An estimated 24.7 million children (33%) live absent their biological father.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, “Living Arrangements of Children under 18 Years/1 and Marital Status of Parents by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin/2 and Selected Characteristics of the Child for all Children 2010.” Table C3. Internet Release Date November, 2010.
– Father involvement makes a difference in kids’ emotional lives. From a study based on 17,000 children born in the United Kingdom in 1958 who were followed up with at ages 7, 11, 16, 23 and 33:
Children with involved fathers have less emotional and behavioral difficulties in adolescence
Teenagers who feel close to their fathers in adolescence go on to have more satisfactory adult marital relationships.
Girls who have a strong relationship with their fathers during adolescence showed a lack of psychological distress in adult life.
Source: Dr. Eirini Flouri & Ann Buchanan, “Involved Fathers Key for Children,” Economic & Social Research Council, March 2002.
– Children living in female headed families with no spouse present had a poverty rate of 47.6 percent, over 4 times the rate in married-couple families. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; ASEP Issue Brief: Information on Poverty and Income Statistics. September 12, 2012 http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/12/PovertyAndIncomeEst/ib.shtml
Poverty– Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2011, Table C8. Washington D.C.: 2011.
Currently, there are laws, standards, and practices that–when combined–constitute discriminatory policies in Family Court jurisdictions particularly against fathers. By extension, these violate the rights of children.
The “Parental Rights Initiative” required courts to award “equal parenting time” to both parents after divorce or separation. The measure was defeated by a sizeable margin (62% to 38%) but it represents only the latest round in a combustible campaign to change how child custody cases are decided.
A history of child custody (in a nutshell)
Colonial Americans followed the English common law rule that upon divorce the father retained custody of his children. Fathers had the right to the physical custody, labor and earnings of their children in exchange for supporting, educating, and training them to earn their own livelihoods or, in the case of girls, marry a man who would support them.
Colonial mothers, though deemed worthy of honor and deference, were not endowed with legally enforceable parental rights.
This paternal preference continued well into the 19th century. In fact, the 1848 Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls – the first women’s rights convention – listed the fathers’ automatic custody rule among its principal complaints. But women began gaining the upper hand as our legal system dealt with two cultural transformations: the industrial revolution’s remaking men into marketplace wage earners and the emergence of a “separate sphere” for women as domestic caregivers.
By the early 20th century, motherhood had attained near-mythical status. Under the “tender years” presumption, custody of young children was almost exclusively awarded to mothers upon divorce.
It took a social revolution to unseat the tender years doctrine and replace it with gender-neutral custody standards.
English: Daniel Amneus, author, Ph.D., English Professor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Mounting divorce rates in the 1960s and ensuing decades provoked a lively debate about parental roles and custody issues. The movement for gender equality, along with the rise of fathers’ rights groups, called attention to the importance of both parents in the care of children at the same time as loosening the link between gender and parental roles.
The end of formal rules dictating a result favoring one parent over the other led to the adoption of a more inclusive but less definitive standard of deciding custody cases based on the “best interests of the child.” This standard opened up the possibility of excessive judicial discretion as well as a threat of inconsistency in the results, resulting in hotly contested custody battles.
From the rule of one to the sharing of custody
No matter how child custody was determined, one rule continued to be ironclad: custody was indivisible. After a marital breakup, only one parent could properly raise the children, with the other parent entitled merely to visiting rights. Until the late 20th century, courts regularly refused to allow divorcing parents to share custody. The dominant view was that after divorce a child needed the full time stability of a home run by one parent.
When students at the University of Toronto gathered to hear a talk about male suicide, they were met with screaming feminists who shouted abuse in their faces, pulled fire alarmsand other wise acted like spoiled children refusing to share their toys. Another student at Durham University in the UK, attempting to cope with the suicide of his friend, was refused the opportunity to create a society for other men struggling with emotional issues, on the grounds that allowing men space to gather was ‘controversial’ and akin to promoting ‘white rights’.
Male suicide rates by country (per 100,000 males). The most recent data available is from 2009, some of the data is as old as 1978 though. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
All across Australia, the UK and Canada, men gather in what are known as ‘men’s sheds’, where they often engage in woodwork, bicycle and vehicle repairs, gardening, milling and furniture restoration. Men gather to engage their minds and bodies in a task, and to share some of the emotional difficulties they experience – difficulties that are often met with mocking or dismissal from the wider culture. These sheds are credited with providing men critical, life-saving emotional support in a way that men are comfortable with, and enjoy.
A chart of the most common methods of suicide in the USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Men and women prefer different kinds of emotional support, and both are placed into double binds when it comes to how they express themselves. Women are encouraged to openly share their emotions, and then are accused of being too emotional. And according to author and grief counsellor Tom Golden, ‘men are shamed by women and men alike when expressing their hurts and articulating their needs, but once shamed into silence men are again shamed for their failure to communicate’. The double bind for men is often described as ‘toxic masculinity’, although ‘toxic femininity’ receives scant mention. Golden goes on to explain that there are four reasons men prefer to communicate while partaking in activities, such as those offered by men’s sheds.
Men’s pain is culturally taboo, making the expression of that pain without support very difficult. A woman crying alone in a restaurant is likely to elicit compassion, while a man crying will be more likely to elicit disgust. This powerful taboo means that men prefer a pretense (woodworking) to gather, even though the point of the gathering is to express their pain. The woodworking negates the taboo aspect of the discussion.
Men feel they have a duty to protect others, but not to expect protection for themselves. Only when men are in groups together do they have the expectation of protection. The brotherhood between soldiers, firefighters, other groups of men who protect one another creates a way out of the bind that by needing protection, men forfeit their right to protection, because real men are protectors, not the protected.
About 20 states are considering measures that would change the laws governing which parent gets legal and physical control of a child after a divorce or separation.
Some of the biggest battles over child custody are playing out not in courtrooms, but in statehouses.
Prompted partly by fathers concerned that men for too long have gotten short shrift in custody decisions, about 20 states are considering measures that would change the laws governing which parent gets legal and physical control of a child after a divorce or separation.
The proposals generally encourage judges to adopt custody schedules that maximize time for each parent. Some of the measures, such as those proposed in New York and Washington state, take an additional step by requiring judges to award equal time to each parent unless there is proof that such an arrangement wouldn’t be in a child’s best interests.
Critics of the bills contend that they threaten to take discretion away from judges and risk giving leverage to abusive men. They also say the laws are poorly targeted because typically the only custody cases that end up in court are ones in which former spouses are too hostile toward each other to effectively practice shared parenting anyway.
2016 International Conference on Men’s Issues is ON!
I bring some great news. We’ve booked an outstanding venue for the second International Conference on Men’s Issues, London, for the dates we originally planned, 8-10 July. We need to sort out some minor administrative details, and our current estimate is that will take around a week, maybe a little longer. As soon as it’s possible, details of the venue (and so much more) will be posted simultaneously on the websites of J4MB and A Voice for Men. Please wait for the formal announcement before ordering tickets, or making commitments to travel and accommodation.
ICMI16 will be a truly international event. The list of countries from which we shall have speakers and/or delegates is growing by the week, and is currently:
…and to “dig up dirt” on each other.And…Should Custody Law Be Abolished?
The bigger question behind that one is: Should custody labels still matter? To put it another way: Has the time come to relegate the whole concept of custody of children to the scrap heap of history?
The question is not merely an abstract hypothetical. To the contrary, there appears to be a very definite trend, both in the United States and around the world, away from the concept of custody. The United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”), for example, eschews the word custody. Instead, Article 9 of the UNCRC directs member countries to “ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except [in cases involving abuse or neglect, or where] a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.” Rather than referencing a right of parents to custody of their children (referring instead to a child’s right to have the state order what it determines is in the child’s best interest), Article 9 requires member countries to “respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis….”
Nearly every U.N. country has signed onto the UNCRC. The U.S. Congress has refused to ratify it.2 Nevertheless, there is other evidence of a clear movement away from the concept of custody (or at least that particular word) in the United States, too. In particular, a growing number of states are transforming, or at least supplementing, their traditional custody laws with shared parenting and parenting plan legislation. These kinds of laws use terminology like primary residential responsibility and decision-making responsibility instead of physical custody and legal custody. Sometimes these laws expressly provide that parents may use other words besides “custody,” so long as the alternate terms are defined in a way that is understandable and enforceable.
Reducing acrimony and litigation
Understandably, not many family law mediators are enamored of the word custody. Fewer still are fans of the winner-takes-all, adversarial approach it connotes. Because neither parent wants to be the one who is deprived of that title and relegated to the role of “visitor,” it is a significant source of impasse in mediation. In many cases, it may actually be the only source of impasse. For this reason, many mediators will not address the issue (if they address it at all) until after all discussions of the details of the actual parenting time schedule and decision-making allocations have been completed.3
Any family court judge or attorney can attest to the fact that the lion’s share of litigation in family court involves a contest for ownership of the custody “prize.” If this incentive were removed, it stands to reason that there would be a sharp decline in litigation in family court. Parents would save literally thousands of dollars in attorney fees and related expenses like custody evaluators, forensic experts, witness fees, and so on.
Removing the winner-gets-the-kids concept would also remove the incentive for parents to focus on each other’s faults, and to “dig up dirt” on each other. It may not be reasonable to expect divorcees to co-parent blissfully, without conflict, but getting off to a less acrimonious start, one that encourages cooperation rather than competition, would certainly seem to have a greater chance of serving the interests of children than the existing system has.
The historical rationale
As explained in detail in other blog posts, and in my book, The History of Custody Law, the concept of custody has been around since earliest recorded human history. The traditional account provided by historians is that all through history, up until the Enlightened Age (i.e., the particular era of time in which the historian providing the account is living), children were viewed as economic assets having the legal status of chattel. Under this view, an allocation of custody of a child between two parents was required for the same reason an allocation of ownership of any other marital property was required. The owner of property gets to make decisions about what to do with it, and who gets to use it. By dividing up a divorcing couple’s property, a court prevents future disputes over those kinds of decisions from arising. By the same token, “awarding” a child to one or the other parent makes it clear which parent gets to decide how to raise the child, who gets to spend time with the child, and how and when the time will be spent.
“Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders – all correlating more strongly with fatherlessness than with any other single factor, surpassing even race and poverty. The majority of prisoners, juvenile detention inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists come from fatherless homes.Children born from affluent but broken families are much more likely to get into trouble than children from poor but intact ones, and white children from separated families are at higher risk than black children in intact families. … Marshalling federal agencies to “promote” something as private and personal as a parent’s relationship with his own children raises questions. The assumption that the government has a legitimate role in ameliorating the problem of fatherlessness also glides quickly over the more fundamental question of whether the government has had a role in creating the problem. What we see in the “fatherlessness crisis” may be an optical illusion. What many are led to believe is a social problem may in reality be anexercise of power by the state.”Independence Review, vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, at pp 485-486.
Parental Advocate, Dr. Leon Koziol, to Meet with Agents and Supporters in Nashville.
Do fathers matter any more in this country? It’s a growing question haunting policy makers in our nation’s divorce and family courts.
Politicians accustomed to appeasing women’s rights activists have made it expedient to abuse fathers for votes without any regard for its long term consequences. As a result, stigmatized fathers are surrendering to the stereotypes and abandoning their rightful roles as natural parents. It is a silent and insidious trend harming families, children and our society.
We all have some recognition of the injustices in these courts, but do we really know the severity of their consequences? The insidious harm is supported by numerous studies over the past three decades which show that father discrimination is at the root of today’s unprecedented social problems. After an exhaustive review of such studies in an article entitled, “Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis,” Professor Stephen Baskerville places the blame on government itself:
On this Martin Luther King Day, we join fellow Americans in paying tribute to our greatest civil rights leader. It’s hard to imagine in our lifetimes that a day existed when entire neighborhoods and school districts were segregated on account of race. As a free society we have come a long way indeed.
Family court has been described as a “constitution-free zone.” The state has found a mechanism for oppression by exploiting our children to raise revenues and fees on the backs of fathers who simply find themselves unable to meet expenses after taxes and child support are deducted from their paychecks.
And it’s not just minorities being imprisoned for these debts. Our military and law enforcement represent a growing constituency of victims. In upstate New York a police investigator committed a murder-suicide upon leaving support court leaving three children without parents and the city with a $2 million liability, see Pearce v Longo.
Fathers are still 85% of all child support payors and we have become the most imprisoned population in the free world. A trillion dollar industry has forced dedicated dads to be on a constant defensive in these courts. It’s long past a time when equality and civility are achieved in the places most trusted to protect our basic human rights.
1. I, Firstname Lastname. hereby state that on Month Day, Year, Ms. Case Worker of CPS came to my front door and told me “there had been a report”. She said that she wanted to “help me get this cleared up”.
2. I thought this OBVIOUSLY was a mistake and I felt I had nothing to hide, so I LET HER IN MY HOUSE and TALKED with her, being unaware of my Constitutional Rights (or in spite of my assertion of them). Right here is where being ignorant of your Constitutional Rights or not asserting them has already shot you in the foot. Several important court cases have decided FOR the citizen here and Here. Family courts routinely do not care, but getting it ON THE RECORD is a really good idea.
3. Ms. Case Worker immediately started walking though my house looking in my cupboards, pantry, the refrigerator, closets, bathroom, and every room in my house.
4. Ms. Case Worker left and returned a couple hours later with two policemen and snatched my child(ren) and said this was (whatever she accuses you of)
5. Detail what happened after that.
AND THAT IS HOW YOU WRITE YOUR DECLARATION- The truth, the dates, the facts, the names. Spend a LOT of time writing this WELL (with spelling and grammar correct) and editing it down to hard-hitting FACTS. This is NOT a letter to Aunt Martha or a “text message” to your online pals.
SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING SELF-INCRIMINATING.
Do NOT admit to anything.
Do NOT agree with anything the CPS worker said.
Stick it in and TWIST IT with the Social Worker’s COLOR OF LAW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS by getting you to let her into your house without a search warrant and talking with her without knowing about your Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination (And your Miranda Rights) and how FRAUDULENT, MENDACIOUS, and under-handed she had been in FABRICATING a FALSE ALLEGATION from a BOGUS “report”.
*The Lie of Omission:The CPS worker is certainly not likely to say anything good about you in HER Affidavit to the court. It will most likely be nothing but Maledicency (evil speaking). She is NOT an “investigator”, she is a Validator. She is not being paid to be “fair” or “honest”. This is the “*lie of omission”. Even if she had “good” things to say to you to your face or over the phone, it isn’t likely to appear in HER Affidavit. Anything “good” would go in the other side of the “Preponderance” balance. They couldn’t have that, could they?
A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up. A lie of omission is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person’s (the judge’s) capacity to make an informed decision.
Keep it to FACTS, dates, and names. Leave the emotional parts out.
My children have been wrongfully and unlawfully removed from my physical custody without Constitutional DUE PROCESS, or even the pretext of Reasonable Efforts having been offered AS MANDATED BY 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a) (15) and 672 (a) (1), which removal meets the definition of KIDNAPPING according to 18 USC Sec.1203 and are being held-
“…in order to compel a third person …. to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so…”
“The mother voluntarily consented to the court’s jurisdiction over her children, voluntarily transferred their custody to the division and never challenged the circumstances of their removal. Accordingly, she cannot now challenge whether an ’emergency’ existed to justify removal of the children under (the statute in question) and this court need not address such a challenge.”
I am therefore establishing ON THE RECORD that I strongly challenge that an emergency existed to remove my children, and most certainly do withdraw my “voluntary” surrender of the custody of my children.
We do not doubt that the Smiths, as any parents likely would, resented the safety plan from the beginning. But mere displeasure and frustration fails to negate their consent. Rather than remind Williams-Ash of what she already knew—that they disliked the plan—the Smiths needed to explicitly withdraw the consent they explicitly gave, thus requiring Children’s Services to either return the children or file a formal complaint against them. In light of their admitted failure to do so, the Smiths were not entitled to a hearing.
For this reason, I hereby rescind any and all signatures to “voluntary” service plans or any other “agreement”. Such signature were obtained through duress, threat, and coercion. I had no way of knowing the long-range ramifications of doing so and now explicitly withdraw any consent I explicitly gave. Therefore, I am requiring Children’s Services to either return the children to my physical custody or file a formal complaint against me.
Be aware that this document may cause CPS to offer you severe, sickening threats, and they may attempt to follow through trying to make the WORST happen to you.
It is called Terrorism. But, they were probably about 50% likely to have done so anyway– especially if your children are young, cute, and ADOPTABLE. Yes, we do live in a really sucky society. You have, at the very minimum, gotten THE TRUTH ON THE RECORD, and removed hazards to an appeal to a higher court. YOU are the only one who can decide whether to stand up like you live in ~or~ Lay down like a Taliban woman and let them beat on you until they are happy.
When you are finished, you get it REALLY NOTARIZED, make a bunch of copies, and SERVE THEM ON THE CPS, THE COURT, THE DA, THE POLICE DEPT, and EVERYONE ELSE that thinks they had any business forcing the great big nose of government into your family.
Which means you file it with the court clerk. Make sure they get time stamped and get at least 4 certified photo copies. Because they “lose” these things.
Delete all this text from “1.” down to “I declare under penalty of perjury“ (except New June 5, 2008 info, if it applies and IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE IT) and replace all this with YOUR STORY.
Your DECLARATION when FILED is your GLADIATOR and it will keep fighting for you for YEARS.
We’re just inviting you to take a timeout into the rhythmic ambiance of our breakfast, brunch and/or coffee selections. We are happy whenever you stop by.
Right now, around 41 percent of children are born to single mothers.
Understandably, not many family law mediators are enamored of the word custody. Fewer still are fans of the winner-takes-all, adversarial approach it connotes. Because neither parent wants to be the one who is deprived of that title and relegated to the role of “visitor,” it is a significant source of impasse in mediation. In many cases, it may actually be the only source of impasse. For this reason, many mediators will not address the issue (if they address it at all) until after all discussions of the details of the actual 
13-16-12 – Administrative Order 12th Judicial Circuit – State of Florida
On this 
service.htm
Americans for Equal Rights for Fathers 
