You can’t buy a child’s love?

A case study of the perverse correlation between child support and parental love of a child disenfranchised and alienated from a parent paying child support.

New York State requires child support to be paid until 21 unless the child is emancipated after they are 18 (marriage, in the military, working full time, etc.).  And so when my youngest child (of 2) quit college and started working full time I looked forward to finally get out from under what I consider an extorted child excise tax.  What I wasn’t ready for was the emotional response by my child akin to abandonment of her.  It was plainly clear that she had developed a view that child support paid equaled parental love, and removal of child support was removal of this love.  I relate this example here in the hopes that it prepares others for the day they also file and get the resulting emotional backlash.

I had lost a 3 year custody battle in 1997 which left me bankrupt, in debt, and under an order of protection based upon false allegations made when I tried to gain access to my children which if violated would result in me being charged with a felony and losing my job (beat dead, dead broke, disenfranchised).  As there is no access enforcement in NYS I informed my ex that she could deliver the children whenever she wanted but her profanity laced long winded “no” and her actions to keep me from my children for 3 years prior let me know that I was to be fully alienated from my children.   Additionally I was garnished at 65% of my gross salary for the next ten years to “support” children I was forced away from.

The child excise tax (see the “Ten Myth’s of Child Support”) to my ex was set at 25% of my income (standard NY order).  And like most orders, there was no mention of payments for college expenses.  NY Courts have used the standard State University Rates to set payment levels with both parents paying a prorated share based upon their income.  My older child came of college age and was attending but I was surprised to not be dragged back into support court.  She had finished college by the time my youngest turned 18 and started at community college.

The order setting my child “support” was now many years old and over the years my income had increased and by the time my oldest started college the 17% for one child would have been higher than the 25% for two at my lower salary and so I never filed to emancipate my oldest.  It is the dirty little secret of “child support” that if college is attended the custodial parent will lose payments while the child is staying at college and also now have to pay part of the tuition, room, and board.  So it is in the custodial parents interest to have the child living at home so they can continue to get the child support for themselves and not have to contribute towards college.  After one year of community college my youngest stopped college and went to work full time and here was my opportunity to get out from under the system.

I filed my emancipation petition which listed both children but as the oldest was over 21 it was a given.  The Judge could have simply asked my ex and youngest of her status and ruled to emancipate but instead he put it on for a hearing date some 9 months down the road.  I had filed Pro Se but now hired an attorney as I could see the fiasco of a hearing gone wrong and a bad ruling which would cause me to have to appeal.  This was a real fear as the Judge was a political hack who was the most overturned NYS Family Court Judge and who resigned his position to escape judicial review.

On the hearing date it would have been easy for the judge to go on the record to ascertain if my youngest was working full time and my petition valid.  Instead he allowed a hearing and as my ex was Pro Se he allowed her and my daughter to question me.  And it was through this process that I saw the emotional damage that was done to my daughter by a system which only values a fathers financial contribution.  Is it any wonder that a child brought up in a system which devalues time and personal connection between a father and a child results in a child which yearns so for their fathers love that they correlate a check as love?

I sat in the witness chair and got the third degree from my own child.  I’m sure the sharp tongue of the alienating parent had set the focus of blame onto me.  Why are you emancipating me but you didn’t emancipate my sister?  Why are you emancipating me now?  Lost on her was the father-daughter relationship had been reduced to an adversarial legal relationship.  Lost on her was it wasn’t about her, it was about obtaining my freedom.   Lost on the entire system is the fact that if she came to me and said, “Dad, I need some financial help with college” I would have given it to her.  Lost was the fact that if she came to me looking for room and board I would open my door and care for her.  The system and alienation of a parent is so complete that the perverse response is to force the parent to pay, and then blame them when they don’t want to.  To take by force that which would be given freely.

