thedrifter
05-14-05, 04:42 AM
On Fathers' Rights: What to Do
May 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a man who writes about fathers' issues, I often receive e-mail asking for advice regarding the e-mailer's case. It's often a man seeking advice about his own divorce, but it's just as often his mother.
What really mucks up the feminist plan of a polarized society with men on one side and women and children on the other is moms with sons. It turns out a lot of moms actually love their sons and are angry at how their sons are treated by family courts.
It's relatively easy for the feminists to take a college woman and teach her to hate her father and her boyfriend and all things masculine. But give that same woman a son and she'll turn back into a real human being with a heart, a mother who loves her boy.
So, too, as a father of daughters, I can rant about the feminists and the otherwise decent women who listen to them, but that does not affect my love for my daughters. I want them to be happy, to be treated fairly, and to have the right to my presence in their lives. They seem to want the same thing.
The advice I usually give those who write amounts to the following:
Do the best you can in your situation, but understand the deck is stacked against you.
Work to change the current system of family law.
And yet that advice is really the essence of the problem: the individual man can rarely win the game of family law because the deck is stacked against him. Current family law, by design, gives the man few cards he can play. Using the power of the state, his wife can take away his children and his income simply because she wants to. If the man fails to deliver up his children and his income, he can be jailed by the state, all without finding him guilty of any crime except failing to give up his property and his children as ordered.
The means the current system of family law must be changed, but that's difficult for the individual to do.
The most problematic issue for fathers is the custody decision. A custody decision is not a decision that grants rights to the winner (usually mom); it's a decision that takes away the rights of the loser (usually dad). The basis of that decision is the judge's determination of who is the better parent–mom or dad. A dad doesn't lose custody of his children because he's a bad parent; he loses custody because the judge believes he's not as good a parent as mom.
The custody decision, biased in favor of the mother, is the decision that allows judges and other government officials to ignore a father's basic Constitutional rights. If the father actually had any rights, the system of sole mother custody could not function. The "best interests of the child" becomes the primary legal tool for denying fathers their legal rights.
The system of sole mother custody would also collapse if child support were not paid. Child support is the oil that fuels the engine of divorce. And the powers that be know this, which is one reason so much effort is expended in collecting child support.
The truth is that children need financial support. The other truth is that if the government can simply seize a man's income he has no way to resist the government's power to seize his children. It's a no-win situation for a divorced dad: pay your child support, and the unfair system continues as is. Don't pay your child support, and your children suffer.
Giving mom sole custody means society has most of its eggs in one basket. If mom doesn't make it, neither does society. That pits the survival needs of the society against the rights of the father. If fathers actually had rights, they would threaten society's survival.
Individual men have tried to resist the system, but the machinery of the system is so vast it's usually a futile effort. It's difficult for a man to take his children and simply disappear. And child support payment is enforced by both the federal and state governments, using sophisticated data bases that allow tracking of virtually everyone, though the target is dads. It's Big Brother–or rather, Big Sister–in action.
In other words, it's very difficult for the individual man to win on his own for he has few cards to play. The system makes sure of that. That means his primary hope is to change the system.
Sure, a man can sometimes win, just as the gambler can sometimes win the jackpot in Las Vegas, but the odds are still in the casino's favor.
So what can men do? They have a few options.
One is to simply not play the game. If men don't want the problems associated with divorce, they should not get married. Modern family law gives men little reason to get married and gives women little reason to stay married.
Not playing the game also means avoiding sexual relations with women, since even unmarried fathers are now part of the system. In short, not playing the game means a life with a good job, a good dog, and a lifelong subscription to Playboy.
There are others: leaving the country or turning gay. Some countries still believe men are human beings, not just serfs to finance the divorce state. Gay men don't have to worry about their partners getting pregnant. Of course, a lot of gay men think having the right to marry will give them the same rights as straight men; that may be true, but it also gives the government the same power over them as it has over straight men.
Finally, men can work to change the system.
The most likely venue for change is the state legislature. Courts have become a power unto themselves, defining and redefining family law in ways that define fathers out of existence. The state legislatures gave the courts this power and the legislatures can take it away.
That means fathers, the mighty patriarchs, must go, hat in hand, to their local legislator and ask, "Please, sir, can I have some more rights?"
And what rights should fathers ask for? The right to presumptive shared custody, the right to have their divorce heard by a jury, the right to define the marriage contract in advance, the right to reasonable support payments, and the elimination of felony penalties, including jail, for failure to pay child support.
Of course, most legislators won't listen, as I know from experience. The state benefits too much from divorce and child support to change the system. As it is, the legislators can simply blame the courts; if the legislators change the system, they can get blamed.
Currently, the US government claims, rightly or wrongly, that some $94 billion in child support is owed. About 30% of that, or around $30 billion, is actually owed to the states as reimbursement for welfare costs. In addition, the states receive federal reimbursements for their collection efforts and incentive payments for increasing the amount of support they collect. Child support supports the states as much as it does children.
There are also state governors. But while some governors are willing to sign pro-father legislation, most know they will not get elected if they push too hard for fathers' rights. Most politicians know, as Bill Clinton knew, that they can't afford to rile up the feminists.
Still, some politicians do. Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from central Texas, has voted against federal child support legislation because he believes the federal government lacks the power to govern domestic issues.
But if the judges and the legislators and the governors won't listen, that leaves the final solution.
I'm not yet ready to take that solution, but I know from my e-mail that some men are.
Modern family law has destroyed more than marriage. It has also destroyed the fundamental rights of fathers and men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
At one time a few men began a revolution because their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was denied by a distant king.
If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
In the meantime, support your local fathers' rights activists, from Fathers 4 Justice to the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Even better, become one yourself.
Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.
Ellie
May 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a man who writes about fathers' issues, I often receive e-mail asking for advice regarding the e-mailer's case. It's often a man seeking advice about his own divorce, but it's just as often his mother.
What really mucks up the feminist plan of a polarized society with men on one side and women and children on the other is moms with sons. It turns out a lot of moms actually love their sons and are angry at how their sons are treated by family courts.
It's relatively easy for the feminists to take a college woman and teach her to hate her father and her boyfriend and all things masculine. But give that same woman a son and she'll turn back into a real human being with a heart, a mother who loves her boy.
So, too, as a father of daughters, I can rant about the feminists and the otherwise decent women who listen to them, but that does not affect my love for my daughters. I want them to be happy, to be treated fairly, and to have the right to my presence in their lives. They seem to want the same thing.
The advice I usually give those who write amounts to the following:
Do the best you can in your situation, but understand the deck is stacked against you.
Work to change the current system of family law.
And yet that advice is really the essence of the problem: the individual man can rarely win the game of family law because the deck is stacked against him. Current family law, by design, gives the man few cards he can play. Using the power of the state, his wife can take away his children and his income simply because she wants to. If the man fails to deliver up his children and his income, he can be jailed by the state, all without finding him guilty of any crime except failing to give up his property and his children as ordered.
The means the current system of family law must be changed, but that's difficult for the individual to do.
The most problematic issue for fathers is the custody decision. A custody decision is not a decision that grants rights to the winner (usually mom); it's a decision that takes away the rights of the loser (usually dad). The basis of that decision is the judge's determination of who is the better parent–mom or dad. A dad doesn't lose custody of his children because he's a bad parent; he loses custody because the judge believes he's not as good a parent as mom.
The custody decision, biased in favor of the mother, is the decision that allows judges and other government officials to ignore a father's basic Constitutional rights. If the father actually had any rights, the system of sole mother custody could not function. The "best interests of the child" becomes the primary legal tool for denying fathers their legal rights.
The system of sole mother custody would also collapse if child support were not paid. Child support is the oil that fuels the engine of divorce. And the powers that be know this, which is one reason so much effort is expended in collecting child support.
The truth is that children need financial support. The other truth is that if the government can simply seize a man's income he has no way to resist the government's power to seize his children. It's a no-win situation for a divorced dad: pay your child support, and the unfair system continues as is. Don't pay your child support, and your children suffer.
Giving mom sole custody means society has most of its eggs in one basket. If mom doesn't make it, neither does society. That pits the survival needs of the society against the rights of the father. If fathers actually had rights, they would threaten society's survival.
Individual men have tried to resist the system, but the machinery of the system is so vast it's usually a futile effort. It's difficult for a man to take his children and simply disappear. And child support payment is enforced by both the federal and state governments, using sophisticated data bases that allow tracking of virtually everyone, though the target is dads. It's Big Brother–or rather, Big Sister–in action.
In other words, it's very difficult for the individual man to win on his own for he has few cards to play. The system makes sure of that. That means his primary hope is to change the system.
Sure, a man can sometimes win, just as the gambler can sometimes win the jackpot in Las Vegas, but the odds are still in the casino's favor.
So what can men do? They have a few options.
One is to simply not play the game. If men don't want the problems associated with divorce, they should not get married. Modern family law gives men little reason to get married and gives women little reason to stay married.
Not playing the game also means avoiding sexual relations with women, since even unmarried fathers are now part of the system. In short, not playing the game means a life with a good job, a good dog, and a lifelong subscription to Playboy.
There are others: leaving the country or turning gay. Some countries still believe men are human beings, not just serfs to finance the divorce state. Gay men don't have to worry about their partners getting pregnant. Of course, a lot of gay men think having the right to marry will give them the same rights as straight men; that may be true, but it also gives the government the same power over them as it has over straight men.
Finally, men can work to change the system.
The most likely venue for change is the state legislature. Courts have become a power unto themselves, defining and redefining family law in ways that define fathers out of existence. The state legislatures gave the courts this power and the legislatures can take it away.
That means fathers, the mighty patriarchs, must go, hat in hand, to their local legislator and ask, "Please, sir, can I have some more rights?"
And what rights should fathers ask for? The right to presumptive shared custody, the right to have their divorce heard by a jury, the right to define the marriage contract in advance, the right to reasonable support payments, and the elimination of felony penalties, including jail, for failure to pay child support.
Of course, most legislators won't listen, as I know from experience. The state benefits too much from divorce and child support to change the system. As it is, the legislators can simply blame the courts; if the legislators change the system, they can get blamed.
Currently, the US government claims, rightly or wrongly, that some $94 billion in child support is owed. About 30% of that, or around $30 billion, is actually owed to the states as reimbursement for welfare costs. In addition, the states receive federal reimbursements for their collection efforts and incentive payments for increasing the amount of support they collect. Child support supports the states as much as it does children.
There are also state governors. But while some governors are willing to sign pro-father legislation, most know they will not get elected if they push too hard for fathers' rights. Most politicians know, as Bill Clinton knew, that they can't afford to rile up the feminists.
Still, some politicians do. Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from central Texas, has voted against federal child support legislation because he believes the federal government lacks the power to govern domestic issues.
But if the judges and the legislators and the governors won't listen, that leaves the final solution.
I'm not yet ready to take that solution, but I know from my e-mail that some men are.
Modern family law has destroyed more than marriage. It has also destroyed the fundamental rights of fathers and men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
At one time a few men began a revolution because their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was denied by a distant king.
If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
In the meantime, support your local fathers' rights activists, from Fathers 4 Justice to the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Even better, become one yourself.
Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.
Ellie