Background: California Lawyer magazine covered the Fathers’ Rights Movement in the #2 story in its March issue–The Dad-Vocates by Bill Blum. The article quotes family law attorney David C. Stone, men’s advocate Warren Farrell, Craig Candelore of the Men’s Legal Center, myself, and others.
In the article, Helen Grieco, executive director of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) says, “The fathers’ rights movement is both dishonest and dangerous.” According to Blum:
“She views the rise of fathers’ rights organizations in the 1980s-and the accompanying increase in custody disputes as bargaining tools-as a direct response to ‘the demand of the women’s movement for greater child support, which ended up costing fathers more money.’ Under California law (Cal. Fam. Code 4055), Grieco points out, child-support payments are determined by a formula tying support both to the income of the parents and, most important, to the percentage of time children spend in the physical custody of each parent. Generally, the more time a child spends with a mother having primary physical custody, the more support a father must pay.
“‘There are definitely financial reasons why some men seek child custody,’ says USC Law School professor Scott Altman, who studied divorce-negotiation tactics by polling the members of the family law section of the California Bar. Altman found that over a one-year period more than 60 percent of divorce attorneys reported receiving threats of custody litigation from their opponents to extract more favorable child-support arrangements. Altman further found that attorneys who represented women exclusively or predominantly received such threats three times as often as their counterparts. (Lurking in the Shadow, 68 USC L. Rev. 493 (1995).)”
This is a common and misleading feminist argument. I discussed it in my co-authored column Louisiana’s HB 315 Says One Parent is Better Than Two (Shreveport Times, 5/20/06):
“In Louisiana, like most states, how much time each parent spends with his or her children helps determine how much child support is ordered. Rep. Shirley Bowler (R-River Ridge), who authored the bill, asserts that dads seek shared custody as a way to decrease their child support obligations. She promotes HB 315 as a way to ‘remove this angle’ in the current law, which she claims divorced dads are exploiting.
“While it is true that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children’s best interests, Bowler and the bill’s supporters ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn’t it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?
“Similarly, critics charge that the child support provisions of current law amount to paying men to spend time with their children. In reality, the provisions simply acknowledge that both moms and dads have child-related expenses.”
|
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
shatteredmen said,
One thing that blows this right out of the water. Many men spend far more to try to get custody of their children then they would pay in child support and most of them would want full custody even if they know they will not GET a dime in child support (chances are they will not anyway) so it appears that since it cost so much to raise a child, these money hungry men are willing to PAY to get their kids and to pay for all of their expenses alone. Still far more fathers with custody will assure the children still have a relationship with their mother, sometimes at great risk.
Most dads want full custody to keep their kids safe from abuse so the money they spend doing it is well worth the price to them. IF these mothers were so concerned about the safty of the children and NOW was correct that fathers only want to keep abusing their children…WHY do they not feel the same way as do dads? It is not about justice with feminist….it is about control and money
It is also my understanding that the less time DAD has with his kids…the more money the courts get too….again…follow the MONEY!
March 6, 2008 at 2:49 am
Big shooter said,
March 6, 2008 at 6:36 am
Robert Stevens said,
The good news is, that most people are smart enough to discount and not believe the carefully crafted feminist lies. More and more people are seeing the light and are not supporting feminist bull shit anymore. They realize that fathers and men are being terribly mistreated and it is time for a change.
The feminist in my mind were foolish to think that people would not get wise to them. People may be naive and trusting, but they are not stupid.
The more the feminist spout hate and discord, the more they lose support. Soon they will be out of business, like nazism and communism, an evil idea that will have it’s day of judgement. I just hope once they are gone, people don’t forget to quickly.
March 6, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Denis said,
I don’t think we are anywhere near the point of feminists being out of business. HRC is a radical feminist: anti-father, anti-male, anti-family.
Her support amongst women is very high. They are either in agreement with HRC on her radical views or are ignorant of her radical views but hold the view that it is important that a woman-any woman-become President. In either case the women supporting HRC do not give a damn about the rights of men and fathers. HRC will make radical feminism vogue again amongst women.
March 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm
fourthwire said,
I could not help but to laugh when I read from one of head NOW-sows that a MEN’S GROUP is “dishonest and dangerous”………….
Feminazi groups like the NOW-sows are well-known liars, whether they are publishing their propaganda about rape, D.V. paternity fraud, or most aspects of their hate/fear campaigns against men.
And based on their destruction of the family, it’s fairly difficult to find any other special interest groups as dangerous as they have been in the last few decades.
Robert Stevens, you are being entirely too optimistic that feminism will collapse anytime in the near future. Remember the vote count the last time that VAWA was extended? IMBRA? Do you see any signs of Clinton being politically marginalized for her support of the feminazis?
Denis, good to see you posting!
March 6, 2008 at 7:07 pm
harry said,
I think that Helen Grieco is absolutely right to say that the fathers’ rights movement is ‘dangerous’.
It is dangerous to feminism and to people like her.
Indeed, I would go much further.
In my view, the MM is going to end up being **very** dangerous as far as its opponents are concerned.
March 7, 2008 at 8:50 am
redrajesh said,
Groups like now have access to all the goons of the world with all the tax money which they have swindled out of the hardworking men, they ensure that women like mary winkler and clara harris can get away with murder by threatening judges, organize bombings of places where people decide to collect to speak the truth about feminism. and attempt to murder people who dare to speak the truth like the murder attempt on Terri Lynn Tersak. In today’s world. there is nothing more dangerous than feminist organizations and feminist women.
March 7, 2008 at 9:54 am
Roger Knight said,
No dishonesty necessary. Truth works quite well.
March 7, 2008 at 10:43 am
Denis said,
The Advertsing link on California Lawyer states:
Size
California has 20% of all practicing attorneys nationwide
Reach
California Lawyer circulates to 100% of California?s practicing attorneys and to:
100% of California Judiciary
Managing Partners in the top 250 firms
Corporate Counsel
Information Technology directors
Administrators
This may mean that lawyers will see that there is money to be made here. Mens and fathers rights are a new area to get involved with. To profit from. Perhaps a class action lawsuit?? And the message is getting out to IT Directors and Administrators.
Yes. We are dangerous. To all you feminsts:
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
We are coming.
harry and fourthwire:
good to see you both as well! Highest regards.
March 7, 2008 at 7:06 pm
The NCP Revue » Blog Archive » Now fears fathers said,
March 9, 2008 at 6:46 pm