And so for me the emancipation ruling was bitter sweet for to escape the yoke of injustice I had been under these many years I had to endure the emotional assault upon my daughter.  I can’t help but be sad, and very mad, at a system and a parent which causes so much emotional pain to a child. The Judge made sure that I paid right to the end as his ruling was emancipation from the date of the hearing, not the date of petition filing as required by law.  One last unjust act done with a “feel free to appeal” given over the attorneys objections.

Many studies correlate the lack of parental contact with increased health risks and the power of touching, physical proximity also counts.  Forcing one parent out of a child’s life is certainly a form of child abuse, one which the “child protective” systems do not look at.  Indeed, if mental health experts were looking to intervene in at risk families and children they would first look at a system which routinely removes and marginalizes one parent, usually the father.  Lacking a fathers love and touch, the child holds dearly to any connection.  Those parents who have been marginalized and seek to financially emancipate their children need to be aware that the child may have an emotional attachment to the money and that your attempts to free yourself from an unjust system could result in the child construing it as an act against them.

 

Advertisements

I’ve been driven out by misandry and, I’m so lonesome I could cry

At a recent American Psychological Association (APA) convention the topic of loneliness, and how it impact health was discussed.  Dr. Keith Ablow writes about it on Fox news lamenting “we still don’t have a plan to reduce it”.  In the article he points to social media as increasing loneliness in America. Emma Sepala, Ph.D. tells us it is the American Protestant work ethic and drive to get ahead.  But both the work ethic and media (newspapers, books, long travel times) have been with us in the U.S. for 300 years.  And what explains the rest of the world?

Here I think they miss the point entirely.  We have throughout time always had distractions from close physical social interactions with others and a Protestant work ethic in America but what is different now is misandry and the removal of fathers from families.  The demonization of men has impacted how men interact to form families and interact within families, specifically the nuclear family of husband (father), wife (mother) and children and how these families interact with other families and the extended family is the change which has occurred in industrial societies and worldwide these past 40 years.

The government regulated family based upon the misandric common portrayal of men as deadbeats at best, and the demonization of men as dangerous at worst is resulting in policies which are destroying parental rights, individual rights, and tearing families apart, and harming men, women, and children in the process.  These government family regulatory policies have resulted in a 50% divorce rate, 1/3 out of wedlock birth rate, and 40% of children living apart from their father.  And now a generation of this has fostered young people averse to getting married or having children and if they do so are doing it later in life, often with children born outside of marriage.

In 1970, and for 300 years before that, it was recognized that the nuclear family was the building block of a strong society and beneficial to men, women, and children.  A 6% rate of children living in a home absent their father and a divorce rate of 5-8% in 1970 was considered high and cause for worry.  It was societies expectation that both husband and wife would get, and stay together, to have children (and siblings to have the same biological parents) and to raise them.  Marriage was a contract between 2 people not to be broken without cause.  Parental rights were fundamental rights which would not be interfered with absent applying the legal standard of strict scrutiny.  Parents, both parents, knew best how to raise their children.  No school, court, or state welfare agency would think to tell parents how to parent nor to designate one a “non parent” without a showing of harm to the children.

The 1970’s saw first the “war on poverty” which was the beginning of government subsidized single mother homes.  As government subsidized them they grew in number and to fill the federal coffers for expenditures to “single mothers” the government built a federal child excise tax system on “non custodial” fathers giving it the government double speak name of “child support”.  These systems followed historical sex based parenting patterns of the mothers having custody of children and receiving subsidies based upon the number of children she had and the father being charged a percentage of income based upon the number of children assessed to him, an excise tax.  Worse, the financial contributions were separated from child access for “non custodial” fathers.  These systems, originally designed for out of wedlock families with children were over time, 1970’s-80’s, applied to ALL families.

With out of wedlock, divorced, and separated single mother homes being subsidized we saw a increase in both out of wedlock births and divorced families with children.  Who needs a husband if the government will provide.  Add to this a system which based itself on women having custody of children and men paying the government for the children we end up with a government system which defined men’s value only as what they could pay for a family which they were not allowed to be a part of.  Historically a fathers responsibility to provide for his family financially was balanced by his right to parent and raise his children in the same home as wife and child.   Government collects the “child support” a father paid, but does nothing to preserve his parental rights.  A father taxation without parental representation.

As divorces increased the difficulty in obtaining one was seen as a “problem”.  Pushed by Bar Associations, enter “no fault” divorce.  Previously we needed cause to break the marital contract (such as adultery or abandonment) but now we were going to allow divorce based upon one party desiring to terminate the contract.   Called “no fault” they were actually a unilateral divorce against the wishes of one of the parties.   In the 1990’s studies showed that it was women who filed the majority of divorces (about 80%) and the number one reason given for the divorce was “we grew apart”, in other words a divorce of convenience by women to the detriment of men and children became the norm.

During this time special interest feminist groups were looking for funding sources.  Using the unproven and unchallenged feminist theory of a “patriarchal” system pushed on college campuses in “women’s studies” programs, they seized upon battered and abused women  at the hands of men as an issue and the domestic violence industry was born.  What was originally designed as a shield against physical violence against women in families was turned into a sword to be used by unscrupulous women to gain power and control over men and curry standing in the increasing divorce, child “support” and custody battles.  “Temporary” Orders of Protection (TOP) based upon unsubstantiated ex parte statements to a judge, with no regard to perjury, became the norm.

In law enforcement, prosecutor, and judicial systems, biased enforcement of allegations and reports, with the view of men as perpetrators and women as victims, became the norm even in casual dating relationships.  A woman’s allegations are always believed and a man’s dismissed.  Mandatory arrest took away law enforcement’s discretion to arrest or not. Mandatory prosecution took away a district attorney’s discretion, and legal mandate, to NOT prosecute a case which can not be proven.  Mutual aggression was dismissed as being the man’s fault under “primary aggressor” statutes.  In cases of blatant assaults on men by women “abuse excuse” and “female impunity” is applied and actions by women which would result in arrest of a man were dismissed with a warning.

Police, prosecutors, and judges are not trained by legal experts in the tradition of Blackstone, but by “domestic violence experts”, often a minimally trained worker in a “battered women’s shelter” who spouts dogma as fact.  Act of abuse, even minor ones, are lumped together with “violence” and protections for the innocent are thrown out under the guise of “protecting women”.  Innocent until proven guilty is now guilty until you prove your innocence.  Men are charged with felonies and high misdemeanors which carry sentences of years in prison, and then offered minor fines and TOP’s if they admit their guilt, thus undermining the system for innocent men.

Feminist rhetoric of “men are bad” is forced on boys in our public education system.  Systems are designed to reward girls and how they learn and boys are lined up and medicated for “A.D.D.” when they act like boys do.  Boys are falling behind at all levels within our education system yet we have no “White House Council” to address the issues like we do for girls.  The boy crisis in education has gotten so bad that 65% of all college graduates are female and many colleges are looking to try to lure men to attend as girls complain of the lack of available boys.  “Girls go to college to get more knowledge, boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider” and we turn a blind eye to this sexist biased bullying of boys.

Predatory act of abuse by female pedophiles (often by a teacher or trusted woman in a position of authority) are dismissed with the “lucky stud” myth that “boys want it”.  Abuse excuse is applied to the actions of the female (she was abused herself, she’s lonely, etc.) and when she is charged with a crime she is given female impunity in sentencing, often given time served or probation and not having to plea to a sex offense nor be listed on sexual offender registries.  By definition we don’t consider force able compulsion of sex by a female on a male as rape.  There are no counseling centers for female on male rape and sexual abuse victims.  Sexual abuse of institutionalized delinquent boys at the hands of female counselors and guards occurs on a regular basis and there is no hue and cry to address it.

