our-blog-icon-top
NPO publishes blog articles to inform and to stimulate conversation about issues of importance to NPO's mission.  All blog articles express the opinions of the authors as individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views of National Parents Organization, its Board of Directors, or its executives.  

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="250" caption="From CBS' new show 'How To Be A Gentleman'"][/caption] "Tonight, CBS premieres How To Be A Gentleman, a brainless buddy comedy presenting a dichotomy in which men can be either delicate, ineffectual, sexless weaklings or ill-mannered but physically powerful meatheads."--NPR's Linda Holmes Braver men than I have quailed at the thought of an essay on masculinity brought to us by National Public Radio.  But here one is, and it's nothing short of excellent (NPR, 10/1/11). The writer is Linda Holmes and her subject is less masculinity per se than its depiction in popular culture, specifically television.  To say that Holmes is unhappy with the portrayal of men in the current season of sitcoms is to understate the matter considerably.  She writes with a combination of anger, dismay and perplexity. Now, I must say that popular culture has little interest for me, so I'm far from an expert on TV sitcoms, but over many years I've developed a strong sense of certain messages about men and masculinity that pop culture has trafficked in.  I, like Holmes, am not happy with those. Still, I've always thought that feminism went (goes) way overboard in its sensitivity to cultural messages.  There was a time that feminism asked us to believe that we were all virtual slaves to however our sex was displayed on TV, the movies, magazines, etc.  Pop culture surely has some impact on how we see and understand ourselves.  Just as surely, every man comes to terms with being a member of his sex; every woman does too.  Essentially none of us resembles Rambo or Angelina Jolie and at some point early in life it ceases to matter. So what Holmes writes about has some importance, but I can't say just how much. That said, it's entirely worth noting that depictions of masculinity on television bear no resemblance to actual men.  Of course what Holmes is dealing with are men in sitcoms, so they're not necessarily meant to.  But face it, there's a message inside the incessant drumbeat of denigration of men.
Tonight, CBS premieres How To Be A Gentleman, a brainless buddy comedy presenting a dichotomy in which men can be either delicate, ineffectual, sexless weaklings or ill-mannered but physically powerful meatheads. Says this show -- over and over, in both its marketing and in its actual dialogue -- there are gentlemen, and there are real men, and each might need to be a little more like the other.
Yes, yes, it's a sitcom, and caricatures are common, and on its own, this wouldn't make much of an impression. But this is not just any season. It's a season that also brings Tim Allen whining about what ever happened to "real men" in Last Man Standing, three guys lost in a universe of "pomegranate body wash" in Man Up, and -- sometime in midseason, unless the universe blissfully swallows us all before then -- two men in drag in Work It trying to overcome the entirely female-driven economy in which they literally cannot support themselves without dressing as women.
Yes, the question burning on the lips of TV producers from L.A. to Burbank is "whatever happened to 'real men'?"  Interestingly, Holmes has the answer.
Where, on television, are the men who both like football and remember birthdays? Where are the men who can have a highly insightful drink-and-talk with friends? Where are the men who are great dads, great husbands, great boyfriends? Where are the men who are dedicated to important jobs? Where are the men who aren't seeking reassurance about what it means to be men? Where are, in short, all the men I rely on in my day-to-day life?
Bingo.  Holmes is smart enough to realize that 'real men' are all around her in her everyday life, just not on television.  That means that, far more than the producers of those shows, Holmes has the ability to look around her and see what's there.  It's an ability that's surprisingly absent in many people.  The willingness to mentally cram reality into scripted myth is as common as dirt and not surprisingly distorts reality for those who do it. And it's not like the producers of these shows are without their political/social agendas.  Holmes gets it right when she uses the word "hectoring" to describe the programs' sense of driving home a message they're sure we all need to learn.
But there is something about this narrative hectoring about men not understanding manhood that seems particularly brutal in that it specifically attacks them for emotional ineptitude while simultaneously attacking them for having emotions. Men who are emotionally reactive (like Hornsby's character here) are weak; men who are emotionally inert (like the Man Up guys) are clueless. In both cases, women don't want to have sex with them, even if they're married to them.
In short, a man can be either of two things - Rambo or Mr. Rogers - but whatever his personal bent, he's wrong and women are right to dislike him.  It's a limited and not very inviting world. And it is that very 'hectoring' quality that makes me care at all.  As I said, most people navigate the shoals of masculinity and femininity very well.  They do that in part by ignoring  stereotypes peddled by TV shows.  But I get the sense that the purveyors of popular culture won't stop until we've absorbed their message, until they've actually had their perverse effect on people's views of themselves and their sex. I think the whole matter becomes important, to the extent it does, because the message of universal masculine deficiency doesn't stand alone on television between the hours of 7 and 10 PM.  It taps into a larger social message that's anything but recent in provenance. Over 40 years ago, radical feminists saw that characterizing men in particular ways could pay big dividends.  Specifically, if men could be seen to be stupid, brutish louts, it would be far easier to marginalize them in society generally, imprison them, divorce them, take their children, etc.  After all, a man without feelings and with Rambo's penchant for violence is good as part of the armed services (i.e. OK to be killed or maimed in battle), but stateside, we're all better off if he's in prison.  Failing that, he should be the subject of a TRO and kept strictly away from women and children. Whatever may be said of a few silly sitcoms, most of which won't last the season, the feminist view of men has gotten plenty of traction over the years.  So it's no accident that what's now almost universally referred to as a "real man" is in fact only that feminist caricature of us. Over the millennia, far more sensible societies than ours have realized that men and women come in an astonishing variety of packages, all of them 'real.'  They've been able to look at Catherine the Great of Russia and Mary mother of Jesus and notice that both were women, however radically different.  In the same way, the Buddha was a man as surely as Julius Caesar, Einstein and Oscar Wilde, to which I say "VIVE LA DIFFÉRENCE!" We took a wrong turn 40 years ago in agreeing to the feminist view of men and masculinity.  We haven't recovered yet, and TV sitcoms aren't helping.  To her credit, Linda Holmes is.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="250" caption="Black Union Army soldiers helped turn the tide in the Civil War."][/caption] "Dont be uneasy my children   I expect to have you. If Diggs [the children's master] dont give you up this Government will and I feel confident that I will get you 'Your Miss Kaitty [Diggs, the children's master] said that I tried to steal you   But I'll let her know that god never intended for man to steal his own flesh and blood...And I want her to remember if she meets me with ten thousand soldiers she [will] meet her enemy "I once [thought] that I had some respect for them but now my respects is worn out and have no sympathy for Slaveholders. And as for her cristianantty I expect the Devil has Such in hell   You tell her from me that She is the frist Christian that I ever hard say that aman could Steal his own child especially out of human bondage."--Former slave/Union Army soldier  Spottswood Rice. The following was sent to us by longtime Fathers and Families supporter Thomas O'Shea from Kansas.  It's as deeply moving as anything I've read in a long time.  The two letters are quoted from The Black Military Experience, Free at Last, Families and Freedom and Freedom's Soldiers. The letters were written in 1864 by a former slave named Spottswood Rice.  Rice had managed to escape bondage and make his way to Missouri where he joined a union regiment of former slaves.  Rice was taken ill with rheumatism and confined to the barracks hospital.  Apparently part of the first letter is not in his handwriting, leading me to believe that his illness forced him to dictate it to another person.
My Children   I take my pen in hand to rite you A few lines to let you know that I have not forgot you and that I want to see you as bad as ever   now my Dear Children I want you to be contented with whatever may be your lots   be assured that I will have you if it cost me my life   on the 28th of the mounth. 8 hundred White and 8 hundred blacke solders expects to start up the rivore to Glasgow and above there thats to be jeneraled by a jeneral that will give me both of you   when they Come I expect to be with, them and expect to get you both in return. Dont be uneasy my children   I expect to have you. If Diggs dont give you up this Government will and I feel confident that I will get you   Your Miss Kaitty said that I tried to steal you   But I'll let her know that god never intended for man to steal his own flesh and blood. If I had no cofidence in God I could have confidence in her   But as it is If I ever had any Confidence in her I have none now and never expect to have   And I want her to remember if she meets me with ten thousand soldiers she [will?] meet her enemy   I once [thought] that I had some respect for them but now my respects is worn out and have no sympathy for Slaveholders. And as for her cristianantty I expect the Devil has Such in hell   You tell her from me that She is the frist Christian that I ever hard say that aman could Steal his own child especially out of human bondage You can tell her that She can hold to you as long as she can   I never would expect to ask her again to let you come to me because I know that the devil has got her hot set againsts that that is write   now my Dear children I am a going to close my letter to you   Give my love to all enquiring friends   tell them all that we are well and want to see them very much and Corra and Mary receive the greater part of it you sefves and dont think hard of us not sending you any thing   I you father have a plenty for you when I see you   Spott & Noah sends their love to both of you   Oh! My Dear children how I do want to see you
This second letter is to the owner of one of his children.
I received a leteter from Cariline telling me that you say I tried to steal to plunder my child away from you   now I want you to understand that mary is my Child and she is a God given rite of my own and you may hold on to hear as long as you can but I want you to remembor this one thing that the longor you keep my Child from me the longor you will have to burn in hell and the qwicer youll get their   for we are now makeing up a bout one thoughsand blacke troops to Come up tharough and wont to come through Glasgow and when we come wo be to Copperhood rabbels and to the Slaveholding rebbels for we dont expect to leave them there root neor branch   but we thinke how ever that we that have Children in the hands of you devels we will trie your [vertues?] the day that we enter Glasgow   I want you to understand kittey diggs that where ever you and I meets we are enmays to each orthere   I offered once to pay you forty dollers for my own Child but I am glad now that you did not accept it   Just hold on now as long as you can and the worse it will be for you   you never in you life befor I came down hear did you give Children any thing not eny thing whatever not even a dollers worth of expencs   now you call my children your pro[per]ty   not so with me   my Children is my own and I expect to get them and when I get ready to come after mary I will have bout a powrer and autherity to bring hear away and to exacute vengencens on them that holds my Child   you will then know how to talke to me   I will assure that and you will know how to talk rite too   I want you now to just hold on to hear if you want to   iff your conchosence tells thats the road go that road and what it will brig you to kittey diggs   I have no fears about geting mary out of your hands   this whole Government gives chear to me and you cannot help your self Spotswood Rice Spotswood Rice to Kittey diggs, [3 Sept. 1864], enclosed in F. W. Diggs to Genl. Rosecrans, 10 Sept. 1864, D-296 1864, Letters Received, ser. 2593, Department of the MO, U.S. Army Continental Commands, Record Group 393 Pt. 1, National Archives.
Here's a father, a slave, who escapes and manages to join the Union army to fight the Confederacy and what is most on his mind is the freedom of his children and reunification with them.  As Thomas says, "remind you of any fathers today?" While nothing fathers experience in family court today resembles the brutality of slavery in the old South, the concept that children are their mothers' first and that any claim on them by fathers is a kind of theft of what rightfully belongs to mothers, has a certain resonance.   More than that, though is the sense of deep connection to his children that Spottswood Rice vowed to maintain against the evil institution of slavery, the military might of nations and his own illness.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Houston attorney Julie Ketterman did a revolutionary thing; she asked a court to apply Child Protective Services' own rules to Child Protective Services.  And the judge did just that.  Read about it here (KHOU, 9/29/11).  The judge issued a temporary restraining order against the local CPS agency, apparently finding that it had engaged in abuse of a child in its care.  It's a ruling that you can bet will be looked at carefully by attorneys all across the country who will follow Ketterman's lead. Back in 2009, Jaime Brown had her daughter taken from her by CPS that claimed she'd neglected the girl, who was then 14.  Brown said it was all the result of a big  misunderstanding, but she tried for a year and a half to get her child back in her care.  She never succeeded.  Meanwhile, the girl, Christianne, had been dumped in a group home where she really was being abused by the other kids there.
"She was beat up quite a bit. There was the running away. She has braces and the wires were literally falling off of her teeth," Ketterman said.
That of course is not at all unusual.   Foster care generally has a far worse record of abuse and neglect than families of any other kind, and group homes have a worse record still.  Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, said
"Tens of thousands of times every year, all across America, children are needlessly taken from everyone they know and love.  The emotional trauma is, in itself, devastating.  But several studies have found abuse in one-quarter to one-third of foster homes and the record of group homes and institutions is even worse."
That proved tragically true in a case I reported on last year of a teenage boy who was killed by staff in a group home administered by the same county CPS that oversaw Christianne's.  That home was finally closed by the State of Texas; the boy was the third death at the home in five years. Eventually, Christianne voted with her feet and ran away from the home to parts unknown.  The case worker who had taken her originally displayed a remarkable attitude about that.
'The case worker called (her) mom and said she ran away, but you find her, you can keep her," said Julie Ketterman, the Brown"s attorney.
Let's see.  The caseworker takes the child, keeps her away from her family for almost two years and, when the child runs away, says "you find her, you can keep her."  What happened to the original reason for her being removed from her mother in the first place?  If those conditions were no longer present, why hadn't the two been reunited?  It looks like a blatant admission that the child's presence in foster care was unnecessary.  My guess is that CPS had known that from the start. Whatever the case, Brown eventually turned to Ketterman who had one of those "moments of crystal clarity."  It's not legal to abuse or neglect a child, right?  Anyone who does that can have a TRO issued against them.  So why not CPS?  After all, abuse was exactly what Christianne was experiencing in the group home, the home was overseen by CPS who knew about the abuse, so it seemed reasonable that a court would order CPS to stop allowing the abuse. And that's exactly what happened.  A court in Brazoria County, just south of Houston ordered CPS to stay away from Jaime Brown's daughter due to its history of abuse while in foster care that was supposedly supervised by Children's Protective Services. There are some things I'd like to know about this case.  For example, CPS is charged by law with protecting children and that can't be undone by a judge's order.  The obvious question arises, "what if the child is truly abused while in her parent's care?"  Are CPS caseworkers supposed to sit idly by while that happens because a judge has told them they can't do their job? Of course the order is a temporary one.  What happens after it expires?  Is it business as usual or is there some sort of continuing limitation on what CSP can and can't do?  Ketterman plans to go to court to extend the order for two years. In any event, it's a very interesting development in parent's fight to rein in the overreaching of CPS.  Expect to see more attorneys trying what Julie Ketterman did successfully - apply laws for children's protection to Children's Protective Services.
"It could snowball," said Ketterman.
I can't wait for winter.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
In Ohio, 70% of child support cases are in default.  That means that in each of those cases, the parent who's obligated to pay is behind.  In some counties in the state, the default rate is 80%.  Read about it here (Dayton Daily News, 9/29/11).

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="250" caption="Former Secretary of Education William Bennett"][/caption] Former Secretary of Education William Bennett has taken time out from his busy day to notice men, and he doesn't like what he sees.  Here's his article (CNN, 10/4/11). It's not a good piece for a former Secretary of Education.  That's because it's short on facts and logic, and does its best to contradict itself.  In short, if Bennett had turned this in as a composition exercise in, say, 10th grade, I'd give him a D. The only reason his grade isn't lower is that he does get some facts right.  He notices that men's status in society has declined significantly since the 50s, 60s and 70s.
The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women's earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.
In 1950, 5% of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20% were not working, the highest ever recorded.
He's on track except for that last bit.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics' data show that, as of the end of August, 8.9% of men 16 and over were unemployed compared with 8.0% of women.   Add the unemployed to those not in the labor force, and you get 36.3% of men 16 and over versus 46.4% of women.  That's true even though there are 7 million more women than men in that age group.  A whopping 50.8 million women 16 and over aren't even in the work force, i.e. they're not looking for work. So Bennett's paean to women fails to notice the actual figures.  He's the latest in a long line of opiners to claim that women will soon pass men in various employment categories.  But despite the fact that the current brutal recession has hit men's employment far harder than women's, there are still over 6 million more men working than women. So Bennett's wrap-up of men's employment picture is just flat wrong.
The changes in modern labor -- from backs to brains -- have catapulted women to the top of the work force, leaving men in their dust.
What the reference to "backs" is, I have no idea.  If Bennett seriously believes that women have any advantage over men in occupations that are physically demanding - like construction, mining, etc. - I'd encourage him to consult some actual data.  Again, the BLS would be a good place to start. As to "brains," there's no doubt that women are outstripping men in education, but so far that hasn't translated into greater employment, particularly full-time employment.  Database after database, study after study find even the most highly educated women working fewer hours than their male counterparts and taking years off to care for children. None of that fits with Bennett's narrative of deficient men, though, so he tactfully neglects to mention it. But the bees in Bennett's bonnet have barely begun to buzz.
The warning signs for men stretch far beyond their wallets. Men are more distant from a family or their children then they have ever been. The out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than 40% in America. In 1960, only 11% of children in the U.S. lived apart from their fathers. In 2010, that share had risen to 27%...
Man's response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families.
Where to begin?  Should I point out to Bennett that if men aren't getting married then women aren't either?  Since almost all our states prohibit same-sex marriage, that means that when a man marries, he marries a woman; when he doesn't, neither does she.  But in Bennett's way of thinking, it's only the men who are to blame. The simple fact is that Bennett confuses delayed marriage and childbearing on the part of both sexes with an adolescent aversion for the institution on the part of men only.  Again, if he'd only check the readily-available facts, he'd know that, since 1970, the average age at which men and women marry has increased by almost exactly six years apiece. Far more importantly, he manages to blame out-of-wedlock childbearing on men, as if women played no part in the decision to have or not have a child. As to absent fathers, Bennett's stance is all of a piece with that of President Obama and countless others.  The fact that men are absent from their children's lives has, according to those opiners, nothing to do with the family court system that rewards with primary or sole custody women who divorce, while doing everything in their power to cut fathers out of their children's lives. But his piece hits bottom when he tries to figure out why, in his opinion, men have all of a sudden become such good-for-nothings.  First, he lays the problem at the feet of fathers who abandon their children.  Interestingly, he doesn't seem to notice that an equal number of girls and boys have absent fathers, but as he understands it, the problem only affects boys making them, in time, bad fathers. What Bennett never acknowledges is that fatherlessness is far more a function of our cultural view of mothers and children as a "package deal" in the parlance of sociology, maternal gatekeeping, anti-father family courts and popular culture that paints the most dismal picture imaginable of men and fathers, than it is of feckless men fleeing their responsibilities as fathers.  The irony of his attack on what he considers to be irresponsibility on the part of fathers is that it's Bennett who's irresponsible.  He finds it easier to blame fathers for things beyond their control than to deal with the realities of fatherlessness. Strangest of all is Bennett's final prescription for men.
We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, "Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married." It's time for men to man up.
There are a lot of problems with that of course, but one of the main ones is that Bennett's already established that young men, lacking male role models, have no idea of what it means to "man up."
The machismo of the street gang calls out with a swagger. Video games, television and music offer dubious lessons to boys who have been abandoned by their fathers. Some coaches and drill sergeants bark, "What kind of man are you?" but don't explain.
Neither does Bennett.  And now that I think about it, that's probably a good thing.  After all, who wants a man who believes that men are irresponsible louts explaining masculinity to boys?  Not me. To be a man means many things, but honesty and taking responsibility for ones actions are certainly among them.  By contrast, Bennett takes refuge in a misandric caricature of American males, and pretends he's addressed the very real problem of men and masculinity. Hey, it's easier than working for a living. Thanks to Betsy for the heads-up.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 5, 2011 CONTACT: Ned Holstein, MD, MS 617-542-9300 ext 1 [email protected] In President Obama"s new proclamation "National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, 2011' he misstates several key facts on men, women, and domestic violence. Harvard-trained public health specialist Ned Holstein, MD, MS explains:
"Obama tells us that ‘One in four women and one in thirteen men will experience domestic violence in their lifetime." In reality, over 200 studies have found that women initiate at least as much violence against their male partners as vice versa. Obama"s 3.25 ratio is actually 1-1. And men comprise about a third of domestic violence injuries and deaths.' The most recent large scale study of DV, published in the American Journal of Public Health, surveyed 11,000 men and women and found that, according to both men"s and women"s accounts, 50% of the violence in their relationships was reciprocal (involving both parties). In those cases, the women were more likely to have been the first to strike. Moreover, when the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time.
Dr. Holstein, Board Chairman of the national family court reform organization Fathers and Families, says, "Obama"s distortion is no mere quibble over statistics--the myth that ‘only men do it" has crept into family courts, leading judges to put children into the custody of dangerous mothers whose violence is ignored because of the pervasive myth that women do not injure or kill.' Holstein cites the Mary Winkler case, wherein a mother who shot her husband in the back while he slept was able to get off with a few months in prison by making unsubstantiated abuse claims. Today this dangerous woman has custody of her children. Fathers" efforts to get shared child custody are often thwarted by spurious DV claims--recent research shows that a 1997 Oregon joint custody law has had little effect because of increased DV claims. Some of the programs Obama touts are examples of how bad data lead to bad policy, including his administration"s promotion of "tools for better enforcement of protective orders.' Holstein explains:
"DV victims need protection, but, as many prominent family law attorneys and legal scholars have pointed out, domestic violence protection orders are often handed out to women almost automatically, with little examination of the evidence. Under this system, many innocent men are being booted out of their homes and cut off from their children by protective orders based on invented claims. The system is a product of bad stats, anti-male stereotypes, and gender bias run amok. The victims are children, who end up in the care of violent mothers and/or are deprived of the guidance and nurture of loving fathers.'
Fathers and FamiliesTM improves the lives of children and strengthens society by protecting the child"s right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce. www.fathersandfamilies.org

