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.
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.
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 youThis 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.
"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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
[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.
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: