caring people. That’s because we like to be cared about, and some of us like to be cared for. We tend to trust caring people. I say caring is a disease that can easily be caught. But true caring is sometimes hard to come by. Trial lawyers are asked to care for vicious killers, for people who commit horrible acts of cruelty, persons who do evil things, hurt children and cheat old people out…
View original post 891 more words
Family Law Industry Destroys Those They are Paid to Serve“CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE.”
Personally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute.We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives.
Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
ACFC is America’s Shared Parenting Organization
“CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS”
The members of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children dedicate ourselves to the creation of a family law system and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by issues of the modern family. ACFC is challenging the current system of American family law and policy. Through a national system of local affiliates and in alliance with other pro-family and civil liberties groups, ACFC is shifting the public debate to the real causes of family dissolution. ~ American Coalition for Fathers and Children
More money flows through the family courts, and into the hands of courthouse insiders, than in all other court systems in America combined – over $50 billion a year and growing.
Through extensive research and interviews with the nation’s top divorce lawyers, mediators, judges, politicians, litigants and journalists, DIVORCE CORP. uncovers how children are torn from their homes, unlicensed custody evaluators extort money, and abusive judges play god with people’s lives while enriching their friends.
This explosive documentary reveals the family courts as unregulated, extra-constitutional fiefdoms.
Rather than assist victims of domestic crimes, these courts often precipitate them. And rather than help parents and children move on, as they are mandated to do, these courts – and their associates – drag cases out for years, sometimes decades, ultimately resulting in a rash of social ills, including home foreclosure, bankruptcy, suicide and violence.
Solutions to the…
View original post 26 more words
Neil Lyndon, author of No More Sex War and one of the first men to openly critique feminism, is right to draw attention to the relentless problems now facing boys and men.
I am sympathetic to his logic that if the women who understand these problems, i.e. those who write for The Conservative Woman (I can say with confidence since he mentioned us in his article) held political power, our sex might give us the authority to dismantle feminist vanity projects and shine a light and some funding on the serious disadvantages afflicting boys and men.
However I do not think it is traditional politics but something far more radical which holds the key to real social change.
Firstly, feminists may be a minority, but they are powerful. Women have real power in the family, rooted in their reproductive capability. This may, entirely through women’s individual decisions, lead to a secondary role in the public realm. Feminists have used this lower public status as a bargaining chip to pursue their own self-interest in every possible avenue of public life. Today feminists control the traffic lights and the road rules, men are only chauffeurs, even when they appear to be in the driver’s seat.
So as Neil seems to realise the cogs of the feminist machine will grind relentlessly on to ensure that any attempt to draw attention to men’s issues will either be re-appropriated and reconfigured (e.g. male suicide becomes a problem of masculinity but nothing of course to do with the way that women treat men or the loss of male identity) or systematically undermined.
If women knew the full extent of male disadvantage the feminist cathedral of cards would very quickly come tumbling down.
Secondly feminists are not amenable to rational argument. There are none so blind as those whose view has been eclipsed by ideology; ideology built on distortion, piled on top of stupidity and upon lie after lie until the truth lies buried deep beneath. Feminists are not going to turn traitor to an ideology which has not only nurtured their careers but determined crucial, life changing, and possibly life destroying, decisions in their private lives. The courage required to recognise their error would not be outweighed by the gain.
So Neil, I do admire your persistence and your passion and your ability to rise phoenix like from the calumnious feminist ashes. But to put your hope in Sandi Toksvig’s and others’ Women’s Equality Party? Neil read what they stand for – their equality for men would mean pussy-whipped lap dogs tethered to their feminist cause.
No. Sailing between the Scylla of feminism and the Charybdis of the MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) is going to require a far more radical response. For those of us who care, and I care profoundly, we will end up losing if we play by the traditional rules of the game.
Feminism works well for women who want visible power and influence. But it has no strategy for social reproduction. Boys on Ritalin, internet addiction, obesity, oversexualised children, men in prison, fractured families – feminism has no long term survival strategy. These are just some examples of its scorched earth spawn.
The men who choose to go their own way, either as part of a movement or by rationally rejecting marriage and monogamy because it has cost their fathers and brothers dearly may be acting wisely. But when it comes to the long term survival of human society, to the question of how to preserve the civilisation which their forefathers and foremothers created (long before feminism) theirs is not a realistic plan. It is a social death wish.
If we want to rebuild society, we need a longer term, low key approach.
You are right, Neil, that ultimately it is women, women who destroyed so much through their pursuit of self-interest, but who, because of their reproductive potential hold the key. This time round it is going to be very much harder. Men trusted us, they served us, they built our houses, fought our battles and they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return. But now they have nothing. What is more they have found out that if they do give us what power they had, we deprive them of their children, we take their resources and we give them nothing, nothing in return. This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding, as they did for so long. If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them. In this, for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead.
The radical plan involves the decreasing numbers of us who have not fallen for feminism, who prioritise our families – and this includes our husbands as well as our children, our parents and our grandchildren. First we need to make sure that the government allows us to do this, so that we do not have to be primarily dedicated to work. That is a campaign in itself. Only if we do this properly, place our families at the centre of our lives, can men once again follow suit.
This is what the feminist century has done. By almost destroying the family it has shown us that it is the cornerstone of society. If we want self-fulfilled, happy, creative individuals, a functional, well networked society and a civilisation worthy of emulation, we need strong healthy, resourceful families built on the commitment and selflessness of adults, persistence and a lot of hard work.
Only the steadfast women who are happy to prioritise the interests of their husbands and their children can set this process in motion. The feminists can’t, nor can the MGTOW. Women can do it, but only with the help of men. Together we can undo the damage which feminism created and rebuild a world of which can feel a little more proud.
Emma Watson‘s fight for equality (3 Videos)
The essence of nomocracy, the rule of law, is limitation of the discretion of officials, and providing a process by which errors or abuse of discretion can be corrected. Some discretion is unavoidable, because law cannot anticipate every eventuality or how to decide which law may apply to a given situation. What guidance the law cannot provide is supposed to be provided by standard principles of justice and due process, reason, and the facts of each case. Ideally, officials should be mutually consistent and interchangeable, making similar decisions in similar cases, so that no one can gain an undue advantage by choosing the official or exercising undue influence on the official or on the process he operates. We trust officials to exercise such discretion as they have with wisdom, justice, and competence, to avoid government that is arbitrary, insolent, discriminatory, prejudiced, intrusive and corrupt.
Within the public sector, discretion can be exercised by legislative, executive, or judicial officials. Within the private sector, discretion may be exercised by private officials, such as agents, trustees or corporate officers, who are in principle subject to the supervision of the courts. The focus here is on judicial discretion, and the abuse of it. It will not discuss every area of judicial discretion.
The first major check on the discretion of judges was the jury. A judge, holding office over the course of multiple cases, and selected by appointment or election, is susceptible to undue influence. A jury, chosen by sortation, or lot, for a single case, just before the case, is less likely to be corrupted, and having multiple jurors render verdicts collectively provides a check by each on the others. What they might lack in knowledge of the law is offset by their connection to the non-legal environment in which most people subject to the law must operate.
In courts that try to save time and money by not using juries, such as family courts in some states, complaints about abuse of judicial discretion have led to calls for juries to decide questions of custody, visitation, child support, and the distribution of marital property.
Judges who impose lenient sentences, to avoid prison overcrowding and the early release of violent offenders, often provoke demands for mandatory minimum sentences or sentencing guidelines that reduce their discretion to do things like impose reduced sentences on defendants thought to be remorseful or unlikely to commit another offense.
Most complaints of abuse of judicial discretion, and calls to limit it with more laws, concern questions of policy or equity. But there is another broad category, which concerns constitutional questions of due process and civil rights. This is too large a field to discuss adequately in a short article, so only a few of the more important kinds of judicial discretion that are often being abused will be presented.
I want two minutes of your time. The American Bar Association wants to know why you read this blog.
I guarantee you have no idea how much time it takes to maintain this blog.
I have to read all the Tennessee family law opinions issued by the appellate courts, figure out which ones are “blog worthy” (not many), and then draft the posts that are published on this blog.
I have never asked for anything in return.
I want two minutes of your time.
The American Bar Association wants to know why you read this blog.
The comments are limited to 500 characters or less. Sharing your thoughts should take no more than two minutes.
The ABA is seeking input from legal blog readers as to which legal blogs they like and why.
If you enjoy this blog, please take two minutes of your time to tell the ABA why you read this blog, what you enjoy about it, how it benefits you…
View original post 50 more words
Change, the double-edged sword that’s worth mastering
The first thing I did when I doubted myself and my decision to take a new job and move to a new city was talk to people who know and care about me — my wife, family and friends.