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Danish custody law promotes children's contact with both parents post-divorce.  And this article doesn't like it a bit (The Copenhagen Post, 9/30/11).
In 2007, Denmark passed the Danish Act on Parental Responsibility, which introduced new guidelines for determining custody rights. According to Vivian Jørgensen, a lawyer who has handled numerous custody cases, the biggest change was the emphasis placed on equal custody: judges can force the parents to work together even if, well, they can"t work together.
"In 2007 we got this new idea,' Jørgensen told The Copenhagen Post. "Now what"s more important is not the environment or how you treat the child. The idea now is that it"s always good for the child to have contact with both parents, and it"s always good to force the parents to co-operate.'
Jørgensen added that the law does not favour men or women. Instead, it simply says that parents "must agree on significant decisions regarding the child'.
This philosophy, according to Annette Kronborg, an associate professor of family law at the University of Copenhagen, is designed to promote, and indeed force, co-operation. She said that if there is conclusive evidence of wrongdoing towards children then it is indeed a factor in custody decisions. That said, the "starting point is co-operation'.
"The idea is to make the parents co-operate,' Kronborg said. "And the best solution is to stay out of the family and let the parents make their own solution. So according to the family law idea, the best interest of the child is what the parents agree on.'
It's tough to fight through the thicket of anti-shared-parenting rhetoric that makes up almost the whole of the article, but if you can, you'll find that Denmark might be on to something good.  What Jorgenson said above is patently untrue.  The law doesn't say that it's "always good for the child to have contact with both parents." As Kronborg said, the law aims at courts' staying out of parental decisions the better to foster cooperation between parents.  Proven wrongdoing on the part of one parent though, is a deal breaker. As such, the Danish law looks like it has much to offer us in the United States and indeed other countries.  First, the strong preference for shared custody, significant contact for the child with both parents and shared responsibility are clearly important and, in almost all cases, in the child's best interests. Second, courts take a hands-off role in the decisions of parents.  That contrasts starkly with American courts that routinely involve themselves in the minutiae of everyday life, from what time the child is to be picked up to what food is to be eaten to whether the child may catch the bus near Dad's house.  My guess is that parents can deal with those issues themselves without the assistance of a judge.  I'd also guess that if parents knew they couldn't go crying to the judge every time the other parent did something they didn't like, they'd get along better.  Too often parents who act like children in custody matters run to court, not because they can't work it out with the other parent, but to seek validation of their own point of view.  They seek a "win" on their behalf and a "loss" on that of the other parent.  Take that away, as Danish courts seem to be doing, and those parents might start acting like adults. Third is the law's emphasis on cooperation.  Apparently it goes so far as to insist that parents work things out between them.  The article calls this "enforcing" cooperation between parents, which of course no court can do.  The law is only four years old, so it's impossible to know what real-world effects it's having, but studying the matter over time would be worthwhile.  Does a court's in effect telling parents time and again "stop bothering me and work this out on your own" result in their actually doing that?  I'd like to get a real answer to that question.   Fourth, it appears that the law requires actual proof of domestic violence or child abuse before allowing a judge to limit a parent's contact with his/her child.  That's the most radical difference from court practice in this country.  Here, mere allegations of domestic violence or child abuse, particularly when made by mothers, serve to keep fathers and children separate.  Perhaps worse, pretty much anything a mother experiences as uncomfortable can qualify as "abuse" sufficient to get a no-contact order issued against her ex.  State after state places greater value on a mother's unsupported claim of feeling "in fear" than on a child's rights to his/her father. Unsurprisingly, it's that very requirement of actual proof - what Kronborg calls "conclusive evidence of wrongdoing" - that's got some people's knickers in a knot.  Equally unsurprising, those are the only people the article quotes on the subject. The article deals with the cases of two American women who married Danish men.  Their marriages hit the rocks and the women are enraged that their claims of child abuse against the men weren't sufficient to deny them contact with their children.  Of course neither the courts nor The Copenhagen Post could find any corroboration of the women's claims, but that doesn't stop the women from assuming that a great injustice has been done.  One thing we've come to expect from articles like these is that the men will not be heard from.  When Mom says he's a child abuser, that's all we're entitled to hear.  The old journalistic rule "get the other side of the story" seems not to apply when claims of abuse are leveled at fathers.  And so it is with the Copenhagen Poststory; the women are quoted at length to the effect that their ex-husbands are child abusers, but the men remain voiceless.  No boilerplate statement "calls to the ex-husband went unreturned" appears in the article, strongly suggesting that no calls were ever placed. Now, one of the women apparently produced medical records showing bruises to one or more of the children.  But the article says there's no corroboration of her claims of abuse, so that means there was nothing connecting the bruises to her ex.  Still, her attorney pronounces herself certain that the man is a danger to the children.  Again, the writer talked to the woman and her attorney but made no effort to get the man's side of things.  As the years go by, I'd like to know more about the effects of this law on Danish child custody and whether parents, secure in the knowledge that the courts won't help them, sort out their problems on their own.  More importantly, I'd like to know about the welfare of children.  Are more of them the victims of domestic violence than before the law's enactment?  Surely Denmark keeps records of child abuse and neglect, so you'd think we'll be able to tell. Indeed, you'd think we'd already have some information on that.  After all, how hard could it be to compare child abuse data from before the law's effective date and afterward?  That wouldn't be conclusive, but it would  give an idea of whether there was a problem or not.  Do I have to add that the article's writer didn't do that? So I'd like to know that information.  The anti-dad crowd will tell you that fathers getting custody means danger for children, so data from Denmark will either bear them out or contradict them.  I can't wait to find out. In the mean time, it doesn't look like there's the type of anti-father backlash against the Danish law that Australia is experiencing against the 2006 amendments to its Family Law Act.  That means we can expect the law to be around for at least a little bit longer, so with any luck we'll be able to assess its actual impact on the welfare of children and their continuing contact with their fathers post-divorce. Thanks to Jim for the heads-up.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
A tragic accident has taken the life of Danny Dimm.  He's the father whose son Timber was abducted twice by his mother, Wendi Lee Bartell-Dimm.  When she and Danny split up, Bartell-Dimm was given primary custody, but Dimm became uneasy with her lack of care for the boy.  Timber has been diagnosed with mild autism and, among other things, she was neglecting his dental health to the extent that, at age five, he had serious tooth and gum disease. So Dimm tried to increase his parenting time, only to have Bartell-Dimm abduct the boy to Minnesota.  She was apprehended within days, but the Canadian judge did nothing to punish her flagrantly illegal behavior.  Still, Dimm eventually managed to get greater parenting time with Timber and, just before he was to have the boy for three uninterrupted months, Bartell-Dimm kidnapped the child again.  This time though, she was more effective at her crime.  She disappeared completely for about two months earlier this summer.  Eventually the two were found hiding in a South Dakota shelter for victims of domestic violence.  She was arrested and this article says she's still in jail (Winnipeg Free Press, 10/4/11).  Timber was returned to his father. Over the years, Dimm was able to increase his parenting time from four weeks per year to sole custody and guardianship of his son. Now, not two months after he was reunited with Timber, Danny Dimm is dead, killed on the job in a logging accident this past Monday. 
Dimm's sister Jewel-Ann Juriansz said it's too soon to tell what will happen to Timber.
"I wasn't privy to all of Danny's workings, you see, in this matter. I have to sit down with people and figure out where things are," she said.
She said her brother not only went through a custody battle -- fighting for the rights of single dads -- but also sought funding to help care for his son's autism, and that issue still needs to be sorted out.
"We obviously need funding and funding for care," she said, adding that she lives in Toronto.
Lawyer Theresa Gerlach, who helped Dimm regain custody of his son, said Dimm wanted to do the right thing for Timber.
"He was always focused on what was best for his son. He wanted his child safe, he wanted to give his child a normal upbringing," she said.
I received an email from Dimm's Canadian lawyer expressing concern for Timber's future welfare.  He called the custody battle for Timber "parental alienation at its worst and the increased recognition of fathers' rights at its best."  He currently represents Dimm's sister, Jewel-Ann Juriansz. As things stand now, a custody battle looms between Wendi Lee Bartell-Dimm and whoever else can assert a claim to custody of the boy.  Juriansz appears likely to try.  As I said, Bartell-Dimm is in jail.  How long she'll remain there isn't yet known.  Likewise, no one yet knows whether she'll be sentenced to prison time for her abduction of her son.  My guess is she won't be.  I think I can hear her attorney's argument now:  "Judge, you can't put this nice mother in prison; she's the only parent this little boy has." Prior to her second abduction of Timber, a judge voiced concern about her emotional/psychological stability, so that should militate against her getting the boy back. We'll see what develops. Second, there's this video of an oral argument to the Ohio Supreme Court.  It's far from current, having taken place in June of 2005.  But it's altogether current in the way it depicts the mindset of those charged with collecting child support. The case pits the Cuyahoga County Support Enforcement Agency against Gregory Lovelady, and it's a classic of "I don't care what the facts are, just show me the money" justice. It seems that, at the time, the State of Ohio had a statute allowing a man who was paying child support to present evidence to a court at any time showing that he's not the father of the child.  As a practical matter, that meant that he could bring results of DNA testing to a court and get an order absolving him of having to pay further amounts for a child proven to have been fathered by another man. Now most of us would say that's only fair.  After all, people should support the children they actually bring into the world.  That's just taking responsibility for one's own actions.  But requiring a man to support a child who's not his is doubly wrong; it forces him to take responsibility for something he didn't do while absolving another man of responsibility for what he did do.  But the attorney for the C.S.E.A. wasn't having it.  He was desperately trying to convince a skeptical court that the statute allowing men to prove the truth about paternity violated the Ohio Constitution. In the case before the court, Gregory Lovelady had been tagged with support of a child by Willa Lloyd.  Interestingly, he'd never showed up in court to contest the matter originally, so apparently a default judgment had been taken against him.  (Had he gotten notice of the matter?  Often, child enforcement agencies play fast and loose with notice requirements, take default judgments and then enforce them against men who aren't the dad.) Seven years later, Lovelady had a $46,000 judgment taken against him for back support of a "child" who was then 20 years old.  He eventually appeared in court with results of genetic testing proving conclusively that he wasn't the father. So what did the C.S.E.A. do?  Did it go to the mother and demand that she tell the truth about the child's paternity?  No, that would have been reasonable and fair to all concerned, and that, as we know, isn't their style.   Instead, C.S.E.A. litigated the constitutionality of the statute allowing Lovelady to prove his non-paternity.  To them, it's all about the money, and once they've got one man in their sights, it's easier to bring him down than to re-aim at someone else. During the oral argument, one justice asked the lawyer for C.S.E.A. whether he thought Lovelady should pay the $46,000 regardless of the fact that he's not the father to which the answer was "Yes."  And that about sums up the attitude of child support enforcement authorities.  We don't care who you are, just pay. I've often thought that a far more effective, easier and less time-consuming way of establishing paternity would be to just do it at random.  Maybe an official of the agency could go out on the street corner at noon and arbitrarily choose men to pay child support.  After all, since who's actually the dad doesn't make any difference, why not cut to the chase?  Why not save everyone time and money and abandon the pretense that we care who actually fathered a child? The judges weren't buying what the C.S.E.A. lawyer was peddling.  They overruled his argument, but it's interesting to notice what never came up.  Neither the lawyer nor any of the justices ever recalled that, where there's a child, there's a father.  In this case, it didn't happen to be Lovelady, but biology tells us that it was someone.  And none of the judges ever asked why C.S.E.A. didn't just leave Lovelady alone and go find the actual dad.  I found that a strange oversight. Thanks to Tony for the heads-up on the Lovelady case.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
The difference between fathers' and mothers' depictions in the news media is on graphic display here (Huffington Post, 10/5/11).  About the only thing I can make out of this article is that HuffPo wants to rub it in.  The piece reads like a "what I did on my summer vacation" essay by a 10-year-old.  And it has nothing to do with anything beyond the writer's own experiences, so I wonder how it got accepted at all.  (As one commenter asks, "so what?")  My conclusion is that there's always room for a piece about the bravery and empowerment of mothers and the perfidy of fathers. The writer, Marissa Cortes, tells us about her four-month sojourn in South America.  She tells us about how nice the people in Buenos Aires are even though she speaks not a word of Spanish.  Then she moves on to the glaciers of Patagonia and penguins, before whisking her readers to Brazil which "also covered many stunning, secluded beaches, vibrant cross-cultural cities, and musical delights that seduced our ears." Through all that, "I soon understood that this foreign journey had lessons to teach that hit close to home, no matter how far from home I actually was." What those valuable lessons were, she doesn't let on, which I suspect is just as well given the depth with which she treated her other topics. But her piece isn't just a travelogue; it's also a justification.  You see, she made the trip with her daughter Lulu who was 10 months old when Cortes started out.  And she did so just after her boyfriend, Lulu's father, had engaged her in a battle for custody of the girl. Now, Cortes describes the man in the most unflattering terms possible.  According to her, he's a philanderer and callously uninterested in her during her pregnancy.  I have no reason to doubt Cortes on this; after all, she was there and I wasn't.  But her indignation at Lulu's father's actually wanting to see his daughter is a sure sign that something's not right with her description of the custody battle.
Three months later we were enmeshed in a custody battle where he fought to have our baby girl with him as much as possible, but (but?) had his female lawyer argue (and win) that he was obligated to pay next to nothing in child support, as my income was higher than his.
It's interesting that she never says what the outcome of the custody matter was.  All we know is that he doesn't have to pay much in child support.  But if he "won" on that issue, I can't imagine him being denied custody altogether.  Cortes's sense of unsatisfied entitlement (He fought to have the child as much as possible!  He wanted child support to be based on income which it is in every state!) is palpable. So what we have is a custody battle that in one way at least didn't go as Cortes wished, so she takes the infant off to South America.  Cortes clearly has no clue that there was anything amiss with what she did.  That's true despite the fact that several commenters point it out.  They also point out the obvious - that if a father had done the same, he'd be pilloried as a child abuser.  So Cortes chimes in with her own comment that shows she still doesn't get it.
Of course fathers matter, especially if they want to be a part of their children's lives, and not fight to have them more than 50% of the time because it lessens their obligation in financial child support.
No Marissa, fathers matter even if they do that.  Mothers do that every day of the week, many times a day, but you don't turn your nose up at them.  Here's a simple message:  it's not OK to deprive a child of one of its parents - mother or father - because you're in a bad frame of mind and need to feel "empowered."  Marissa, what you did was harmful to your child, plain and simple.  Into the bargain, my guess is that it violated the father's rights under the court's order. It continues to amaze that many mothers and their enablers don't get the basic concept that children do better with two parents than with one, that children have rights to full, meaningful relationships with their fathers and that mothers shouldn't exercise control over either the child's or the father's contact with the other.  It's just not acceptable.  Yes, Cortes's paramour behaved like a cad; that made her angry at him as I'm sure it would anyone.  But her feelings are for her to sort out on her own separately from the child.  We see this every day - parents who believe that slights done by the other parent warrant interfering in the other's relationship with the child.  They don't. Too bad Cortes doesn't get the message.  Too bad Huffington Post doesn't either.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
The ease with which fathers lose parental rights sometimes astonishes.  This is one of those cases (Leagle, 9/30/11).  Into the bargain, it's an example of a case in which the Danish approach to child custody might prove to be better than ours. On the face of it, the case is one that, I imagine, family court judges would be happy to preside over.  The parents divorced, but in their dealings with each other and the child, they made the effort to get along and handle child-care issues constructively.  Moreover, both were good, loving parents.  In short, everything was about as good as one could hope for in a custody case. The father, Tinotenda Rutanhira, immigrated to the United States from his native Zimbabwe in 2000.  At some point he became a United States citizen and has no intention of returning to live in the country in which he was born.
The parties were married on April 7, 2004, and their daughter was born on March 11, 2005. In August 2009 they separated. Mother filed for a divorce in October 2009. Under a temporary order, the parties shared physical rights and responsibilities for daughter on a roughly equal basis. The parties ultimately agreed to continue sharing physical custody, but could not agree on sharing legal rights...
The court found that the parties were "very cooperative" in determining daily arrangements for daughter, and the court highlighted the fact that "there is really little to choose from as between these two parents." The parties agreed on where to send daughter to school, her travel around the country, the choice of doctors, dentists, and religion.
In short, the two divorced parents got along well.  They shared physical custody of their daughter and cooperated well in decision making. The problem arose, not over parenting time, but over decision-making authority, i.e. legal custody.  But even about that, there were only two bones of contention.
The first involved a disagreement in 2009 about whether daughter should be inoculated with the H1N1 flu vaccine; father eventually supported mother's decision not to inoculate. The second was the real issue of contention: foreign travel...
In 2009, [the father] expressed a desire to bring daughter to visit Zimbabwe, along with other members of his immediate family, to see his remaining family there. The trip, planned for the summer of 2010, coincided with the World Cup in South Africa. Mother objected. She viewed the trip to Zimbabwe as far too dangerous for daughter. Though father wanted daughter to know her heritage, he ultimately acquiesced to mother's wishes.
So when she was four, Tinotenda, doubtless proud of his young daughter, wanted to take her to visit his relatives who remained in Zimbabwe.  That's not hard to imagine; I'd think any dad would be so inclined.  But Mom objected saying she thought Zimbabwe was too dangerous.  And it's true that there was political violence there and often food shortages.  At the same time, Tinotenda's relatives lived there, apparently in peace.  But whatever the facts of the situation in Zimbabwe, Dad ultimately agreed with Mom and stayed home in Vermont.
Nevertheless, this was the issue upon which the family court based its award of legal custody to mother.
Huh?  Dad wanted to take his daughter to visit her relatives in Zimbabwe, Mom objected and Dad agreed with Mom.  And that's what the court based its decision on to award legal custody to Mom?  What basis? Well, it seems the fact that Tinotenda wanted to take his daughter to visit her relatives is what tipped the scales of justice against him.  He never took her, he just had the desire to do so.  That's what I mean about how astonishingly easy it is for fathers to lose parental rights. Now, the good news is that the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision.  But it did so, not because of the amazingly trivial nature of what the judge based his/her decision on.  The state's Supreme Court reversed the lower court because the judge had conducted an online investigation of conditions in Zimbabwe, and that information wasn't in evidence.  So, if the online information had been in evidence, the trial court's decision would stand, irrespective of the fact that both parents are clearly qualified to raise their daughter and get along well doing so. And it's here that I argue that the Danish approach might be better than ours.  As I reported just a couple of days ago, Denmark passed a law governing allocation of parental responsibility back in 2007.  It basically requires joint custody unless there's actual proof of wrongdoing by one parent.  It also requires judges to push parents to cooperate in decision-making. In so doing, it seems to abandon the concept of legal custody that requires a court to place decision-making authority in the hands of one parent only.  And it's exactly legal custody that the judge in the Rutanhira case was forced to decide even though he/she was clearly uncomfortable choosing between the two. Remember, the judge said that there was really "little to choose" between the two parents.  The Supreme Court sympathized;
We appreciate the difficulty facing the trial court--the challenge of choosing between two equally capable and caring parents.
I argue, and I believe Danish law agrees, that it shouldn't have to choose.  My understanding is that in Denmark, there would have been no issue.  The parents had a minor disagreement, discussed it, thought it over and came to an agreement.  There's nothing for the court to decide.  Indeed, if two Danish parents had brought a similar matter to a family court, my understanding is that they'd have been told to work it out between themselves which is what the Rutanhiras had done in the first place. Look at what the American court had to do with an issue that's surpassingly trivial:  The trial court conducted a two-hour hearing, the court reporter recorded the testimony, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a written order.  All of that required the assistance of pricey attorneys.  The order was appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court whose justices individually read the briefs and the trial transcript, decided to reverse and wrote down their opinion.  Now the case returns to the trial court for further consideration. That's what the Vermont courts had to do.  The Danish courts would never have heard about the matter because there was nothing to decide.  The parents had worked it out between themselves.  Simple, cheap and altogether lacking in conflict. As I said in may previous piece, maybe the Danes are on to something.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
In a paternity fraud case, an Australian woman has been ordered to repay child support she received from the man she falsely named as the father.  Read about it here (The Daily Telegraph, 10/8/11). That's the good news, but it's definitely a "good news/bad news" sort of story.  The good news is that, in a rare event, a woman has been ordered by a court to repay child support to a man she falsely identified as her child's father. It seems that the woman, who's not named in the article, had a casual encounter with the man nine years ago.  She became pregnant and identified him as the only possible father.  He acknowledged paternity so that she could receive certain tax benefits and also paid her a modest sum in child support. Now it's nine years later and he and his partner wanted to have a child of their own, but failed.  They did so because doctors determined that he's "physiologically incapable of conceiving a child."  Given that, he asked that genetic testing be done on the previous woman's child and sure enough, the test revealed that he's not the dad after all. That's always bad news for a man, but the bad news, while not actually getting worse, just keeps coming.
The woman told the Federal Magistrates Court she now recalls having had a one-night sexual encounter with another man.  She told the court she suffered depression and stress from an earlier abusive relationship and her memory and thinking were unclear.  She did not know the real father's identity.
Yep, nine years after the fact, while testifying before a federal magistrate, she all of a sudden remembered the other guy.  Right.  And it just so happens that she's never known the other fellow's name. Put all of that together, and you realize that, nine years ago, she was faced with a decision; she was pregnant by one of two men, one of whom she knew and the other she didn't.  She could have told the truth to the man she knew or she could lie.  She could have said, "I'm pregnant and the child may be yours or it may be this other man's."   That would certainly have meant that he'd get DNA testing done, which in turn would have meant she'd run the risk that the unknown man was the father.  That would have meant no tax benefits and no child support. So she lied.  She never let on about the other man and he was never the wiser until he tried to father a child and discovered he couldn't.  In fact, she lied every day for nine years, on any one of which she could have come clean but didn't. And some more of the bad news is that the magistrate apparently bought her snake oil about having forgotten about having sex with the other man.  How that's possible, I don't know, but there it is.  My guess is that her reference to an "earlier abusive relationship" was all it took to utterly cloud the magistrate's normal skepticism. Whatever the case, the final bit of bad news is that she's to repay the defrauded man only $15 every two weeks.  Now, he only paid about $3,730 in child support, but still, at that rate it'll take her almost 10 years to repay him. Although the article doesn't say, I suspect the court didn't consider the present value of the money the man paid, which, if he'd invested it conservatively over the years, would be worth well more than the principal amount.  And of course the fact that she'll take so long to repay degrades the value of her payments even more. Still, it's worth knowing that there's a precedent for requiring a woman who's defrauded a man about paternity to repay the child support he's given her. A small and not unalloyed victory, but a victory nevertheless.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Washington State Senator Jim Kastama has always staunchly supported shared parenting.  In fact, every year since 1996, he's filed a bill to establish shared parenting as the presumption in custody cases.  As such, he's well aware not only of the value of shared parenting, but of the obstacles faced by any legislator who tries to make it the law. This excellent video is an interview with Kastama by our friend Matt Allen.  Kastama says a lot in a short time.  He's obviously a man who knows the issue of shared parenting and its reception in political circles all too well. Kastama's bills define shared parenting as each parent having at least 1/3 parenting time post-divorce.  That would be about 122 days per year or a little over 10 days per month, or two days per week plus two extra days per month.  In short, his bills would, at the very least, significantly increase parenting time for fathers. The roadblocks to passage of such modest legislation are many.  Kastama lists five.  First, there are legislators who sincerely believe that the stability of the child's environment require visitation of at most every other weekend.  But Kastama points out that what's far more important to children than the physical stability of spending most of their time in one place, is the emotional stability of keeping real contact with both parents. As sociologist Susan Stewart has found, every-other-weekend dads (or moms) quickly become "Disneyland" parents, i.e. mere entertainers of children.  So on the non-custodial parent's weekend, it's buy a pizza, rent a movie and have an outing on Saturday or Sunday.  That's not real parenting; it's being a place-holder until the "real" parent, i.e. the custodial parent, takes over again on Sunday night.  Not surprisingly, children get the message and stop relying on the Disneyland parent for the type of real emotional/psychological support and guidance they need. Second, Kastama said that he battles traditional stereotypes when he tries to pass shared parenting legislation.  Legislators often see fathers as breadwinners only and mothers as nurturers.  I've often remarked on the unwillingness of so many people to see breadwinning as nurturing.  Face it, children need a roof over their head, food on the table and clothes on their back.  Providing that is a loving act.  That it's often ignored as such by those who seek to marginalize fathers in the lives of children is one of the many problems faced by advocates of shared parenting. One sidelight is that historically, fathers have only been leaving their homes to go to work to earn the family's daily bread since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, some 500 years ago at most.  Prior to that, for all of human history, fathers were around the house, working the family's plot of ground, tending animals and building, repairing or maintaining agricultural implements.  Into the bargain, he may have been an artisan of some sort, making goods for sale or use at home. But whatever the case, he was close to home except for military duty or to discharge feudal obligations.  That meant he cared for children at least part of the time and they knew him and never lost their relationship with him until death took it from them. So our current view of fathers as mere breadwinners, unconnected to their children is, to the extent it's accurate at all, historically aberrant. A third obstacle to shared parenting legislation comes from the left of the political spectrum that views custody through the lens of gender.  That should be seen as odd, not to say hypocritical.  After all, the left has been shouting about gender equality for many decades now, and yet when it comes to custody, leftists suddenly pivot toward inequality, discrimination and unfairness based on sex.  They then double-down by resisting increased paternal care of children that would promote greater success for women in the workplace, a goal about which the left has always claimed to care. Kastama's too nice a guy - and too politic - to say so, but it's hypocrisy plain and simple. On the right, legislators are more likely to see men as breadwinners and mothers as nurturers.  That "traditional" arrangement appeals to the sensibilities of conservatives, but the problem comes from the fact that we don't live in that world any longer.  Almost half of all marriages end in divorce.  That's a fact - perhaps an unfortunate one - and it raises the issue of how to deal with custody after the divorce is final.  The closest thing we can get to the intact family is for both parents to be as present and available as possible in their children's lives.  That means shared parenting. Kastama also says that fathers who go through divorce and lose their children in the process often feel so abused by the experience that they don't want to prolong the agony by engaging in activism to reform family courts.  So he hasn't felt enough push from those who have been through the system to get his bills passed. Finally, the courts themselves stand in the way of fathers getting their fair share of parenting time.  That old demon money is the culprit. Lawyers tell Kastama that, for a man to fight for equal parenting costs $50,000 if he's lucky.  Even then there's no certainty that he'll prevail, and the process will be brutal.  Most dads don't have that kind of money and more still don't want the heartache of such a battle.  So they agree to the de facto presumption of seemingly every family court in the land - every other weekend plus Wednesday night. Data on custody show that over 90% of cases - in Washington it's as high as 98% - are agreed to by the parties.  That means dads read the writing on the wall, don't have the money to fight the battle and acquiesce to what's become the standard visitation order. Kastama recently made a speech to an audience of young people who were present for a music concert.  He was astonished at the positive response he received for his message of shared parenting.  He figures the reason is that many of those kids have grown up without a father and that they're enraged at the behavior of family courts that did so much to ensure their fatherlessness.  So it may be that, in true dialectical fashion, the very practice of family courts' taking children from fathers, is now creating the conditions for its own demise.  I hope so. Kastama has been on the front lines of this war since he was first elected in 1996.  His knowledge is of inestimable value and his perspective is necessary if we're to carry the fight forward for children's rights to a real relationship with both their parents post-divorce.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Two fathers are suing the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency for denying them custody of their children after CFS took the children from their mothers.  Read about it here (Washington Post, 10/6/11). Sam Wilson and Andre Adgerson both of Maryland experienced the same treatment at the hands of CFS, the District's child welfare agency.  Both men are hands-on fathers with joint custody of their children.  The mothers of the children were each found by CFS to have neglected them to an extent that warranted removing the children from the mothers' homes.  But in a move that should look all too familiar to advocates for fathers' rights, the children were shunted into foster care, not father care.  The excuse offered by CFS was that their interpretation of a federal law requires them to do exactly that. The law is the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.  It requires that, if a child welfare agency takes a child from a parent and wishes to place it in the care of another person outside the state, the second state must conduct an investigation into the fitness of the proposed placement before the child can be placed there.   So that's what the District of Columbia agency did.  And while Maryland conducted its investigations of Wilson and Adgerson, their children sat in foster care.  For Wilson's child, that meant six months; in Adgerson's it took a month.  But there's a problem with what CFS did.  Federal courts in three states have already ruled that the law doesn't apply to parents.  That is, if the person with whom the child is to be placed is its parent, there's no need to conduct an investigation.  But the District's CFS ignored those rulings and asked Maryland to investigate Wilson and Adgerson. In short, it separated the children from their fathers for months at a time in order to do what a family court had already done.  The simple fact is that both fathers had joint custody of their children.  That means there was a court order in effect for both dads finding them fit enough to have custody.  So the DC agency forced Maryland to do something unnecessary, to waste time and money and of course deny the children access to their fathers in the process. If any of that makes sense to anyone, please let me know. But while the District's CFS pleads that it's just complying with federal law (despite the rulings in those other states), some of us see its behavior as part of a larger pattern.  That pattern is a preference by state CPS agencies for foster care over father care.  The out-of-state placement is its own special area of law and public policy, but the pattern extends far beyond just that. Indeed, the preference for foster care over father care has been found to be endemic among CPS agencies by the Urban Institute.  In this study, entitled "What About the Dads?", the UI found that, in over half the cases in which a child was taken from a mother and the father was known to the agency, no effort was made to involve him in placement of the child.  That is, he wasn't even contacted to find out if he was fit to receive his child into his home. As if that's not bad enough, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services publishes a 105-page booklet specifically for the purpose of educating CPS workers about the value of involving fathers in the lives of their children and the advisability of placing children with them when mothers prove abusive or neglectful.  Do CPS workers read what HHS makes available to them?  Do they follow its guidance? For that matter, do they know the facts about foster care?  Do they know that foster care is statistically far more dangerous for children than father care? How many lawsuits does it take for CPS to get the message that fathers are to be included in their children's lives where possible?  Wilson and Adgerson have theirs.  So does Woody Iacovetta of Colorado who's suing Arizona CPS.  In his case, his son's mother murdered the boy having announced a couple of years before that she was going to do so and how she was going to do it.  But CPS never bothered to pick up the telephone and call Iacovetta to alert him to the danger his son was in and allow him to move for custody. Then there was the case Glenn Sacks wrote about in which a young woman sued CPS for lying to her throughout her childhood.  CPS told her that her father was dead when in fact he was very much alive and a fit father who was trying his best to find his girl.  CPS wanted her in foster care and that's where she stayed until she grew up and was finally reunited with her dad. CPS will tell anyone who'll listen that it's all about keeping families together, but their definition of "family" seems not to include fathers.  My guess is that there's something in caseworkers' training that leads them to antipathy for fathers.  After all, the evidence in favor of father care over foster care is far too compelling to be ignored unless there's some form of bias in the education and/or training these people receive. If it hasn't already been done, some enterprising sociologist should study the mindset of CPS workers.  If there's not an anti-dad bias there, I'd be surprised. Thanks to Paul for the heads-up.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
