September 25, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors
As all now know, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer with us. She had long been seriously ill and finally succumbed to the cancer that had dogged the end of her life. In this election year, it goes without saying that her death and the resulting vacancy on the nation’s highest court have caused paroxysms of opinion mongering across the political spectrum.
I offer no deep thoughts on her as a person or as a jurist. Certainly, she was a hard worker and, if those with whom she worked are any guide, a person with a strong sense of fairness. She was a feminist who, at least in some instances understood that men sometimes hold the short end of the equality stick. So, for example, as a practicing attorney, she successfully represented a man against the Social Security Administration. At the time, if a husband died, his wife was entitled to “widow’s benefits,” but if a wife died, her surviving husband was entitled to zip. Ginsburg, through her representation of a man whose wife had died and was denied benefits, changed what were plainly gender-biased regulations.
So what did she think about fathers? There the coast is not so clear. Here’s what she said in 1993 during a panel discussion for the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia.
September 21, 2020 by Don Hubin, Ph.D., Chair, National Board of Directors
Again, we learn of a loving father driven to despair and, ultimately, to taking his own life by a cruel family law system that fails to protect the bond between a child and both parents when the parents separate.
When Robyn Secrest contacted National Parents Organization late last week, it was to relate a tragedy that her family had experienced—a tragedy that is, sadly, not unique to her family. Her brother, Steven Barton, had taken his own life. As Robyn put it, the family had lost Steven to “the despair and destruction of a loving father—involved, active, and engaged in his children's lives—who was alienated from them due to custody and court rulings that didn’t support shared parenting and the importance of a father’s relationship with his children in a divorce situation.”
September 18, 2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors
In Ontario, it’s officially open season on anyone earning a good income (National Post, 9/10/20). Beware all those who do. If you have a girl/boyfriend and endeavor to treat them well, you may find yourself married. No, you didn’t walk down the aisle and no, you never lived together for any significant period of time. No rings were exchanged nor vows taken, nor marriage license issued. That’s all so passé, so totally yesterday. In Ontario, it’s a whole new, brave new world, whose whole point is money, or, to be precise, alimony.
Michael Latner is apparently very well-off financially, so, when he met and fell in love with Lisa Climans back in 2000, he was lavish in his support of her. She quit her job and he supported her and her three children in a style to which they’d theretofore never been accustomed. They ate well, lived well, traveled extensively and all on his nickel. What they didn’t do was marry, live together or have a joint bank account.
September 14,2020 by Robert Franklin, JD, Member, National Board of Directors
No effort to convince readers that, against all the evidence, family courts are biased against mothers would be complete without eliding the differences between Parental Alienation Syndrome and parental alienation. And Natalie Pattillo’s piece in the New York Review of Books doesn’t disappoint.
The reason for doing so is to tar the concept of PA with the name Richard Gardner. He’s long dead and therefore presents no risk of a libel or defamation suit and so is fair game. Pattillo introduces the term “parental alienation” and, just one sentence later pretends that it’s the same as PAS.
And no such article would be complete without misrepresenting what PA and PAS actually are. Again, following the script closely, Pattillo does the same.