We consider a drunk woman as incapacitated and unable to consent to sex with no similar protection for men and don’t allow a man to claim drunkenness as a defense of sexual assault.  Drunk women get protection, drunk men get prosecuted.  We readily believe allegations of rape by a female and dismiss a defense of consensual, even when it is a “he said-she said” case and the allegations of abuse occur days, weeks, or months later.  Again, defenses for the innocent do not exist when allegations are against men.

Woman can, and do, lie about their reproductive status.  Even though perpetrating a fraud we hold men financially accountable for children they did not want.  Even when a woman steals his sperm a man is held accountable for the child, in NYS the high court ruling that a “man’s right to reproduction ends at ejaculation”. Once on the hook and named the father of a child we hold the man financially responsible even if DNA results show the man to not be the father.  Another instance of a fraud perpetrated on men by women with no accountability for the actions.

The social interactions between men and women and social institutions have gotten so hostile to men that they are avoiding them wholesale.  At first it was risk aversion, now it is a conscious decision to NOT enter into a situation where you will be judged and risk life, limb, and property.  A generation of men watched their grand fathers, fathers, uncles, brothers, and friends get cleaned out financially, removed from their homes, their family and their children, arrested and persecuted, abandoned.   Young men learned from their example.  Indeed it is now so hostile that many men espouse “M.G.T.O.W. – Men going Their Own Way, no committing to spouse and children due to the risk involved.

The Myth of the “deadbeat dad” was debunked in the 1990’s with federal studies (see Sanford Bravers “Divorced dads: Shattering the Myth’s).  Studies over time have shown that women are as violent as men and the hidden problem within families is those with mutual violence or male victims, which are ignored.  The problem of female pedohiles is flat out ignored due to the “Lucky Stud” myth and female impunity in criminal prosecutions and in sentencing.  Drunken and stoned consensual sex and tawdry behavior which is later regretted results in him being arrested and her treated the victim.  In all these instances we blame men, arrest men, prosecute men, vilify men, ostracize men, and incarcerate men.

When men avoid the dangerous minefield of relationships we look to men as the problem.  We have “responsible fatherhood” programs which purport to teach men how to responsibly pay for children they are not allowed to raise.  We look to see what is wrong with men who don’t want to get married.  We wonder what is wrong with young men without families who seem happy to sit in mom’s basement and play video games all day.  We wonder what is wrong with young men who look to crime, gangs, and drugs and make our communities unsafe and try to get “mentoring” programs.  We look to find “father figures” for the boys who are growing up missing “male role models”.

Men are good. Men are not the problem.  Men are not problem.  Recognize this and we can then begin to address the misandric anti-male policies of the past 40 years.  If we address the hostile environments that men have to face we need do no more than remove the barriers and men will do the rest. (link to men’s/boy’s issues here)

If Ablow, Sepala and others in the APA want to address the underlying causes of loneliness, in addition to a myriad of other problems in America, perhaps they would look to debunk the myth of the patriarchy and abusive bad men and the anti family government policies (listed above) which have been developed based upon these myths.  And debunk the myth that men and women are the same and their differences “socialized into a gender” and recognize it it the differences and strength’s of men and women which fosters a strong family for the benefit of all.  And they need to recognize it is these policies which are hostile to men which are the problem, and stop blaming men for the hostile environment they now have to navigate in.

In the Hank Williams, Sr. classic, “I’m so lonesome I could cry” we get to the end of the ballad before we learn he is lonesome as he pines for another, lamenting, he “wonders where you are”.  “You” isn’t stated clearly but it is apparent that the loneliness will go when they are together again.  It’s not hard to imagine that he is apart due to work to provide for his family and it is his family which will solve his loneliness.  And it is not hard to imagine that without their husband/father they are also lonely.  Is anyone lonely when they have a family to come home to?

 

Happy birthday disenfranchised daughter, happy birthday to you, where ever you are.

I was thinking that maybe you (the electronic world) could do me a favor.  Now with social media blasting things all over for everyone to see I thought maybe if you know her you would pass along a happy birthday wish from me for my daughter.  You see, I fulfilled my “responsible father” parental duties, as defined by my government, years ago and we have no contact with each other for nigh on 20 years now.  So please, if you are blessed with knowing her do pass along my wishes for a good birthday and a happy year to follow.

CAH Circa 1989.jpeg

Birthday Party 1989

I suppose I should also here explain and make my apologies for her ending up a disenfranchised daughter to a beat dead, dead broke, disenfranchised dad (often referred to a “deadbeat dad” or “NCP – Non Custodial Parent”).  It certainly wasn’t my plan to be a disenfranchised dad, indeed I was actually a very involved dad and the primary care giving parent as her mother had returned to school and then work full time.   I didn’t plan my life this way, but life is the thing that happens to you while you are busy making plans.

You see, in the 1980’s we (me and her mother) believed that men and women should both share in providing for their children emotionally and financially.  Unfortunately, unbeknownst to me (and most other people out there), the system has defined “responsible fatherhood” as a father who pays his “child support” on time and in full, regardless of his ability to pay the government assessed amount or the needs of the child.  What I had been led to believe about society working “in the child’s best interest” and about fathers should be active and involved, “responsible”, I was soon to learn was not true.  I now believe only half of what I see and nothing that I hear.

In looking back I wonder if I would have been better off not trying to be an active nurturing participating father.  I could have accepted the “Standard NY Order” of every other weekend and Wednesday after school for 4 hour “visitations”.  I expect though that given the circumstances and the system that the disenfranchisement would have occurred just the same.  Indeed, I have come to learn that it is the hands-on active father who fights the hardest to be in their child’s life, and it is he who is often the one disenfranchised the most, an “inverse correlation”.  Of course, hind sight is 20-20 and nobody knew then what they know now.

I find some consolation in that I fought very hard to stay in my children’s life, over 3 years of litigation in multiple courts.  I was penalized financially for fighting “to hard”  and not accepting the “standard order” and made to pay attorneys and fees in addition to “child support”.  I was told to just “shut up and pay and you can visit your kids”.  I likened “visiting” on a regular schedule to being in jail.  I wanted more.  Alas, there was no avenue in which I would be allowed to be an active father in raising them.  The harder I fought, the worse I was penalized.  I had to define fatherhood as I saw it, not as another thought to make me be.  Unfortunately, Life isn’t fair, it was their way or nothing.

I think I did exceptionally well given I was fighting a government system with unlimited resources which was also plundering mine to pay to remove me from my children.  It was only after many years when I was ultimately arrested and suspended from work and lost all income that I capitulated.  I was bankrupt, facing incarceration, and a lifetime court order keeping me from my children or I could take a “deal”, return to work, pay my (extorted) “child support”, and rely on their custodial mothers good graces for any continued access to them.  I chose the latter as the lesser of two evils, she had no use for me.  In life you don’t always get what you want.

I did fault myself at times for “not fighting hard enough” or inversely, for not capitulating and accepting “visitor” status.  But in addition to be a father by my own heritage and definition I had to ask myself, “fatherhood at what cost”?   The entire system was designed to remove my parental right to raise my children, and so it did. I had no choice than to pay the “child support” extortion and it left me at maximum garnishment and I had to live on 35% of my income for 10 years (no bank account, no credit card, no home, no car).  When you add in the cost of “visitation” (denial of access, more false allegations and incarceration, loss of work, more jail for not paying the “support”) the cost of being a father wasn’t there, much less being a “visitor”.  My door is always open, I never denied any family member access the choice to not come to my door was not mine, and that’s cold hard fact.

When I tell people my now grown children haven’t called, emailed, or even been to “visit” me for 20 years they ask why or “who’s fault is it” (obviously I did SOMETHING to cause it).  It’s nobody’s I think, and EVERYBODY’S.  It’s “Parental Alienation” and a government system which encourages and rewards it, a system which most turn a bit of a blind eye to which is why it continues now for over 30 years.  To hide their discomfort most people will give the “maybe they’ll come back some day”, as if 20 years of acting a way will just change overnight.  Pffft is what I say back.  I certainly don’t expect them to crash my threshold, but I will stay true and never turn them away should they do so.

Photo on 12-20-16 at 5.03 PM.jpg

2017

This is a computer selfie of me in 2017.  I used to look for an unattended camera and snap a “selfie”, this in the days before smart phones and the term “selfie”.  So more than one person has had film developed (and then digitally downloaded) to find a photo of me smiling at them.  Of course I recruited my kids as accomplices when they were old enough.  I thought perhaps they would be interested in how I look now.  Perhaps.  Their choice now.

A lot has been taken away from me by this government system, more so my children.  They took a good active involved father from two children who deserved better.  What they can’t take away is me being a DadSometimes you fight the good fight, and lose.  Such is life.  The sun will come up tomorrow and God willing you get a new day.  So in keeping with still being a Dad I say to my daughter, the doors open if you desire.  I wish you a happy birthday and a good year to follow.  Love, Dad.

 

Boys will be … defined? Is nature (sex) v. nurture (gender) settled debate?

When I fill out paper forms I cross out “gender” and write “sex” next to it.  The PC police get mad at this, “it’s gender” they tell me and some even cross out “sex” and re-write in “gender”.  I can only wonder how it was over time a persons sex turned into gender in classifying the sexes.  Sex, defined, is the 2 main categories of humans based upon their reproductive functions (Sex organs).  Gender, defined, is the state of being male or female based upon social and cultural differences and not by biology.

The argument of nature versus nurture as impacting human behavior has been going on the my entire social science career of 40 years.    Except in rare circumstances people are born with either male or female reproductive functions and so throughout time we have identified people as either male or female.  For example,  you might be a heterosexual male or gay male but you were still identified by reproductive ability, male.  Your sexuality and sexual preferences were separate from your sex.

Enter Gender Feminist Theory which holds that the sexes are actually “genders” and the state of being male or female is based upon social and cultural differences entirely and not on biology in any amount.  The theory holds that your sex (defined by nature) has no bearing on how you act as a male or female, but that you are socially constructed to act a certain way.  Boys will be boys because they are taught to be boys by society, so the theory goes, ditto for girls.

I guess missed the “it’s settled science” memo and reports in peer reviewed scientific journals explaining that nurture won out totally.  I have seen no paper or report discussing that the issue of nature (reproductive function) over nurture (socially constructed) was settled science or that one had more weight than the other.  From what I had read and reviewed, forced gender identification opposite to your sex actually caused developmental problems.  A good example of biological sex holding over socialization is the case of David Reimer (Bruce at birth).

One of twin boys, Bruce, born in 1966 he had a botched circumcision which seriously damaged his penis.  His parents brought him to a psychologist who advocated for the theory of gender neutrality, socially constructed boys and girls, and convinced his parents he would be better off raised as a female, so Bruce had sex reassignment surgery (testes removed) and was to be socialized as a female, Brenda,  and given estrogen in adolescents for breast development.  But the socialization didn’t work and “Brenda” did not identify as a girl.  From 9 years old on “she” wasn’t acting the part and knew he was a boy.

At 14 years old “Brenda” had surgery (including a double mastectomy, testosterone injections and his penis reconstructed) and he changed his name to “David”.  The failure of the gender socialization was reported in medical circles by noted sexologist Dr. Milton Diamond debunking the blank slate social construct gender theory and to prevent this from occurring in the future.  The story was told in 1997 in the book “As nature made him: the boy who was raised as a girl”.

Even though the theory of a socially constructed “gender” was debunked prior to the turn of the century we still write “gender” on our forms and there are those who still see men and women as “socialized” beings, ignoring their biological sex.  Certainly nurture plays a role in how we develop, and there is great overlap in how male and female humans behave naturally.  But it is easy to see that it is the forced roles placed upon children which are bad, this whether you are forcing a boy into a traditional male role or are trying to force a boy into being a female.

We are beginning to see some people calling out the “gender” feminists for putting forth a socially constructed sex theory which is scientifically unproven and wrong and contrary to biology.  Dr. Barry Kuhle, an evolutionary psychologist speaks to this denial of science in his piece in Psychology Today entitled “Giving feminism a bad name”.  He points to the gender feminists radical response and denial of any science which contradicts their theories and beliefs.

Christina Hoff Sommers has also pointed to “gender” feminists theories undermining science most recently in a Dartmouth Review interview where she not only takes to task those who would distort the truth for their ideology, she points to how those who put the social construct theory into practice with their own toddlers soon learn of its fallacy.  A recent article in Intellectual Takeout, “Neuroscientist: Gender-neutral Parenting is Futile” quotes neuroscientist Debra Soh who cautions against treating children as blank slates with no biologically determined sex characteristics.  The articles author, Annie Holmquist asks the valid question, “Are we actually degrading both male and female by encouraging them to ignore scientific fact and abandon the natural differences between the two sexes?”

I would answer her, yes we are.  In my mind gender feminists are the sexists as they would define the behaviors of both male and female by their definition of acceptable behavior based upon unproven theory all the while ignoring science based avenues of study with proven outcomes.  Theirs is not a social science, it is a dogma to be followed with religious fervor.  And treating children as blank slates and forcing them into unnatural gender roles can be damaging to their development.

Boys will be boys, girls will be girls, with a little bit of nurture piled on top of that.  And it is our responsibility to ensure that each one, individually, is allowed many varied experiences and many opportunities so that they can decide what they enjoy and how to be for themselves.  The argument of the weight of nature versus nurture will go on unsettled as individuals don’t fit into any one category.  By definition nurture is to care for and encourage growth and development and I see in neither nature or nurture where it is beneficial to force upon or remove sex based roles upon a person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What of men’s EQUAL right to reproductive choice?

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 FINANCIALLY responsible 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: Do men 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 RESPONSIBILITY for 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?

 

Remove the Stench from the Bench!

14639889_10209942620258386_94289354037560844_n

The New York Men’s Action Network (NY MAN) and the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY, Inc. has for many years asked the parents the question, “are you happy with the system as it currently exists?”  If the answer was no we would encourage people to get involved in the political process and to make sure they registered in a party, vote in the primary and again in the general election. (find general advice on party affiliation, the NYS political process, and grass roots lobbying here http://nymensactionnetwork.org/advocacy-get-active.shtml)

The question would come up on who to vote for if both candidates were equally bad and we would advise to vote out the incumbent.  Or another option would be to write in a name, any name, as a protest vote.  This was especially important when you had only one candidate running and they were bad for men, fathers and families.

In the worst of the worst of political cronyism is when the two major parties would get together and cross endorse one candidate with a Democrat in one district and a Republican in the other, thus each party ensuring their hold on a position.  And in many districts the voter advantage for one party is so high that the other party doesn’t run a candidate and so the primary is the real election.  But here, party loyalty takes hold and most candidates won’t buck their own parties leadership.

Other than for Town Justice in New York State the “rules” limit the judicial positions to a member of the Bar Association.  So we not only have a one party monopoly, it is further limited to just attorneys who are forced to work not only in the party system but also in the court system, both of which would frown on a “maverick” stepping up to buck the system and tell the truth.

But this is family court, a court of equity and one dealing with people.  How is it that attorneys are more qualified to pass judgement on individuals?  Actually one would think that those in the medical or social science fields would be equally if not more so qualified.  And why would we rule out an everyday citizen?  We use a “jury of our peers” to ensure fairness in our criminal courts so why do we exclude these protections in our most important court, the one deciding the fate of our family and of ourselves?

So what’s a person to do?

14639889_10209942620258386_94289354037560844_n

Yes, one Doug Smith is running to remove the stench from the bench and we here at NY MAN are encouraging everyone who finds themselves with a one person “race” for Judge, or a two bad person race to write in Doug’s name.  Especially those in Saratoga County in NYS.

No more standing idly by and not voting because you don’t have a good choice or any choice at all.  If you are tired of the stench that the parties keep sending to the bench, let them know you want an open, honest election of qualified persons.

The New York Men’s Action Network has found NO race with an impartial qualified judge not beholden to the system.  As such we endorse DOUG SMITH to REMOVE THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH and ask that you write in his name for judicial positions this coming election day.  By writing in your vote for DOUG SMITH you are letting the NYS Court system that you are NOT happy with their biased and inefficient system which ;lunders family assets all the while tearing them apart.

14639889_10209942620258386_94289354037560844_n

If you wish to talk to Doug or to comment on the “REMOVE THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH” You can reach him, FaFNY, and NY MAN online at https://www.facebook.com/groups/Fathers4Kids/.

And remember VOTE for DOUG SMITH to REMOVE THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH!

Guest essay: Omission of certain facts is misinformation

http://poststar.com/news/opinion/guest-essay-omission-of-certain-facts-is-misinformation/article_f3f0f9c6-c531-11e4-94a2-e330e515de79.html

March 07, 2015 8:25 pm

By Jim Hays

In the story, “Warren County District Attorney says violence toward children has worsened recently” (03-01-2015 online edition), District Attorney Kate Hogan states, “Often, the most serious cases occur at the hands of men who have no biological and emotional connection to a child, many times the child’s mother’s boyfriend.”

Unfortunately, this quote is taken out of context, for it fails to identify who abuses and neglects children most, the family makeup and relationship to the child, and how these children end up under the hand of the single mother and mother’s boyfriend. So let’s look at the whole story.

The 2010 Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) once again shows the greatest incidence of child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by “single” mothers” (not living with the biological father), followed by abuse and neglect caused by live-in boyfriends.

The NIS-4 executive summary states “Children living with their married biological parents universally had the lowest rate, whereas those living with a single parent who had a cohabiting partner in the household had the highest rate in all maltreatment categories.”

While the study speaks of single parents, we have a default mother custody rate of more than 85 percent in our family courts in this nation, including here in New York state. So it is single-mother homes with a live-in boyfriend where we have the highest threat of abuse and neglect for children.

Before we can blame the sex of the parent in these single-parent homes, we need to look at how we got so many single mothers with boyfriend homes in the first place. And here, the fact of the matter is that it is the biases of Family Court judges to award sole custody to the mother in more than 85 percent of cases, which removes the parental rights of the father without cause, limits the fathers access to minimal times, and provides no enforcement for interference with the father’s access to his children by the mother or others.

The No. 1 reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is the limitations of a court order. No. 2 two is prevention of access by the mother, 50 percent of whom admit to interfering with the father’s access with impunity. This is combined with a system that ignores and dismisses the complaints of a father about abuse or neglect of his child as vindictive before a proper investigation of the facts.

If we look at the best situation for children, we see that not only do children having married biological parents in the home have the lowest abuse and neglect rates, this is followed by unmarried biological parents and then children with biological parents living apart but involved (caparisoning or shared parenting).

Inversely, single mother with mother’s boyfriends and then single-parent homes have the most abuse and neglect of children.

So it is easy to see that in speaking about healthy outcomes of children, DA Hogan is off the mark.

If she wants to do something to protect children, she and her fellow DAs could enforce violations of custody orders just like protection orders and child support orders, with criminal charges for blatant violators.

Then, I suggest she get the book written by the late David Levy of the Children’s Rights Council which summed up the solution to negative child outcomes in the title: “The Best Parent is BOTH Parents.”

James Hays is the treasurer, past president and co-founder of the Coalition of Fathers and Families NY Inc. (www.FaFNY.org), a 501c3 not-for-profit working to keep fathers and families together.