They helped, but I also needed an expert on my career, so I reached out to my old boss. He met me at a diner after work and gave me so much good advice that I wrote it down and referred to it often in those early weeks.
Simply thinking about past challenges in which you came out on top — or at the very least unscathed — is a reminder that you will do so this time as well. There’s also that old linguistic chestnut that the Chinese word for “crises” is also “opportunity.” (It’s true, by the way.) Sometimes our greatest difficulties become our greatest moments of triumph.
Fathers-4-Justice USA “Never hate your ex more than you love your children.” Matt O’Connor #Fathers4Justice #ParentalAlienation #PAS Let’s Join The Purple Keyboard Campaign 4 Family Justice Reform!
Call it ‘Occupy Family Court’ or ‘Fatherless Day.’ There was a protest Friday afternoon on the west steps of the State Capitol against a family court system they say automatically rules in favor of mom during a divorce, without giving dad a chance.
In working to reforming our current system, I meet great people on a daily basis who see unfairness.
I am not alone in this, of course.
Today’s post is from a Division of Child Support case worker in a neighboring state who has contacted me several times concerning South Dakota’s unfair custody laws. She asked to post anonymously as she believes she could lose her job if her superiors knew of her stance. So I post this, humbled she would take that risk and grateful for her insights. I believe you will be too.
This is from the front lines of child support and custody in South Dakota and neighboring states. Our anonymous writer today works with custody and child support on a daily basis.
Here is her unedited letter:
“I am a Division of Child Support Caseworker in a state bordering South Dakota. As such, I speak with other caseworkers in SD and nearly all other states in the US every day, and know there are very few options for “non-custodial” parents who are being denied equal access to their children, unless they are fortunate enough to be able to afford a long and expensive custody battle, which is extremely rare, especially in cases where the parents were never married.
While your group needs to pursue one issue at a time, your particular issue being custody and visitation arrangements after a divorce, I hope that you will also pursue shared parenting and child support arrangements for parents who were never married, as this is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed and rectified.
Before continuing, I will say that I, and all DCS caseworkers, recognize that the “non-custodial” (and we don’t like that term) parent may be the mother rather than the father. In most cases, however, the NCP is dad and the CP is mom, so please forgive my use of general terms such as “she” and “he”. I use them for the sake of simplicity, not out of a lack of respect or understanding that mothers do sometimes get the raw end of the deal, along with their children.
In every state in this country, the child support system is not only broken, but is in desperate need of repair. It is unbalanced and very often unfair. The child support calculation is based on the income of both parents, in every state, although I will admit there could be a state or two that does not do it this way and I am just not aware. In most states, if either parent is unemployed but not disabled, they are presumed to be capable of working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, so their income is imputed at $1275 per month. Following this calculation, if mom is willingly unemployed and dad is employed full time, making a mere $10 an hour, dad has a child support obligation of $357 per month for one child. (I got this number from SD’s child support calculator website and it is accurate).
Every parent, regardless of the relationship (or lack of one) that existed at the time the child was conceived, has a responsibility to provide financial support for their child. That is a fact. But, should dad, making $10 an hour really be forced to pay $357 to someone who is not willing to work? Where is mom’s responsibility in this? In these situations, mom (unless she is actually working 40 hours a week for minimum wage, which is rare), is receiving food stamps, Medicaid, and housing assistance, so she is sitting back, living a meager life and doing nothing to improve the lives of her children, and not having to lift a finger to do it. In the meantime, dad is working hard and still can’t afford to keep the lights on in his own home.
Most of the dads I speak to are willing to pay the child support, despite the financial stress. They understand that there is a little person out there who needs their help, and they are okay with that. In many of these cases, dad has not seen his child even once since the relationship with his child’s mother demised, and he has no recourse other than to hire a lawyer to get a visitation order. The first problem with this is that dad, making $10 an hour and paying $357 a month in child support has no money left over for to hire a lawyer. The second problem with this is that, even when he does and gets the order, mom can still deny the visitation and there will be no consequences to her for doing so. Sure, dad can take her back to court again, and the judge will tell her to behave, but if she doesn’t, nothing will happen in SD. Dad and the kids are still denied access to one another.
Approximately 2 years ago, the state of Illinois passed legislation that actually puts repercussions in place for CPs that refuse to follow the Illinois State Visitation Guidelines. If the CP denies access to the children to the NCP, her driver’s license can be restricted, and not be reinstated until she complies. What a novel idea. I am beside myself, wondering why every state has not enacted this legislation. We restrict, suspend, or revoke the driver’s licenses (and other licenses) of NCPs when they don’t pay the child support, even when they are unwillingly unemployed, yet we allow CPs to use their children as weapons against NCP, regardless of whether he is paying.
I had two office visits today, both from dads who are doing the best they can and still are being denied access to their children, simply because mom decided she doesn’t like them anymore. The first has a 5 year old daughter that he desperately wants to have a relationship with, but hasn’t been allowed to see since she was 1 year old. At least in that situation, the poor child doesn’t know what she’s missing in not being able to see her dad. The second is much more sad, and it honestly makes me very angry. Dad raised mom’s first child as his own from an infant to 4 years old. In the meantime, they had a child together. They were together for another year or two. For the next several years, dad had BOTH kids – even the one that was not his – for weekend visitation. Not enough, but at least it’s something. Then, mom decided to pull the rug out from underneath dad, with no consideration for her children. Dad has now not seen either child for a year and a half. He and mom were not married, so mom has all the power, unless he can afford an attorney, which he can not possibly afford to do.
As we sat and talked, there were several times that I could see he was struggling not to cry. Ever since mom decided (for what crazy reason no one knows) to withhold visitation, both children, and especially his biological child, have been acting out in school. They’ve been bullying other kids and being defiant to authority. His biological son was finally allowed to see his half sister (that dad had from another relationship) after being denied access to her for a long time. According to his sister, all he talked about was how much he missed his dad and how he is so happy he has all these things that his dad gave him, because it helps him remember his dad. Mom has the kid in therapy, that dad is paying for, and she is apparently oblivious to the reason why the kid needs therapy. I could tell her, but it would probably result in me being fired. Mom has 3 kids by 3 different dads and I would like to talk to her about that as well. Bottom line is mom is sitting back, collecting child support and state benefits, and not doing a damn thing to support her children, but she will be the first to call if a payment is a day late. This is just one case I am telling you about, and it’s not even the worst one; it’s just the one at the top of my mind.
The bottom line is this. We need to have state agencies that provide free services for NCPs to have fair and equal access to their children.
We already have state agencies that help people who make no contribution themselves collect child support, and we are screwing kids and NCPs in the process. That is not acceptable in any state. I hope your legislature – and mine – will figure that out. Good luck and God Bless to you and your children.
All that being said, I hope all the NCPs (I really hate that term) understand that your CS case worker is not against you. We are forced to support the order, whatever that may entail. We have no power to help you with anything else, but we really would like to. God bless and God speed to you and your children.”
In the Family Courts across this country, Judges are making ill-informed custody and visitation decisions that violate the constitutional rights of parents, mainly mothers, and children because of the lack of recognition and understanding of the dynamics of power and control in domestic violence, child abuse and sexual abuse. Consequently, children are being placed back into harm’s way at the hands of their abuser.
This phenomenon plagues family courts across the nation. It is so common it has come to be called “court imposed child abuse.” Please take a stand for our children who deserve a life free of abuse, it is their basic human right!
We request the following changes:
Require yearly training regarding domestic violence and child abuse/neglect for all of our judges, government affiliated agencies, and attorneys.
Require that each state have a regulatory board that will oversee the decisions made by our Family Courts and officials involving our children and have the ability to discipline judges and officials for misconduct.
Require any allegations of abuse or neglect to automatically suspend visitation if there is outstanding proof that the other parent or parents has/have without a doubt abused or neglected the child. Placing the child back in the abusers custody is putting the child in unnecessary danger. It is a natural (biological) and adoptive parents right to protect their child.
Require each state to reevaluate or replace the “best interest standard” giving biological and adoptive parents the Constitutionally demanded right to decide what is best for their children without interference of the courts so long as there is no evidence of abuse or neglect on the part of the parent. Maternal deprivation specifically is a serious issue revolving in our Family Courts. Our children are suffering developmentally in several aspects of their youth, in some cases even into their adulthood, because our Family Courts are ripping our children from their mothers, causing maternal deprivation in our children especially if they are under the age of five, which is seen in several psychological studies.
To name one, The Attachment Theory By: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth (Sited: http://www.simplypsychology.org/Attachment%20-%20Bowlby%20%26%20Ainsworth.pdf).
Require our states to conduct DNA testing in ALL custody cases in exception to those involving adoptive parents. According to our Constitutional rights as natural (biological) parents, we should have the ability to care for and make decisions regarding the best interests of our children without the interference of any third party without evidence of abuse or neglect.
For future issues regarding paternity, require DNA testing to be done upon birth of a child in the hospital as a standard test if the parents are unwed, thus saving the burden placed upon the courts at a later date and only requiring the acknowledgement of paternity to be signed if paternity exists. Also in alternative require that if the acknowledgement of paternity needs to be signed that it should not be signed any sooner than 72 hours after any type of anesthesia or drug given during the birth/postpartum process has been given/taken. This will protect the mother’s right to making a legal decision with a sound mind. Studies show either of these would reduce the number of child custody cases requiring court involvement significantly.
It is also vital to a child’s identity to know who their parents are and the courts should have no authority to award custody to a third party unless the natural (biological) parent is found to be abusive or neglectful of their child regardless of the acknowledgement of paternity, mistakes happen. The court should also have no authority to require the natural (biological) or adoptive parents to lie to their children, it is a right as a parent to have the discretion of whether or not to disclose the truth.
Require all parents found to have abused or neglected their children to be placed in a database, displayable for example if you were to run someones drivers license number, which would be accessible to Family Court judges and Government Officials/Affiliates.
Require states to reform the Uniform Child and Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) as it is causing turmoil for many families. Granted it was created in good faith, a perfect stranger can hide with a child for 6 months and they would automatically stand to have rights to custody of a child, which also violates our rights as natural (biological) and adoptive parents.
Require judges, attorneys, and Government Officials/Affiliates to disclose publicly their affiliations with other government officials or any person of significance. For example, in my case: the other parties attorney is the senator’s daughter. The senator was once governor and appointed the judge involved in the case. The attorney was also at one point a law clerk for one of the justices in the supreme court as one of the decision making parties on our pending case and has not disclosed this fact or recused himself, which has happened on several cases apparently. There are political issues flooding our courts, which does not give a fair trial or fair orders.
Require states to appoint representation to parties involved in a child custody or abuse/neglect case if they cannot afford one.
The corruption in our family court system is sickening without a doubt. We ask the above relief out of good faith and protection of our children and families.
In summary: We, as natural (biological) and adoptive parents, should have the ability to protect our children, care for our children, and make decisions in regards to our children’s best interest without interference of any third party without evidence of abuse or neglect on our part. DNA testing is vital to a child’s identity and testing should be considered standard and conducted automatically at birth if the parents are unwed. Mothers should have the ability to make an informed legal decision, specifically not under the influence of anesthesia or drugs. The best interest standards give the courts too much power and the ability to in all essences “suspend” our constitutionally protected rights as natural (biological) and adoptive parents. Many parents cannot afford attorneys in these cases, it is a natural (biological) and adoptive parents right to have legal representation to protect themselves and their children as these cases are not insignificant and can destroy their families. Proof of abuse/neglect should not be taken lightly and should automatically suspend visitation for the child’s safety. A regulatory board should be intact to oversee the actions of the courts and should have the ability to disciple judges and officials for misconduct. Judges and other government officials/affiliates should be required yearly to attend training regarding domestic violence and child abuse/neglect. And lastly, the political connections in the court system need to be exposed publicly for our protection. A biased decision can be catastrophic to our families.
Please consider our requests as they are serious matters. Each of us have a story and children that have been subject to this court imposed abuse. We demand change!
Sierra Shattuck and Georgia Vachaviolos
Please sign our petition we need numbers to make a change!
This is a repost of the following Facebook Memo I posted on 8/28/12:
Memo To Followers:
Federal Title IVD Payments and Bonuses to States For the Collection and Administration of Child Support Payments.
Recently, I’ve been getting some queries about why I’ve been hammering so much on the issue of child support payments. And, I suspect, we’ve lost a follower or two because I’ve sort of ratcheted up the rhetoric on this topic a bit lately.
In fact, a couple of weeks a ago, we were having a discussion on this page in which I was asserting that States can receive anywhere from $1 to $2 in Federal subsidy payments for every dollar they collect and administer in child support payments. And it was during one of this discussion that one of our followers asked the simple question, “Do you have any documentation on this?”.
Well, at the…
View original post 1,278 more words