A Virginia grandmother was sentenced to 35 years in prison yesterday for the murder of her granddaughter.  Read about it here (Delmar Now, 10/9/11).  The circumstances and press coverage surrounding the toddler's tragic death speak volumes about assumptions that are common regarding men, women and their children. It all happened last November 29th.  Carmela dela Rosa is the mother of Kat Ogdoc.  Kat and James Ogdoc were girlfriend and boyfriend when she became pregnant four years ago.  They married shortly before their daughter, Angelyn was born, and remain so today. Dela Rosa, who's now 51, suffered from bouts of depression, and her relationship with her granddaughter is disputed, with some people calling her loving, but her own daughter Kat saying she had little to do with the baby and was cool and stand-offish. On November 29th of last year, Kat, dela Rosa and members of dela Rosa's extended family went to Tyson's Corner Center, Virginia's largest mall.  There, security cameras recorded the family having dinner and two of the children riding a recreational train.  As the family was leaving, dela Rosa, holding Angelyn, was seen to lag behind and, in an instant, throw the child off a 45-foot high pedestrian walkway.  Angelyn died at the hospital 12 hours later. At the trial for first-degree murder, dela Rosa claimed insanity, but her defense was rejected by the jury.  The prosecution's testifying psychiatrist said she had borderline personality disorder that was treatable but that dela Rosa refused treatment. Whatever her state of mind, though, dela Rosa's own reason for murdering her granddaughter was that she was angry at James Ogdoc.
Dela Rosa was upset that her son-in-law had gotten her daughter pregnant out of wedlock, prosecutors said.
He apparently added to dela Rosa's ire by calling his wife on her cell phone while he was at work and they were at the mall. And it's here that the first of our cultural assumptions comes into play.  Note the article's phrasing - "had gotten her daughter pregnant."  Here's how McLeanPatch says it:
Dela Rosa told police she had resented her son-in-law for years because he impregnated her teenage daughter, preventing her from meeting new people and exploring the world.
"He impregnated her." Note that in both cases, the woman is passive.  She has nothing to do with getting pregnant; the man did it to her.  She's the passive victim and he's the active perpetrator.  There's no concept that when two people have sex, well, two people have sex. Never mind reality.  Never mind the fact that women in this society have an astonishing array of contraceptive options available to them.  Never mind that Kat Ogdoc could have utilized any of them she chose.  And never mind that, in all likelihood, both James and Kat knew they were risking pregnancy by having sex without contraception. No, according to the popular narrative, relied on not only by dela Rosa, but apparently accepted by both publications referred to, pregnancy is something men do to women without their agreement or apparently their participation.  It's a concept straight out of the 1950s. And it turns out that way of seeing sex between men and women can have real consequences - like a dead two-year-old.  After all, dela Rosa was angry with James - not Kat, not Kat and James.  She was reading from a very familiar cultural script that holds the man solely responsible when an teenage girl becomes pregnant.  So to punish him for what that script calls his wrongful act, dela Rosa killed his child.  Surely, if she's seen both James and Kat as responsible for her pregnancy, dela Rosa wouldn't have been moved to see them punished. Second, once again we're confronted with the voiceless man.  James Ogdoc is alive and as well as a father can be whose two-year-old daughter was murdered 10 months ago.  He and Kat are still married, but you'd barely know he exists from the linked-to article.  We hear of Kat's understandable anguish and despair at the death of her child.  We hear nothing from or about James. That too helps us to do what dela Rosa did - view him as the wrongdoer, the one who got her daughter pregnant.  The less human he is, the easier it is to condemn him.  The more human she is, the easier it is to sympathize with her and the harder it is to hold her equally responsible.  The absence of any word from James allows readers to make assumptions about him and for our cultural mythology about men, women and sex to control how we interpret events. Then there's the seemingly universal proscription on calling such acts by their proper names - child abuse and domestic violence.  Dela Rosa's murder of Angelyn is both, by any definition of the terms, but no article I've read says so.  In so doing, they once again abet a cultural narrative that doggedly strives to convince us that it's men and only men who harm children.  Again, never mind the fact that women, particularly mothers, do far more child abuse than do men and that they commit the same amount of domestic violence. The unsurprising result is that fathers have real difficulty getting custody in family courts and are easily tagged as abusers irrespective of the evidence. Dela Rosa was sentenced to 35 years in prison for first-degree murder.  But she's 51 and Virginia law says that when a prisoner turns 60 and has completed 10 years of his/her sentence, he/she can apply for conditional parole.  So in 10 years, dela Rosa will be 61.  That means she'll be trying to get out in 2021.  My guess is she'll succeed. Thanks to Paul for the heads-up.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
The number of parental abductions of children to Mexico continues to increase.  Here's a good article on the subject (KPBS, 10/5/11). It follows two American fathers whose former partners abducted their children to Mexico and the high expectations and crushing disappointments they continue to face.
At 9 a.m. on a recent Friday, Brian Duzet crossed the border from San Diego to Tijuana by foot. Blonde, with blue eyes, Duzet wears baggy jeans and flip-flops, even on a chilly Fall day. But he wasn't in Tijuana for fun, like many other Americans who come on foot. He had come to see his daughter, Sam.
Three years ago, Duzet and his Mexican girlfriend split up, with shared custody of Sam. But one morning, she picked the little girl up and disappeared. Hours passed. Duzet began to worry. He left multiple messages on his ex-girlfriend"s cell phone. By the next morning, he suspected the worst: Sam had been taken to Mexico, without her father's permission. She was abducted.
Duzet may count himself luckier than most.  That's because he actually got assistance from the U.S. State Department, the FBI and Mexican police.  But all they did was find his ex and his daughter.  They're right there in Tijuana, a stone's throw from the U.S. border, and there's not a thing anyone can do to regain custody for Duzet.  He sees his daughter once a week as per court order, for a "meeting." He's spent $100,000 in legal and travel expenses, and appears no closer to getting his daughter back than he ever was.  Every word about him suggests that the status quo won't be changed any time soon, if ever.  Duzet sounds resigned.
"Someday I"m going to have to explain this all to her," said Duzet, standing outside his ex-girlfriend's Tijuana home, preparing himself to go in for his weekly court-mandated meeting with Sam.
"I don"t think now is appropriate. My daughter is smart enough to know there is something wrong," the father said. "Sometimes kids act more adult than adults do.'
His resignation is probably appropriate.  Mexico has the worst record of compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of any signatory nation.  That's mostly because Mexican law places mothers above fathers in custody matters.  For example in Mexico, mothers automatically get sole custody of any child under the age of seven.  That extreme anti-father bias extends to non-Mexican fathers in abduction cases, as dads like Brian Duzet can tell us. Now, the article says that the U.S. is getting more cooperation out of Mexican authorities of late, which may be true.  But it's not Mexican diplomats that matter in cases of abduction, it's the courts.  They're the ones that either enforce the terms of the Hague Convention or don't and, the rule seems to be that they don't.  After all, the Convention calls for return of abducted children within 60 days.  I've never heard of a single case in which Mexican courts did that.  In fact, I've never heard of a case in which they got close. Indeed, the only prompt return of an abducted child from Mexico occurred in a case in which the Hague Convention was completely ignored.  That happened just a matter of months ago and it involved the abduction of a grandchild of a U.S. Congressman.  And that's no accident.  In that case, the child was abducted, found and returned to its father (the Congressman's son) in a matter of days.  The abducting mother was arrested and extradited to the U.S. just as quickly.  Funny how that works when a Congressman's involved.  No Convention procedures were followed. But most people are like Brian Duzet and Trevor Richardson.  The authorities don't jump when they say "jump."  They have to go through legal channels which more and more means they likely won't see their children until they're grown up.  Many people have complained about the dysfunction of the U.S. State Department that's charged with standing up for the rights of American parents who have been "left behind."
Trevor Richardson, another San Diego "left-behind parent," said he has reached out to the Mexican Consulate, the state department, and the FBI to no avail. His son was abducted four years ago, and he remembered thinking he would be able to get him back in a matter of months.
"I also remember thinking to myself that somehow I would be protected," Richardson said. "Protected by our laws, and our courts, and our law enforcement, our government, the FBI.'
..."We have the laws right now, they are there, they just need to be enforced," said Richardson, holding on to a photo of Andrew, his son. "Maybe when it comes to dealing with immigration policy with Mexico, child abductions kind of fall through the cracks a little bit, because there is bigger fish to fry."
Richardson said he holds on to hope. But he cannot help but feel that in relation to other bi-national issues, his son"s abduction is at the bottom of a very long list.
That's been the common complaint among all left behind parents - the U.S. State Department is far more interested in commercial relations with Mexico than anything else.  And it's not about to let a few annoying fathers disturb a good thing.  With a Hague Convention that's all but useless in Mexican courts, it's no surprise that abductions to that country are on the rise, from 300 a year just three years ago, to 500 last year.  Increasingly, Mexico seems to be seen by abducting parents to be a safe haven for themselves and their wrongdoing.  Who would argue? What's also not surprising is that a small cottage industry in "reverse abductions" has grown up, albeit beneath the radar of law enforcement.  The simple fact is that there are people who are ready, willing and able to travel to Mexico and snatch an abducted child and bring him/her back to the United States and the left behind parent. It's not legal, but what's anyone going to do, force the return of an abducted child to its abducting parent?  Not likely. Actually, theres' another culprit in all this - the Hague Convention itself.  I'll blog about that in my next piece. Thanks to Marcy for the heads-up.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
The problem of parental child abductions is exacerbated by a number of factors.  Ironically, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seems to be one of them, as this article shows (Sydney Morning Herald, 10/11/11). I've detailed some of the other factors that militate against "left-behind" parents.  Chiefly, the Convention's signatory nations often seem to ignore its terms.  One of those is that children are to be returned within 60 days of being found in the country to which they've been taken.  But time and again, we see countries like Mexico and Brazil behave as if (a) there were no such provision in the treaty or (b) the treaty doesn't exist. So people like Sean Goldman spend years of their lives fighting long distance with a foreign government trying to get it to abide by the clear terms of a convention it signed. Then there's the generally useless nature of the U.S. State Department to which Americans are supposed to turn for assistance in that fight.  But those who try to get some of that assistance are in for a shock.  As many people have told journalists and some have testified under oath to Congress, the U.S. State Department acts like it has bigger fish to fry.  As one father wistfully said about his child's abduction to Mexico,
"I also remember thinking to myself that somehow I would be protected," Richardson said. "Protected by our laws, and our courts, and our law enforcement, our government, the FBI.'
Now he knows better. But the linked to article lets us know that the Hague Convention, in addition to everything else, is itself part of the reason for the failure of courts to return children to their left-behind parents.  And of course, what that means is that the Convention, at least as some courts interpret it, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  In some cases, it makes abduction easier and more likely than it otherwise would be.  In the case described in the article, an Australian man and a British woman were married and had two children, now aged eight and two.  They lived in Sydney, but the mother pronounced herself "homesick" and wanted to move back to England for a year.  Her grandmother had willed her a small house in the north of England, and so the four packed up for the U.K. for a year. At the end of the year, the father kept to their plan and returned to Australia, but the mother and kids stayed behind.  She convinced him that she would be coming along shortly, but courts later ruled that to be a lie.
[T]he mother had "lulled the father into a false belief" that she and the children, who cannot be identified, would return.
Her "continuing deceit" included sending her partner, whom she met in Sydney but never married, "a Valentine card in loving terms and equally affectionate birthday card", said Lord Justice Ward.
When the dad figured out what was going on, he filed suit in England to get his children back and the trial judge so ordered.
The father launched a legal action under the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which provides a procedure for the return of children involved in custody disputes across international boundaries.
Last July, Family Division judge Mrs Justice Hogg ruled in favour of the father and ordered the children's return.
Not so fast said the appellate court last Monday.  Mom gets to keep the children despite the clear meaning of the Hague Convention.  Despite, or because of ? The Convention has a concept of the child's "habitual place of residence."  That means that wherever the child has usually lived is the place he/she must stay.  It's a vital concept for figuring out if a child has actually been abducted or not.  After all, if two parents live in the United States, move for a year to, say, England, and then return to the U.S., one parent shouldn't be able to go to England and claim the other parent has abducted the child.  The child's habitual place of residence is the U.S. It's a simple, reasonable concept that the British appellate court managed to stand on its head.
But on Monday Lord Justice Ward said the judge had gone wrong on the key issue in the case: whether the children were "habitually resident" in Australia at the time the homesick mother decided to keep them in England.
He ruled their stay in the UK had become permanent enough to establish they were habitually resident here, even though they would have been bound to say "our real home is in Australia".
So never mind that the stay was always supposed to have been temporary.  Never mind that the kids see that their "real home is in Australia."  Never mind that one child is eight years old and had spent at most one year in England when Mom decided to stay there.  And never mind that the whole thing was brought about by fraud on the part of the mother that the court readily acknowledged. No, Mom gets to keep the kids because the judges allowed a part of the Convention meant to establish the children's home country to be used to thwart the purpose of the Convention.  Put another way, the decision is an open invitation to abducting parents.  It says loudly and clearly, "Go ahead, abduct your kids and if you can just do it for a long enough time, you're home free."  And indeed, the time needn't be long at all.
The judge said case law stated that residence could be "of long or short duration", provided it was adopted "for settled purposes as part of the regular order of life for the time being".
That's not exactly a high hurdle to clear.  An abducting parent could live in one place "for settled purposes as part of the regular order of life for the time being" for almost any period of time and, according to this court's ruling entirely defeat the very purposes of the Convention.  Those are the prevention of child abduction and the return of those children who have been abducted. It's hard to see how, given that standard, an abducting parent could fail to establish habitual residence wherever he/she might come to rest for however short a time. It's also hard to see the court ruling the same way if the abducting parent were the children's father.  I can't imagine that such a campaign of lies and deceit by a father, waged for the sole purpose of wresting custody of the children from their mother, would be met with such judicial equanimity.
Sitting with Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Sullivan, the appeal judge described the case as "sad but not untypical".
That's a pretty accurate description and condemnation of Hague Convention proceedings generally.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
The battle for fathers' and mothers' equality in family courts is partly about changing laws.  Many laws overtly discriminate against fathers.  Those include adoption laws and paternity fraud laws.  Other laws are overtly gender neutral, but their application is misandric.  There's no custody law in the country that apparently treats mothers and fathers differently, but it's no secret that fathers get the short end of the custody stick. That strongly suggests that there's something more than law that needs to be changed before fathers and mothers will truly be equal in child custody matters.  That 'something more' is our cultural view of men and women, boys and girls.  I've commented many times that our cultural tendency to see women as innocent and passive, and men as corrupt and active is not only sexist, but factually wrong. But, as in so many areas, cultural mythology of long standing is slow to fall in the face of contradictory facts.  We humans have a way of accepting a narrative as true and then turning a blind eye to facts that contradict the narrative.  Hence the battle between science and mythology that's been a fixture of human history since the beginning of the written word.  That battle is alive and well in the family courts of this and many other countries.  One of the reasons fathers lose so often in family courts is the mythology that dominates our understanding of men and women, boys and girls.  Little girls are sugar and spice and everything nice; so, it seems are mothers in custody battles.  But, like waves against a rocky shoreline, the blows of science gradually erode the edifice of the misandric cultural narrative that pretends that women, particularly mothers, don't harm children and that only men, particularly fathers, do.  Until that science achieves some sort of critical mass, the behavior of our all-too-human family court judges is unlikely to change. So we welcome every bit of science that gives us the truth about male and female behavior.  We welcome as well, those journalists and commentators who are brave enough to speak that truth to the entrenched interests who would continue the radically sexist status quo. Barbara Kay is one such journalist and here's her latest (National Post, 10/12/11).  Kay's specific topic is the science on the sexual abuse of children.  Many of her revelations are eye-popping.
Most rapists were subjected to some form of sexual abuse in childhood. A startling amount is perpetrated by females. Peer-reviewed studies conclude that between 60% to 80% of "rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men" were sexually abused by a female.
And yet it is commonly understood that, except in rare cases, women don't harbour such impulses. As McGill professor of social work Myriam Denov, who did her PhD thesis on female sex offenders, notes, as recently as 1984, a study proclaimed that "pedophilia does not exist at all in women."
It exists in spades. According to a 2004 U.S. Department of Education mass study of university students, 57% of students reporting child sexual abuse cited a male offender, and 42% reported a female offender. Interestingly, 65% of the survivors of female abuse who opened up to a therapist, doctor or other professional were not believed on their first disclosure. Overall, 86% of those who tried to tell anyone at all about their experiences were not believed.
According to a 1996 report from the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN), about 25% of child sexual abuse is committed by women, but that figure may be low, because survivors are far more conflicted and shamed in admitting abuse by their mothers than by fathers. In one study of 17,337 survivors of childhood sexual abuse, 23% reported a female-only perpetrator and 22% reported both male and female. A U.S. Department of Justice report finds that, in 2008, 95% of all youths reporting sexual misconduct by staff member in state juvenile facilities said their victimization experiences included victimization by female personnel, who made up 42% of the staff.
Public acknowledgement of female sex abuse remains a social taboo. BBC Radio 4 broadcast a film called When Girls Do It, following which a TV show, This Morning, opened its lines to survivors of female sex abuse. The studio was overwhelmed by over 1,000 calls, 90% women, none of whom had ever before disclosed their secrets.
Dr. Paul Fedoroff, a forensic psychiatrist and co-director of the Sexual Behaviors Clinic at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, says that "there are a lot of women who do sexually abuse children, but they get away with it."
I would add that the same DOJ study of juvenile correctional facilities in the U.S. found that female inmates (11.2%) were four times as likely to report sexual abuse by another inmate as were male inmates (2.7%). Her points are several, but most importantly Kay highlights not only the facts of female sexual aggression against children, but our resistance to acknowledging it.  Like men and boys, the vast majority of women and girls don't sexually abuse children.  But, women and girls make up an astonishingly high percentage of people who do. And as Kay points out, because we consign children to the care of women and girls far more than we do to men or boys, we're essentially giving those who do abuse, easy access to their victims.  We also give them a curtain to hide their abuse.  That curtain is our own mythology, carefully perpetuated by pop culture and the news media, that "pedophilia does not exist at all in women." Clearly, that's an anti-male bias that rears its ugly head in family courts as well as elsewhere.  Mere allegations of child sexual abuse made against a father are sufficient to sideline him as a parent for months at the very least, while investigations are done.  Not surprisingly, when sexually abused children grow up, they tend towards sexual aggression themselves.  And while sexually abused boys may grow into men who sexually abuse women, sexually abused girls seem to continue abusing children. Obviously, there's no reason for that to stop as long as we refuse to acknowledge the problem.
Even mental-health professionals and social service agencies avoid facing up to the phenomenon. I spoke at length with an adult survivor of a mother's sadistic sex abuse. "Nina," not her real name, told me that although she has attempted many times to deal with her past therapeutically, "I have never found any social service agency willing to acknowledge this or speak about it."
Victorian chivalry and 21st-century feminism would seem to make strange bedfellows, but in their equally unrealistic characterization of women as the always "gentler sex," they condemn both male and female victims of female-perpetrated abuse to silence and second-class social status.
To err is human. Are women fully human? Then stop treating them like saints or permanent moral infants.
Until we do, children will continue to lose their fathers to divorce in a process ballyhooed far and wide as being in "the best interests of the child." Thanks to Paulette for the heads-up.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Fathers and Families advocates for reform of our family courts.  Among other things, that means increasing fathers' parental time after divorce or separation.  Ideally, it means equal parenting, where that can work. As with anything that seeks to increase the power of fathers in family courts, any effort toward equalizing parenting time is routinely met with kneejerk resistance.  The usual claim is that fathers are abusive and therefore any effort to increase fathers' parenting time inevitably results in greater child abuse.  The anti-father crowd relies on that claim despite the fact that mothers commit twice the child abuse and neglect that fathers do, according to the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But those opposed to children spending time with their dads make other claims too.  Their big gun is the claim of child abuse, but they've got other weapons, one of which is that equal parenting isn't workable and leads to instability for the children who inevitably suffer. Now, there is a great deal of social science that contradicts all of those claims.  In fact, joint parenting tends to ameliorate conflict in the parental relationship and produces better outcomes for children.  It's also overwhelmingly preferred by the children themselves who don't want to lose their relationship with their father, the anti-dad crowd's anguish notwithstanding. Still, studies are only studies; they lack the "real world" immediacy of the personal stories of those who've experienced whatever is being studied, in this case, joint parenting.  So it's nice to read a personal story like this one (The Good Men Project, 10/12/11). Entitled "Why I'm Grateful for Joint Custody," it tells the story of its author, Emily Heist Moss.  She and her brother were children of parents who split up when they were young.  They lived in Massachusetts, so her mother could easily have gotten the usual parenting order of 12 days with Mom and two with Dad.  But Mom and Dad agreed on their own schedule, splitting each week equally - 3 1/2 days with one parent, 3 1/2 days with the other. Now to me, that sounds far too hectic.  Why not a week with one and a week with the other?  I can't guess, and Moss makes it clear that it wasn't easy.
[M]y younger brother and I migrated like clockwork between their homes every three and a half days. It was logistically exhausting--which house are my cleats at?  Where"s my science textbook?
...The arrangement my parents made was not perfect. It was hard on everyone. My brother and I carried the burden of frequent travel, constantly carting duffle bags of crap back and forth, but my parents didn"t have it easy either. I don"t know what professional sacrifices they made to stay close to each other for our benefit, or the gerrymandering they did to make the most of their schedules.
But the technical difficulties of equal parenting were more than made up for by its benefits.
I wouldn"t have had it any other way. This essay is a thank you note to my parents, an attempt to express my gratitude that they made that unusual decision fifteen years ago. The arrangement they created established stability, maintained our routine, and most importantly, preserved our relationships with both parents.
Moss makes the point so many people seem to ignore - kids are adaptable.  Give them a schedule and they'll adapt to it.  Moss and her brother had a taxing schedule from the time she was nine and he was five.  But because it was regular, they adapted and it worked out just fine.  That's mainly because it preserved their relationships with both parents.  Neither child lost dad. With the benefit of her experience, Moss says a lot that I've tried to say countless times.  Most importantly, about half her friends were kids of divorced parents, and essentially all of them had the typical parenting arrangement - 12 days with Mom, two weekend days with Dad.  Moss saw the results.
Although we were one of the first families I knew to go through a divorce, we weren"t the last. By middle school, about a third of my friends" families had followed suit. By the time I left for college, any group of peers was inevitably half and half. Most of those kids ended up following the every-other-weekend model, living with mom and visiting dad twice a month. The kids stayed with their moms twelve days out of every fourteen, and on the last two they disappeared for 48 hours into the twilight zone of "dad time'. Mom"s house was "real life,' and dad"s house was that condo where they went to hang out every once in a while.
I can"t speak to the reasoning behind those specific custody arrangements. I can only say how grateful I am that my parents took a different approach.  The every-other-weekend model means that dads miss out on the bread and butter of parenting. They miss the opportunity to quiz their kids on the periodic table, to pack lunches, to argue about wardrobe choices. By the time the kids show up for their weekend, so much time has elapsed that when dad says, "What"s new?' kids say "Nothing,' when the real answer is, "Everything'. They feel light years past the tough midterm they took the week before, and the fresh pain of a missed field goal is old news.
The every-other-weekend model makes dad"s house a vacation destination. Since time is so limited, dad wants to make it special with trips to the zoo, extra desserts, and extended curfews. It"s understandable, but treating that weekend as separate and different from daily life only serves to push "dad"s weekend' further away from the ins and outs of everyday parenting. There"s so much pressure on that weekend that kids have to curb their social lives to accommodate time with dad. Nothing fuels adolescent resentment faster than telling them they can"t do that thing that everybody else is doing. They"re not going to invite friends over either, since that would infringe on sacred together time, so dad never gets to meet the friends.
It's all there, plus some.  Under the typical court-ordered arrangement, Mom becomes the "real" parent while Dad becomes a placeholder, time with him becomes the "twilight zone."  Because he doesn't see his kids for two weeks, and then only for a short time, he wants to make the time special, so he becomes what sociologist Susan Stewart calls a "Disneyland Dad," more of an entertainer than a parent.  The important parenting decisions are for Mom.  She gets the important confidences. Then Moss adds something I'd never thought of; the obligation to be with Dad interferes with the child's social life, breeding "adolescent resentment."  If the kids were with Mom, they could go to the movie, the party or just hang out with their friends.  But no, it's Dad's weekend, and he understandably wants the kids to himself.  After all, he only sees them 14% of the time.  So being with Dad gets equated in the kids' minds with missing out.  That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the usual custody order. Moss understands that her situation isn't always feasible.  Her parents made special efforts to make it happen.  They lived close to each other and perhaps made professional sacrifices so neither of them was lost to their kids.  Plus, inevitably, they worked as a team to make sure their kids were put first.  Needless to say, not all parents do that. But Moss' essay puts the exclamation point on all the social science on shared parenting.  Where it can work, it's best for kids, and the kids - if not the courts - know it.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
There's so much wrong with family courts, that it's easy to dwell on the problems parents and children face when they deal with divorce, custody and the aftermath.  Face it, there's a horror show every day, usually more. So it's good to read a piece like this (Marin Independent Journal, 10/11/11).  It's a deeply moving portrait of a family that blew itself to pieces early, but, for the sake of the child, ultimately made it work.  It is, in other words, a description of how divorce and custody can - should - work.  Like so many such stories, it's based on a single simple concept - that a family is not destroyed by divorce.  The relationships remain regardless of the legal definitions, regardless of the living arrangements.  Dad and Mom may no longer be husband and wife, but they're still the parents and the child is still theirs to protect, care for, nurture and shepherd to adulthood. And that's what author Katie Wigington means when she titles her piece  "The Day She Became a Single Parent."  My guess is that most people who read that title immediately conclude that Wigington either had a child out of wedlock, or got divorced and therefore became a single parent.  In the usual sense of the term, they'd be right; Wigington split up with her son's dad when she was only three months pregnant.  But she didn't become a single mother then, even though she thought of herself that way.
My son's dad and I split up when I was three months pregnant, so I always called myself a single mom or single parent. After a contentious custody battle; ending with shared custody, our relationship mellowed and our goal was to be Team Nick; to make sure our son was happy, healthy and above all else, safe.
And throughout Nick's growing up, they shared custody of him and worked together - literally - to give him the best and the most of each of them.
We worked the Little League candy shack together, and attended all football games, school events and numerous holidays as a family. He fixed my car and my plumbing, and took my dogs for walks; once we took a class on genetics and studied together nightly for weeks.
Once Nick was out of the nest, he joined the Marine Corps and did a tour of duty in Iraq.  During all that time the two joined in concern for their son's welfare.  When he returned stateside, they both went to see him.  They continued to communicate with and about him.  They travelled across the country together twice, ferrying each other's belongings, pets, etc.
My son's dad died unexpectedly this January. He was 53 years old. I realize now I was never a single parent. He and I had a strange but enduring relationship. I miss him more than I ever imagined, but more than anything, I miss having a partner in worry. The key element of our relationship was probably having someone to share the fear and constant concern, without having to explain why.
I was not a single parent all those years while Nick was growing up. Now, there isn't much parenting to do for a 26-year-old. I worry by myself, or call my sisters, or even Nick's uncle. It's just not the same though. Now, I'm a single parent.
I love her perspective on her life as a mother without her son's father beside her, but with her all the same.  It's undeniable that Wigington and her ex weren't like many divorced couples.  Few former spouses stay as close as they did or share as intimately their children's growing up.  But her understanding of her situation has deep and powerful resonance for all divorced or separated couples.  Its wisdom is that the family remains.  It remains because the father will always be the father of the child just as the mother will always be its mother.  And the child will always be the son or daughter of the parents.  Those things don't change just because Mom and Dad no longer share a residence.  They don't change, that is, until one of the three passes from this life as Wigington's partner did.  As she says, then and only then did she become a single parent. Family dissolution.  That's what family courts say they're doing.  They're not.  What they're doing is family rearrangement.  Maybe if more judges understood that simple concept - the one Katie Wigington so clearly gets - they'd see their job differently and all of us, fathers, mothers and children would be the better for it.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Things have gotten so bad at Arizona Child Protective Services that the governor has vowed change.  But if this article (Arizona Republic, 10/14/11) or this article (Arizona Central, 10/15/11) is any indication, the results won't be good.  The complaints about Arizona CPS have been coming fast and furiously for some time, and every time someone from inside the child welfare bureaucracy responds, they come off like, well,  classic bureaucrats.  "It's not my fault; I'm the victim here," is the refrain in two articles I've reported on that quoted senior CPS bureaucrats at length. In the meantime, children are being abused and some are dying because of the dysfunction in the state's CPS system.  So it must be good that Governor Jan Brewer has announced her intention to appoint a task force to do a top-to-bottom review of CPS and

