Mr. Mom Dads?

What’s So Bad About ‘Mr. Mom’ Dads?

| RealClearMarkets |

Problem 1: Children who lose contact with their fathers do worse in life.Problem 2: Single mothers who want to work often struggle with the cost of childcare.Problem 3: Many non-resident fathers are without meaningful work.

All three of these problems are fairly well established in the research literature. Each also motivates a battery of policy responses, with varying degrees of efficacy. In a recent report on poverty and opportunity from a working group convened by Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute, non-resident fathers received some special attention. (I was a member of the group).

The report notes that the Child Support Enforcement Program has become increasingly effective at establishing paternity and levying child support payments. Good: parenting is a responsibility, regardless of the nature of the relationship into which a child is born. But the payments can also be onerous for non-resident parents, who are almost always fathers, ‘functioning as a tax on their earnings’. The accumulation of child support debt is a particular problem – non-resident parents are currently about $53 billion in arrears for child support – and the Brookings/AEI group suggested that these kinds of debts should be forgiven in certain circumstances.

“Failing to expect both parents to support their children is not only unfair, it reduces marriage incentives, increases poverty rates for custodial mothers and children, and is likely to hurt children,” the report concludes. But we should not make the mistake of assuming that support can only come in the form of cash.

Since most non-resident parents are fathers, there is a tendency for policy-makers to see them primarily in terms of their financial obligations, as walking ATMs. Many of these men are in no position to make serious financial contributions: 41 percent of poor non-resident fathers have been out of paid work for at least a year, according to a recent study conducted by the Urban Institute. Meanwhile, working single mothers are also struggling. Forty percent of those working said that child care costs led them to change jobs or hours worked, according to a recent survey.

True or False? “Parental Alienation is a tactical ploy used by attorneys whose clients (primarily fathers) are seeking custody of their children.”

1) FALSE STATEMENT:  Proponents of PAS, predominantly right-wing “fathers’ rights” groups, have been trying for years to force legitimacy upon this unfounded theory

TRUTH*** Women’s Groups and Father’s Groups are working towards the inclusion of Parental Alienation.  It is gender-neutral.

2) FALSE STATEMENT:  PAS is a tactical ploy used by attorneys whose clients (primarily fathers) are seeking custody of their children.

TRUTH*** Although PAS could, at any time, be used as a ploy by either parent.  However, if Judges, Parental Coordinators, and Guardian Ad Litems, etc., are educated about Parental Alienation then this won’t be a concern (or at least any more of a concern than any other false accusation that either parent could make.  By remaining ignorant to the issues that both Mothers and Fathers face, the court system is failing families.  Gardner outlined the 8 manifestations of Parental Alienation, and many other researchers have backed up his theory.  In cases of actual abuse, Parental Alienation can not be considered a factor!

3) FALSE STATEMENT: A protective parent who accuses her/his ex-spouse of harming their child(ren) is deemed mentally ill — solely by virtue of the accusation.

TRUTH*** Parental Alienation Syndrome, or Parental Alienation Disorder in no way suggests that the parent who accuses his/her ex-spouse of harming the children is deemed mentally ill-solely by virtue of the accusation.  NOW would like you to believe this, but it is outright false.  Parental Alienation is the act of the parent alienating the child, however PAS/PAS describes when the child has succumbed to the effects of Parental Alienation.

4) FALSE STATEMENT: Ludicrously, the PAS theory holds that the protective parent and child can only be “cured” of their “disease” by being totally separated.

TRUTH*** Again, NOW would like to have you believe this is the truth.  The goal is to recognize that children need to have a relationship with both parents.  CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS.

5) FALSE STATEMENT:  …Children may go through a phase of “splitting” their parents, lavishing love on one and anger toward the other. Responsible research has shown these phases to be temporary.

TRUTH*** In normal divorces, children may go through a temporary phase of uncertainty, however in cases where Parental Alienation exists the children’s alienation could potentially be lifelong.  I’ve heard parents tell me their children were alienated anywhere from 5-45+ years.

6) FALSE STATEMENT: No valid, empirical evidence exists for such a mental disorder (PAS)

TRUTH*** As stated by Linda J. Gottlieb, LMFT: “IT IS JUNK SCIENCE TO STATE THAT THE PAS IS JUNK SCIENCE! To cite a mere few references which reject the PAS is to overlook the preponderance of scientific support and evidence from the practices world-wide of mental health and matrimonial practitioners. The support for the PAS is well-documented by (Baker, 2007; Barden, 2006; Gottlieb, 2012; Kopetski, 2006; Lorandos, 2006; Lowenstein, 2006; Sauber, 2006; Steinberger, 2006; Warshak, 2001, 2006, 2010; just to cite a fraction.)”

American Fathers Liberation Army link —  NBC News Investigations Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse. · Miami, FL ·

Right to be a parent maliciously prevented with the help of hired racketeering rings Family Law…

Capable and loving father Charlie Mercieca longing for his children and Justice as many other capable and loving parents longing for the right to be a parent to… BRAINSYNTAX.COM|BY CHARLIE MERCIECA

https://youtu.be/cMEqGyHKxtE

ARTICLE ~ Mothers, Children at Risk as Fathers’ Rights Groups Seek Legitimacy for Phony Mental “Disorder”

Denial of reasonable access to your own kids is child abuse

Child Abuse and the Role of Parental Denial

I recently had the opportunity of revisiting a question that I have struggled to find answers to for many years. The question is, why, in the face of a parent sexually, physically or verbally abusing a child, does the other parent remain silent?

This is a phenomenon I have been aware of in countless numbers of cases reported to me by patients who are now adult and clearly recall not only the abuse but the fact that the other parent offered no safety.

The question others have asked me and that I ask myself is, how or why would a parent remain silent in the face of children being abused. Here a few hypotheses.

1. Denial is a powerful and primitive defense mechanism. Someone who is dependent, frightened and themselves the victim of abuse, can remain silent and not even see or hear the abuse in order to maintain the desperately needed relationship with the abuser. In a way, it is a variation of the old saying, “Hear no evil, see no evil.” Well, people do hear it and see it and fail to act.

2. Both abuser and spouse can be mentally ill people who collude out of mutually shared sadism. In others words, there are a few people who can get a sense of pleasure out of treating children abusively.

3. Over the years, I have known a few cases in which the wife has such a deep need to avoid sexual relations that they prefer their husband engage in Oedipal relations with a daughter. This is usually unconscious with full denial in operation.

4. Chronic and severe drug and alcohol abuse loosen inhibitions that otherwise sober and sensible people do things that would shock them if they were not under the influence of certain types of drugs.

5. There are parents who, having been raised in strict and abusive environments, then repeat the pattern once they are parents. The vicious cycle of abuse is probably the major cause of domestic violence in the United States.

One of the distressing and utterly frustrating and despairing things that survivors of abuse discover as adults, is that their parents deny that anything ever happened.

Patients have reported to me that parents, when confronted by their adult child with the abuse they committed, tell their son or daughter that their memory is wrong.

It is natural to ask why an adult would now confront their parents about abusive acts that happened during childhood? Apparently, the answer is that these survivors are seeking an apology and an affirmative statement admitting their wrong doing. This is what makes the discussion so filled with despair for so many survivors.

The despair results not simply by the refusal of an apology, but the complete denial that anything happened. This is further exacerbated by the fact that neighbors and friends of the parents think them very “nice people” who would never do such a despicable thing as abuse a child.

When Joan Crawford’s daughter published the story of her childhood, a story that depicted Crawford’s cruel and outlandish acts of abuse, there was a public outcry that this never could have happened. Later, the outcry vanished when the truth and accuracy of the story emerged for the public to see.

Brookings Scholar Has an Idea — Shared Parenting!

By Robert Franklin, Esq.
Member National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

I don’t know whether to be touched or outraged. This article is so naïve it’s almost sweet in a perverse sort of way (Brookings, 12/9/15). At the same time, it was written by a scholar at the Brookings Institute, one of the leading think tanks in this country, so I’d expect it to exhibit some basic knowledge about its subject. (I uniformly refuse to write in all caps because I consider that a poor substitute for principled argument. But I promise you, the linked-to piece tests my resolve.)

The writer is Richard Reeves. He’s billed as the Co-Director of the Center on Children and Families. His thesis is this: Problem — single mothers are disproportionately poor; they do the lion’s share of childcare; that prevents them from working and earning; many non-resident fathers aren’t employed. Solution — have fathers provide childcare so mothers can work!

Lots of non-resident fathers are not gainfully employed; single mothers are struggling with childcare cost; and children, especially boys, are suffering from the distance or absence of their father. Here’s an idea: have the fathers look after their children, allowing mothers to get into and stay in work. The savings for the mother would far outweigh child support payments, which could be suspended when the father is providing childcare. What if, rather than squeezing these men for every last nickel, we were to ask them to do childcare instead?

Someone might tell Reeves that countless people all over the English-speaking world and far beyond have been arguing for exactly that for decades now. It’s called shared parenting. (I really wanted to use all caps, but stayed my hand.) When Mom gives up part of her parenting time while Dad cares for the kids, that’s shared parenting. We’ve been fighting for this day after day, year after year. British men dress up in superhero outfits and scale Buckingham Palace and other prominent structures to bring attention to the problem. People write articles and books. Organizations large and small submit bills to state and national legislatures. Study after study is conducted.

But Reeves knows none of this. “Here’s an idea…” No, Mr. Reeves, the idea isn’t new and it isn’t yours. There’s a thing called Google. Use it. Type in s-h-a-r-e-d p-a-r-e-n-t-i-n-g. See what you get. Or “equal parenting” or “fathers’ rights” or any similar search term. See? People have already thought of your idea.

And it’s a great idea. But it turns out that simply having a good idea hasn’t fixed things. On the contrary, what’s become obvious is that, even though all the arguments are on the side of shared parenting — good for kids, good for mothers, good for fathers, good for society generally, good for the public purse — they haven’t yet carried the day.

Oh, we’ve had our victories and more are to come. But what everyone knows who’s toiled in these mines is that being right isn’t enough. If it were, shared parenting would have become the norm years ago.

Child support needs to catch up to reflect new roles for fathers, say experts | Children’s Rights | Civil Rights in Family Law Florida

~ Facebook Event ~

Here are four of the most critical flaws of the current child-support system.

The system is outdated.

The child-support system was originally a bipartisan policy reform designed to serve divorced parents who were steadily employed. But the system was established nearly 40 years ago, and is based on outdated stereotypes that viewed Mom as a housewife and Dad as the sole breadwinner.

The system makes it particularly tough on low-income fathers.

29 percent of families in the system live below the federal poverty line. Many fathers sincerely want to do right by their children, but simply don’t have the means to do so. That becomes a very slippery slope for a lot of dads.

Judicial Bias and Absolute Discretion in Family Courts

Family Law Lawyers and Judges are violating our most cherished human rights.

Too often in the family justice system, and elsewhere, we see judges applying their discretion to tailor the law, not to suit the parties that come before it, but to exorcise personal frustrations. Judges sometimes forget they are there to serve. But they should be reminded.

“Open Letter to Barack Obama”

Judges are considered to be cornerstones of society, upholding the most decent and free-thinking modes of thought, the most sophisticated thinkers, a little like modern-day philosophers. But all too often, they are simply just time-short, temper-short and short on perspective. And most importantly perhaps, judges who seek to change the way society functions on a political level are blurring the lines between the judiciary and the executive. And that too, creates conflict of interest and can have devastating consequences for justice.

So, how do we change that? How can we manage the necessary boundaries and make sure our judges function professionally?

One suggestion might be to have an organisation that reviews and monitors each judge’s cases – not all of them, but perhaps just one case a year, so that fairness can be monitored and quality assurance verified. And if a party complains about their case, there should be a proper complaints procedure in place, to allow for a proper investigation.

It might also be useful to have a directory of judges and their views on things like heterosexual marriage, divorce, child welfare and more, biographies about each judge, their financial interests and which groups and organisations they belong to. Transparency would be achieved in this way and it would go some way to help restore trust and confidence inside a system which is sorely lacking it.

Yes, judicial bias is always going to exist: but it can be managed and justice can prevail.

Children, Families and Society as a whole are being undermined by the effects Family Law Courts, Child Protection

This episode provides the rare privilege of hearing from an outspoken retired family court judge from Alberta who spent 22 years resolving all kinds of parental disputes. We will have a frank and candid discussion and I have invited him to unleash his most forthright insights into the family justice system. He will also tell us why he left the court in 1997 to pursue what he believes is a much healthier and effective way to help parents resolve their conflicts.

A View from the Bench

Family Court Reform and Parental Rights | Petition2Congress

Our family courts are expected to operate in the best interest of the children” in cases brought before family court judges.

8,552 Letters Sent So Far

But it is not traditionally the sole criterion-much less the sole constitutional criterion… The best interests of the child is not the legal standard that governs parents’ or guardians’ exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves. — Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)

Millions of Americans who have been through a contested divorce or custody proceeding in the family court systems across the US are acutely aware that injustice is served at the whims of the attorneys and other “profiteers” of the family court system. Unfair custody and parenting time, lifetime alimony, child support calculations based on income rather than actual need, paternity fraud, parental alienation, false allegations with no repercussions, complex legal processes and rules, and numerous other issues not only violate the Constitutional and civil rights of the unfortunate litigants, but serve to contribute to the further denigration of families and leave parents and children emotionally, spiritually and financially damaged for many years into the future.The US Supreme Court has gone so far as to assert:

We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest. — Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)

More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children. — Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

Furthermore, experts in child development agree that in the absence of substantiated abuse, shared parenting is better for children:

“There is a consensus that neither the discretionary best interests of the child standard nor sole custody or primary residence orders are serving the needs of children and families of divorce. There is a consensus that shared parenting is a viable post-divorce parenting arrangement that is optimal to child development and well-being, including for children of high conflict parents.” — Edward Kruk, Ph.D., First International Conference on Shared Parenting, May 2014

Yet every day in courtrooms across the US, the rights of parents and children are violated by unconstitutional orders and unfair judgments due to unnecessarily complex and costly adversarial processes that make divorce not only more difficult than necessary, but also create long term financial and emotional impacts on parents, children, and society as a whole.

The divorce process and the accompanying pain and suffering that many families endure is something we don’t often like to talk about and taking a stoic and dismissive attitude toward those who feel slighted in the process is perpetuated by a society that fails to recognize the long term and sometimes life-long impact of the dissolution of a family unit. Even less talked about is the role that some attorneys, legislators and other agents of the court take in perpetuating these problems, sometimes unknowingly, but often purposefully to increase their own personal profits or organizational revenue.

Difficulties in the Family Courtroom

Individuals with either of these syndromes may be willing and able to lie in court in a fully convincing way. Sometimes, their manipulative skills are so well developed that they are able to influence others to provide false testimony against the victimized parent.

They may run circles around opposing counsel. When accused of visitation interference, they often have what appear to be wonderful explanations for their behavior; some may even be accurate. For example: “I offered many times for him to see his daughter but he just doesn’t cooperate; every time he comes to pick up Billy, Billy cries and refuses to go: he never follows the schedule, your honor, no matter how hard I try. …”

What typically is left out of such testimony is the fact that the interfering parent is either lying or has manipulated the child or the situation to give a false impression that he or she is innocent of the charges.

Disparities in State Family Courts

If the interfering parent continues to violate successfully the visitation regulations, over time the victimized parent often becomes so emotionally and financially depleted that the case fades from the court’s purview. Unfortunately, outside of the courtroom, the visitation interference continues, often with increased strength.