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Those who argue for greater powers for child protection agencies to take children from parents should watch this video. The last piece I posted quoted Arizona columnist Laurie Roberts urging CPS there to remove more children from parents in the misguided belief that doing so would help children.  It's true that, in the instances she cited from the past 19 years, it probably would have helped, but she's not pretending that CPS can always know which child will be injured or killed and which one won't be.  So of necessity, Roberts' argument is for more children to be taken from their parents. We don't need to imagine what this enormous expansion of CPS's power to break up families might look like.  We need only watch the linked-to video and see what's happening in the Province of Ontario and its Children's Aid Society. The video is an hour and fifteen minutes long.  It consists almost entirely of bits of interviews with various people.  It's an impressionistic approach and includes no pro-CAS voices.  So the video isn't a scientific inquiry into the behavior of Ontario CAS.  It's a litany of the experiences of the people interviewed. But the variety of interviewees gives the piece definite heft.  It's not just a series of horror stories by parents who claim CAS violated their rights, although there are some of those.  The people interviewed are also lawyers who've opposed CAS and those who've represented CAS in court.  There are doctors and mental health professionals, many of whom used to work for CAS.  There are social workers formerly with CAS and, most tellingly, there are adults who, as children, were taken from their parents and placed in foster care. Like any good work of Impressionism, each individual part of the whole is insignificant, almost meaningless, but step back and the whole picture comes into focus.  Unlike many works of Impressionism however, there's nothing beautiful about the picture of CAS drawn by this video. It's a picture we've seen before.  It's a picture of an agency with very nearly unbridled power.  Indeed, the title of the piece is "Powerful As God," which you might think is a little over the top until, late in the film, you realize that it's a direct quotation from a CAS case worker informing a desperate parent just what she was up against. It's all there and then some.  There are the parents blinded by rage at their children being taken from them for no legitimate reason.  There's the IT Engineer who's son was taken from him and his wife because  their housecleaner reported an unclean house to CAS.  And there's the grandmother who tapped a teacher on the shoulder at school, was charged with assault and had her grandkids, of whom she had custody, taken from her.  There's the mom who says "I did nothing wrong."  There's the mother who admits to cocaine use, but, after being clean for five years still couldn't convince CAS to give her child back. It's no accident that CAS overreaches so dramatically.  Money fuels the process.  CAS is paid according to how many children it takes "into care," i.e. from parents.  Clearly enough, that establishes an incentive to do just that.  After all, faced with leaving a child with its parents and losing money, or taking a child and making it, the choice isn't difficult.  And caseworkers are acutely aware that jobs depend on budgets, so when budgets depend on taking children from parents, well, you can guess what happens. The subject of case workers is fraught with conflicting aims and motivations.  To me, one of the most chilling moments comes early in the film when one mother describes CAS coming for her children and they were smiling.  As she points out, what kind of person smiles when they do what should be one of the most heart-rending tasks imaginable? On the other hand, a nurse who worked with CAS described seeing a social worker with the agency sitting at a table weeping because she didn't see how she could continue doing a job that was so divorced from actual child well-being.  The combination of the two - the smiling and the weeping case workers - says to me that, at CAS, the humane ones don't last.  The ones who do, smile when they come for your children. Any parent who challenges CAS in court confronts a radical imbalance of power.  Attorney Michael Clarke emphasizes that, alone among all agencies of government, CAS has the power of search and seizure, the ability to question children without their parents being present and, above all the power to take a parent's child.  Just how large a stick that is, he makes clear.  Parents will do virtually anything CAS wants to avoid that outcome. CAS often targets the poorest parents which means that when they get into court, the parent is usually unrepresented or has a public defender.  Meanwhile, CAS has essentially unlimited resources of attorneys, mental health professionals and the money to pay them.  It also has time on its side since, in most cases, children have been taken into care and it's the parents who are trying to regain them. Callie Langfeld is now an adult, but when she was a child, she was taken from her mother by CAS.  She couldn't tell her story then, but now she can.  She says when CAS first talked to her, caseworkers "railroaded" her into care telling her how dangerous her family was.  Once in foster care, though, Langfeld learned just how dangerous a family could be.  She says she was sexually and physically abused, but when her real mother contacted CAS, she was told "there's nothing we can do." Langfeld reports that her foster mother apparently wanted her for the work she could do around the house.  At age 13, she did essentially all the housework including cooking and caring for the mother's two younger children.  Another young man, George Gilbeau, reports physical and sexual abuse in the foster home in which CAS placed him. Lawyers, children and parents alike report a particularly wicked strategy used by CAS to separate parents from children.  Parents are told that their child doesn't want to be with them; children are told that their parents don't want them.  Those messages, combined with the prohibition by CAS against any communication between parents and children can be highly effective at separating children from their parents. I highly recommend this video.  I'll post more about it later. Thanks to Attila for the heads-up.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
There's more to say about the video entitled "Powerful as God" on the Ontario Children's Aid Society.  That's primarily because there's a movement afoot, in Arizona at least, to vest still more power in child welfare agencies for the specific purpose of taking more children from families. As I said in my previous piece, sometimes there's a good reason to take children from parents.  Some parents, sadly, are dangerous to their children, through either their abuse or neglect of them.  But there's also a reason why CPS agencies have, as part of their mandate, family reunification.  That's mainly because biological parents tend to be better parents than any other person or collection of people.  A wealth of social science has shown that for decades. So it's worth seeing the reality of what people who urge greater family destruction by CPS are really arguing for.  I don't doubt that people like Laurie Roberts want children protected from harm.  But their naive belief that ever more children consigned to foster care by overworked, underpaid and undertrained CPS workers will solve the problem is misguided at best. And that's just what the video documentary "Powerful as God" shows - the direction in which Roberts and others would have us go. Like most bureaucratic institutions, Ontario's CAS prefers to act in secrecy.  It calls it "confidentiality," and it justifies the curtain behind which it acts as necessary for the well-being of the children it takes into care.  But, as one interviewee points out, the secrecy is far more for the protection of CAS and its case workers than for the children.  After all, when a child is taken from a parent who's done little or nothing wrong, and is turned over to a foster mother who tries to drown him, or one who sexually abuses her, CAS could look bad.  So secrecy serves to keep those cases from scrutiny by a public that might not understand the need to take the child in the first place.  Of course, the better to recruit public sentiment to its side, CAS often ignores its rules about "confidentiality."  It does so when there's a case that makes it look good and in those, it not only publicizes the case, it names names. According to the video, a salient feature of CAS's worldview is that of adversary, i.e. the bunker mentality of "us against the world."  Like the matter of secrecy, that mostly serves to protect the agency against questioning by irate parents, lawyers, judges and the like.  Protection for children is secondary. So, much of what CAS case workers do is with an eye toward possible litigation.  And when that inevitably happens, CAS circles the wagons and defends its actions, whatever they may have been.  A case in which a child's welfare is involved then, becomes a case not of what's best for the child, but one of how best to justify what CAS did or failed to do. As Alfred Mamo, an attorney who has represented CAS in court, said, that process "has nothing to do with parenting."  What's best for the children gets lost in the antagonism of legal charge and countercharge. That concept of their jobs as part of permanent litigation against them and CAS leads, unsurprisingly, to illegal and unethical behavior on the part of case workers.  One attorney said he's "seen it too many times" that case workers have suppressed evidence and perjured themselves to defend their actions toward a child.  "Cross examination to a case worker is like garlic to a vampire," he said. Inevitably, the implicit threat of lawsuits skews not only what case workers testify to, but how they conduct individual cases.  Thus, a case worker may choose not to interview a particular person if she suspects that person won't support what the case worker did or wants to do with a child.  In that way, contradictory evidence never makes it into the child's file.  But of course that evidence also doesn't make it into the case worker's assessment of whether or not to take a child into care. That absence of a concept of the child's welfare carries over into all aspects of CAS's day-to-day behavior.  As one parent who was having trouble dealing with her ADHD child said, "No one ever asked 'how can we help you?"  The "solution" to all parenting problems is foster care. And as lawyers, parents and former CAS case workers point out, that's a curious approach to child welfare.  One of the lawyers interviewed said that a foster parent in Ontario gets $30 a day for a child; that's $900 a month.  As several of the interviewees point out, maybe that money would be better spent helping parents deal with specific issues of childcare. So maybe Parent A is struggling with an ADHD child.  Why not connect that parent with a professional who can help?  Could that be done for $900 a month?  You bet it could, but CAS has one solution for every problem - foster care. Of course there are cases of child injury and abuse that won't be helped by that sort of intervention.  There will always be a need for foster care.  But Ontario CAS, like many similar institutions in the U.S., often errs on the side of family break-up rather than family unity.  The point is that money spent on foster care could often be better spent to assist parents become better at the important job they're trying to do. After all, as former CAS social worker Tammis Smith said, the research showing that kids do better in foster care than in parental care is "missing." Misconceptions about what foster care really consists of abound.  Many people believe that children taken into foster care go to healthy families with a mother and a father.  Sometimes they do, but often they go to group homes in which many children are thrown together under the care, not of one set of parents, but of employees of the home. One such former employee, Nick, said that group homes are strictly money-making operations.  If one child goes back to its parents, that means a loss of income that must be made up by the addition of another child.  Empty beds mean lost jobs and empty wallets. Putting many unrelated children together can always lead to difficulties, but when many of those children have behavioral problems, a bad situation gets much worse.  For that, the group homes have a handy solution - medication.  One psychologist who used to work with CAS said that, in her experience, "almost every child in group homes" is on some sort of psychotropic medication. "It's all about control," echoed Nick, the former group home worker.   What pretty much everyone in the video agrees on is that CAS should dispense with its self-protective secrecy and open its decision making to public scrutiny.  That's certainly a good idea.  Public institutions that operate out of sight of the public that pays every cent of their operating budgets, invariably abuse the privilege, so greater openness is indeed required. On that note, it's interesting that one of Laurie Roberts' pet peeves is that Arizona CPS refuses to turn over records in various cases to her or the Arizona Republic newspaper.  In other words, it's behaving the way any governmental institution cloaked in secrecy behaves.  And rightly, Roberts is unhappy about it.  Like any journalist, she thinks the public has the right to know what its servants are up to. So it's odd to say the least that she calls for more of the same - greater power for CPS to break up families would mean all the things the people in "Powerful as God" complain of, including greater secrecy.  After all, CPS in Arizona wouldn't want enraged parents going to a newspapers with their stories, now would it.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
kramer-vs-kramer Perhaps the most famous and enduring movie about divorce and child custody is Kramer vs. Kramer (1979). Fathers and Families' New York City members have a great chance to see this stunning divorce-related drama and discuss it with the film's director, three time Academy Award Winning Director, Screenwriter and Producer Robert Benton, and novelist Avery Corman, author of the book Kramer vs. Kramer, this Wednesday (October 19) at 7:00 PM. This event, hosted by Fordham Law School's Forum on Law, Culture & Society, will be held at the James B.M. McNally Amphitheater at 140 West 62nd Street, New York, NY, 10023 (near Lincoln Center). Come see this movie and add your perspective of how family court really operates during the discussion period with these distinguished guests, and be sure to mention the work of Fathers and Families. To learn more and to purchase tickets, click here. In Kramer vs. Kramer--the most influential, if not the first, film to spotlight child custody battles and the law"s settled presumptions about parental roles--Dustin Hoffman stars as a workaholic father left to care for his son when his wife, played by Meryl Streep, leaves them. He is ultimately drawn into a bitter legal fight when she returns seeking custody of their child. [caption id="" align="alignright" width="250" caption="Kramer vs. Kramer director Robert Benton will be discussing the film this Wednesday at the Fordham Law School's Forum on Law, Culture & Society"][/caption] The film stars Dustin Hoffman as Ted Kramer, a workaholic advertising executive who has just been assigned a new and very large account. After being given the news, he returns home to find his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) in the process of leaving him. Saying that she needs to find herself, she leaves Ted to raise their son Billy (Justin Henry) by himself. Fifteen months after she walked out, Joanna returns to New York in order to claim Billy, and a custody battle ensues. What would happen in this scenario in present day family court? And how did the 1979 plot end? To learn more about Kramer vs. Kramer, see Wikipedia's entry here.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="250" caption="Paternity fraud victim Pedro Soto and his wife Gabriela."][/caption] "Despite the Legislature"s clear directive that child support agencies not pursue mistaken child support actions, the County is asking that we do so.  We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result.  We say no to the County, and we reverse."--County of Los Angeles v. Navarro, (2004) In a stunning victory, duped dad Pedro Soto and his attorney Richard A. Lowe, Esq. have prevailed against the Orange County Department of Child Support Services in a paternity fraud case emblematic of the numerous outrageous injustices faced by men and fathers in family court. In this case, Soto has paid over $75,000 in child support for a child DNA tests have established is not his, and who has been living with both of his biological parents for many years. Action Alert--Your Participation Needed! Fathers and Families condemns the conduct of OCDCSS in fighting to preserve a paternity judgment it knows to be false. We want to add your name to our letter to OCDCSS, which will also be copied to the California DCSS--to read the letter and add your name, please click here. Also, victories cost money. As you'll read below, F & F's efforts to preserve the crucial Navarro decision led directly to the Soto victory, and opened the door to many others. Please give to support our vital work by going to www.FathersandFamilies.org/give. The Soto Case: Background [caption id="attachment_20045" align="alignright" width="237" caption="Talented Los Angeles family law attorney Richard A. Lowe, Esq., who represented Soto."]richard-a-lowe-2[/caption] In 1998, Soto, deceived by his then-girlfriend Maricela Guerrero into believing that her newborn son Aaron was Soto's, stepped up and did what he thought was right by signing a paternity declaration. Talented Los Angeles family law attorney Richard A. Lowe, Esq., with the valuable assistance of Pepperdine law student Sarah dela Cruz McKendricks, represented Soto. He explains:

Petitioner made his child support payments and had regular visitations with Aaron without the slightest suspicion that he may not be Aaron"s biological father...Petitioner"s visitations with Aaron continued on a regular basis with Aaron spending alternate weekends with Petitioner and his family in their home...[in] 2008 Aaron [said]....he had a "real' dad, Francisco Serrano, and knew that Petitioner was only his "step' dad...Identigene labs concluded that Pedro Soto is not the biological father of Aaron Soto...Chromosomal Laboratories, Inc. concluded that...Francisco Serrano was Aaron"s father.

Since Aaron is living with and being supported by his biological father, Francisco Serrano, it is clear that Petitioner"s child support payments are really pocket money for Maricela Guerrero and not the "child support' that the courts have ordered...by lying about the real father of Aaron, Ms. Guerrero has set up a scheme whereby she can fleece her innocent former boyfriend and have the County aid her in enforcing this unfair scheme...

As Petitioner states in his Declaration, Aaron will always be welcomed in his home, however, he does not wish to continue the falsehood that he is Aaron"s biological father.  Clearly it is in the best interest of the child that his biological...father be established.

Support Fathers and Families' Paternity Fraud Bills: F & F's SB 375 & SB 377 will end outrageous injustices such as those experienced by Soto and tens of thousands of others--to learn more, click here. Soto's Attempt to Get Equitable Relief In Soto's motion to set aside his paternity judgment, Lowe wrote:

[T]he Department concedes that Francisco Serrano, not Petitioner [Pedro Soto], is the real father of Aaron Soto, but insists that due to the passage of time the injustice of Petitioner paying child support for a child that is living with, and being supported by his real father, should be extended at least another five years until Aaron reaches eighteen and finishes high school.  The sheer injustice of the situation does not seem to bother the Department one bit.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="250" caption="Lowe and Pepperdine law student Sarah dela Cruz McKendricks, who helped Lowe with the Soto case."][/caption] Lowe conceded that the law is against Soto but argued that under subsection (c) of Family Code Section §7575 "[T]his court still possesses the authority to right this wrong under its equitable powers." The 2004 Navarro Case Lowe cited County of Los Angeles v. Navarro (2004) as case law in urging the Court to exercise its equitable powers to right a clear injustice in a paternity case.  In Navarro, the trial court denied a motion to vacate a judgment entered against Manuel Navarro establishing him as the father of two boys and ordering him to pay child support for them. Navarro had been erroneously "defaulted into fatherhood" of children he did not know. The motion was filed over five years after Judgment had been entered against him and was definitely time-barred.  The County of Los Angeles opposed the motion, arguing that relief should not be granted Mr. Navarro because the statute of limitation had run against him.

Soto's Attorney Richard A. Lowe Thanks Fathers and Families: "You helped preserve the Navarro decision, and that was all we had to hang our hats on in this case." The trial court sided with the County and denied the motion. Navarro's resolute and gifted attorney, Linda Ferrer, Esq., appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the denial and granted Navarro"s request that the judgment against him be set aside. The Navarro Court explained:

A profound mistake occurred here when appellant was charged with being the boys" father…Instead of remedying its mistake, the County retreats behind the procedural redoubt offered by the passage of time since it took appellant"s default.

It is this State"s policy that when a mistake occurs in a child support action the County must correct it, not exploit it…Thousands of individuals each year are mistakenly identified as being liable for child support actions.  As a result of that action, the ability to earn a living is severely impaired, assets are seized, and family relationships are often destroyed.  It is the moral, legal, and ethical obligation of all enforcement agencies to take prompt action to recognize those cases…and correct any injustice to that person.

Despite the Legislature"s clear directive that child support agencies not pursue mistaken child support actions, the County is asking that we do so.  We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result.  We say no to the County, and we reverse.

The Soto Decision Judge Paula J. Coleman agreed with Lowe and the Navarro court, and granted Soto's motion to set aside his paternity judgment. She also ordered that a new birth certificate for Aaron be issued, and that Pedro Soto's name not be on it. To read Coleman's order, click here. The Long, Hard Struggle to Defend Victims of Paternity Fraud Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles), a longtime family court reform advocate, was the sponsor of the Child Support Enforcement Fairness Act of 2000, and the Navarro court cited this law as the basis for its decision. Fathers and Families' legislative representative Michael Robinson has successfully worked for many years to bring equity and fairness to child support and paternity fraud cases, and many of Robinson's actions directly impacted the Soto case. After Navarro, the Los Angeles County Department of Child Support Services asked the California Supreme Court to depublish the case, which would prevent other paternity fraud victims from using Navarro to liberate themselves. Robinson sought and submitted amicus letters against depublication from numerous California legislators and prominent attorneys, including: former Assemblywoman Nicole M. Parra; former Assemblyman Raymond Haynes; former Senator Dick Ackerman; former Senator Roy Ashburn; Senator Rod Wright; prominent family law appellate specialist Jeff Doeringer; Roger Dale Juntunen, J.D., M.B.A.; and others, as well as the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Office and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. To read their amicus letters, click here [37MB]. Navarro's attorney, Linda Ferrer, praised Robinson's "extraordinary" work in this letter. When attorneys for the Fresno Department of Child Support Services tried in the Sanchez paternity fraud case to assert that Navarro had been abrogated by AB 252 (an earlier paternity fraud bill that Robinson helped pass), Robinson got one of the bill's principal co-authors, then-Senator Roy Ashburn, to issue a declaration stating that the legislature's intent in passing the bill was not to abrogate Navarro. To read Ashburn's declaration, click here. Continuing the Fight: F & F's SB 375 & SB 377 Fathers and Families' SB 375 & SB 377 will end outrageous injustices such as those experienced by Soto and tens of thousands of men who have been unable to get out of fraudulent paternity judgments. These bills will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee early next year. To learn more, click here. Also, see our column Bill would give 'duped dads' some fairness under the law (Los Angeles Daily News, 6/2/11). If you are a victim of paternity fraud, whether in California or in another state, we want to know your story--please click here. Pedro Soto Thanks Lowe, Fathers and Families Pedro Soto writes:

Mr. Lowe and Ms. McKendricks did an excellent job with my case, and I am forever grateful with them.  Mr. Lowe took my case when other attorneys refused, citing the statute of limitations. I had given up hope, but Mr. Lowe gave me the desire to continue the fight and move forward.

Fathers and Families is a great organization that fights for what is right and just. Thank you all for keeping cases such as Navarro available for all of us, and I hope that my case also helps right the many similar injustices still out there.

Soto Case Documents Below are the documents in the Soto case:

Soto's Memorandum of Points and Authorities: The Facts in This Case Cry Out for Equitable Relief

Pedro Soto's Declaration

OCDCSS' Response to Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Judgment

Petitioner's Reply to Defendant's Response

Amendment to Motion to Set Aside Judgment of Paternity

Judge Paula J. Coleman's Order

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn