Enforcing Parental Rights – The Right Way
Parental rights are enforced through either: (a) negotiating agreements with your co-parent; or, (2) acquiring appropriate court orders. Here are the secrets for maximizing your success, in both arenas:
1. Know your parental rights.
You don’t have any.
Nor does any other parent. Parental rights belong to the child, not to the parent.
You have parental responsibilities, and the powers and authorities essential for discharging those responsibilities. These are not “rights,” in the conventional sense, in that you are not “allowed” to use these powers and authorities, if and when you so choose. You are required to use them, on behalf of our child, at all times.
2. Know your child’s parental rights.
Your child’s parental rights include your best efforts to enforce those rights. That includes, among other things, putting your child’s needs and interests first. Not yours.
Your child’s parental rights also include liberal access to, and quality parenting from, both parents. Unless you or your co-parent is unfit, your parental responsibilities include your best efforts to enforce these parental rights, as zealously as you would any other.
3. Know how to discuss parental rights.
Similarly, your purpose for discussing your child, with your co-parent, with the Court, or with your lawyer, is to protect and to promote your child’s rights and interests. Not yours.
Discussing your own needs and interests, rather than those of your child, suggests that you assign little or no importance to your child’s welfare whenever it is inconvenient for you to do so.
Check your needs and interests at the door. Do not discuss them. Do not refer to them. Do not even mention them.
4. Know who “owns” your child.
You do not own your child.
Lincoln freed the slaves. Since then, human beings may not “own” other human beings. Even if they are parent and child.
Indeed, if anyone owns anyone, your responsibilities to your child suggest that your child owns you, not vice versa.
5. Know the relationship between your child’s welfare and yours.
Your welfare is crucial to your child’s welfare.
That means you have a duty to your child to be as strong, happy and healthy as is possible. To do otherwise will decrease your ability to show up as a parent, and will set the wrong example for your child to follow later.
Hence, protecting your child’s parental rights absolutely requires protecting your health and welfare, to the wall. You cannot put your child’s interests first, unless your health and welfare allow you to do so.
6. Know your options for acquiring and enforcing parental rights.
You have two options: Negotiation and litigation.
Here is the answer to many of your most complicated questions: There are two ways, and only two ways, to get anything done for your child. They are:
(a) You attempt to convince your co-parent agree to it; or,
(b) You attempt to convince the court to order it.
There are no other options. Ever.
7. Know the Eight Magic Words essential for acquiring and enforcing parental rights.
If you remember nothing else from this article, remember to use these eight magic words, religiously:
“This is in our child’s best interests, because . . .”
Every argument, suggestion, position or perspective that you and your lawyer advance, either to the court or to your co-parent, must begin with these magic words.
Arguments that do not begin with these words will have zero merit or relevance. They will also kill your credibility as a concerned parent. Throw them out now, save everyone else the trouble, and save yourself the embarrassment.
8. Know how to label your child.
You should refer to your child in only the following ways: (a) “Our child;” (b) “Our son” (c) “Our daughter;” and, (d) By your child’s first name.
Let’s make very sure that we clearly understand the following, key concepts: (a) “Children” are “persons,” not “property;” (b) “Persons” have rights and interests. “Property” does not; and, (c) “Children” need constant access to, and parenting from, both parents. “Property” does not.
If you refer to your child as “my” anything, it will suggest the following:
(1) You believe that your child is an item of mere property, that you somehow own, rather than a sovereign human being for whom you are responsible; or,
(2) You are unable or unwilling to recognize how essential it is to the child to have constant access to, and parenting from, the other parent; or,
(3) Both of the above.
When referring to your child, always use the options suggested above to avoid this problem.
9. Know how to choose the right attorney.
You owe it to your child to choose an attorney that thoroughly understands and adheres to these concepts.
Your job is to protect and to promote your child’s rights and interests. Your attorney’s job is to help you to do that. If your attorney is not helping you to put your child first, find another attorney who does.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Attorney Dean M. Schreyer is licensed to practice in California, and serves as a staff attorney at Men’s Legal Center in San Diego. To find out more about either Mr. Schreyer or Men’s Legal Center, please go to: www.menslegal.com.
The material on this document is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal or other professional advice for any purpose. No attorney/client relationship, and no confidential relationship of any kind, is formed by reviewing or using this material in any way, or from any direct or indirect contact with any attorney arising from that review or use. If you need legal or other professional services, consult with the appropriate, competent attorney or other professional.
| More from Dean M. Schreyer
Stumble It!
October 27th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Children should have no rights greater than their parents!
They did not ask to be born into this world, but neither did their parents…
Adults are a known quantity, they can be measured through their actions over often many years. Children could turn out to be the worst thing since Pol Pot
Where did this legal rubbish come from?
Answer: the feminists
David
October 28th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Ouch! Where did the concepts mentioned here come from? The fallacy is accepting the idea a third party is arbiter to your relationship with your children. That government has the right to interfere the moment the moment an issue is raised.
The exercise of “rights” requires responsibility; and by definition, children are not held responsible. No one has a ‘right’ to happiness, including our kids. Parents are not required to act in the ‘best interest’ of their kids.
Sometimes we do what is best for us. It is part of family and growing as a family, together. This person is not talking about ‘parental rights’ at all — but just justifying the current legal system’s excuse for interfering in family.
Not a very good article.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:53 am
The state lurks outside the door monitoring the child-parent relationship even in the best of times. It lurks and waits. Finally, it is usually divorce which invites Dracula over the threshold and into your and your kids’ lives.
This article is sobering, but in the context of a divorce, it is crucial advice, given the way the laws are currently set up.
Since it is a man who usually is the one needing to follow this advice, I would say that, yes, feminism’s stench can be strongly detected — feminism hasn’t met a father yet who it didn’t think was an actual or potential abusive tyrant who would be best removed from the family.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Diminishing parental rights, creating division among men and women and marginalising men via VAWA, Cap & Trade, carbon taxaton, the U.N., Global Institutions, the Environmental Movement, Feminism, taxpayers bailing out the corrupt banks such as Goldman Sachs and putting these same people in positions of political power to regulate the very problems they create-all of these are about The Elite subjugating the masses. Obama, Bush….it doesn’t matter-they are controlled by the same puppetmasters. The Frankfurt School Agenda will be completed under Obama. Americans: you are NOT free citizens; you are manipulated pawns. Your government has become your enemy.
Go to:
Fall of the Republic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
October 28th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I wonder what Baskerville would have to say about this gibberish?
If the courts truly had the best interests of children in mind there would be equal custody wherever possible. Fathers separated from their children would be the exception and not the rule. It’s the rule, because that’s the only way to extort the coveted child support.
Why do we keep hashing over the same BS?
It should be pretty obvious what needs to happen here. We need to get these government parasites out of our lives not play their game to our own detriment.
Almost 70 million Americans are now refusing to pay income taxes. Check out Sherry Jackson and Joe Banister on youtube.
@Denis
That’s a good video. I just saw it the other day. It really makes you think.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Remember-Schryer is a CA attorney. That should give everybody an idea about his thinking. Parents in fact do (or ought to) have rights and these include rights greater than those of the state (as well as the child). The state is continuously attacking this. These parental rights are being diminished gradually across the U.S. as they have already been in CA. As one example, the state ought not force a parent to accept the teaching of homosexuality to their kindergarten children at all much less in a manner that only the state chooses is appropriate. Parents do have responsibilities as well. Children ought not have rights greater than their parents-something that certainly is not true in the Republic of Kalifornia. If this is what Kalifornia considers a Men’s Legal Center attorney then I want no part of this organization. Men’s organization everywhere ought to have as a primary goal the expansion and strengthening of men’s rights and father’s rights. This attorney is a weak warrior for men and fathers. If you want to protect children then first start by spending your legal time protecting the rights of men and father’s. The state does a poor job sustituting for a father as does any woman anywhere. Here we go again: men and fathers are secondary as usual in discussing parental rights. When was the last time anyone anywhere told women THEY have no parental rights? That sure never happens to the women in Family Courts across the U.S. but it happens every damn day to fathers.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:35 am
The rule set out in this article may not be fair or right but I followed them scrupulously in my custody fight. My ex did not. Her every phrase was my needs my needs.
My son won.
The advise in this article is a fairly good approach, I believe, to winning.
Winning for my son is the kind of MR activism I can endorse.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Mr. Schryer works with one of my favorite men’s attorneys in the country. I think some people may have mistaken his angle.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
@ Teri
I think you made an understatement, lol. It is most clear to me that Mr. Schreyer is addressing the realities of how the courts work, and what is actually in the best interest of children.
I think there was a lot of knee jerk reactions here as though Mr. Schreyer were endorsing policies against fathers and parents.
I suggest that those readers who inferred as much from this piece take a breath and give it another read. It is good advice, as anonymous posted.
I invited Mr. Schreyer to contribute here, and his work is now included in the new Lifestyles section for men in this publication. I did so because after a thorough review of their website and witnessing the mission of the good men at http://www.menslegal.com
One visit to their site should more than clarify where they stand on the legal issues that affect men.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:58 am
When I hear anyone say that:
“1. Know your parental rights.”
“You don’t have any.”
I have more than a knee jerk reaction.
The above statement is indefensible. Angle or no angle. Parents do have rights. The fact that the state pisses on these everyday does not diminish that fact.
Nuff said.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I agree with Denis.
I think the knee-jerk reaction is in thinking that this gibberish makes sense.
All I can say to the anonymous poster is good for you, but the truth is that it’s not just about your son, or your particular set of circumstances.
I really am surprised that anyone who claims to care about parental rights can be in favor of this nonsense. What would this eventually lead to? A circus where both parents try to outdo the other on who’s best for the child? Spending a fortune on expert witnesses to prove the other parent unfit?
In a word … ridiculous.
John Muttari is right on this one. There needs to be a presumption of shared parenting and incidentally, that’s the law. *Equal protection* as in “equal rights” … get it?
October 31st, 2009 at 3:46 am
@ Kevin Merck
I agree with John as well. There should be a presumption of shared patenting. And you are quite correct to point out that there should also be Equal protection and equal rights.
Sadly we all know how different things are from how they should be.
It is just my take on this that the author was writing from the vantage point of dealing with the system as it is, not as it should be. And as the system is, this is good advice.
Again, my take, I could be wrong.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:18 am
@ Paul
I understand what you’re saying.
The trouble in dealing with the system the way it is, is that it creates a precedent, and provides the impetus for things to remain as they are, which I’m glad to see you think are not as they should be. They defiantly aren’t the way they should be, and we need to face that head-on, not by finding ways to cope with tyranny.
We need to make this right for every parent from coast to coast. The way Family Courts deal with parents needs to be in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. This should not be left for the states to do as they wish with parents. That would be reminiscent of allowing the states to do as they pleased in the case of slavery.
After all, this is nothing more than institutionalized kidnapping, extortion and slavery, and it needs to be seen in that light, and dealt with accordingly. This is being done for profit, nothing more. The “best interests of children” is a heinous lie, a disgusting pretense, which only makes the crime more reprehensible.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
@ Kevin
It is not the first time that misunderstandings come between MRA’s in the sometimes glitchy realm of comment section communications. If you go to my blog here and see my piece on the family courts you may see that our views on the matter are identical.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/17/divorce-american-style/
And again, I completely agree with you on where we need to go. I think the only real difference I am seeing in this is that I would not suggest any man make his own divorce a matter of activism. Courts have a history of crushing such men even beyond the already insane level at which they currently do by routine.
I would have to, in good conscious, advise any man who wants the best outcome in his divorce to do whatever works and to use an attorney who thinks the same way. He can fight the battle against the laws themselves in other ways, but marching into your own divorce as an activist is a suicide mission.
The vultures that sit on benches in those courts are protecting turf the way mafia bosses do. Best to take them down with more strategy than the direct confrontation where they hold all the cards.
Just my two cents worth.
November 1st, 2009 at 7:29 am
@ Paul
With all due respect Paul, everything in that piece has been said by many others.
There’s not much original in that article.
In my honest opinion, what you have in common with most that’ve come before you is a propensity to diagnose the injustice in painstaking detail, without prescribing an ounce of cure.
People need to stop cooperating with the system and the “movement” needs to help facilitate that non-cooperation, which is the exact opposite of what Dean Schreyer is suggesting we do.
That said; one thing I would like to say about your article is that I’m glad you included Carol Rhodes. It’s been very puzzling to me why her work hasn’t been touted by the so-called “movement” more enthusiastically. What better spokesperson could there be than an insider with her experience? I think the fact that she stepped forward risking so much to expose the truth, has gone largely unnoticed and it’s a real shame.
Take Care and thanks for listening.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:55 am
@ Kevin
Sorry, but I am having a hard time following how you got your conclusions. Or in understanding where the priorities are in your summary.
There wasn’t supposed to be anything original in that article, which to me is the whole point of the MRM. Do you have anything original to add? Does anyone? If so, please point it out.
That isn’t meant to be insulting, but to address the fact that there isn’t anything new out there that hasn’t been repeated for years in one way or another. And it will all be repeated a lot more before it is over with.
The messages coming from the MRM have been repeated for a long, long time now, and the reason for that is that numbers of people listening only increase by a trickle. But that to me is the reason to keep repeating it. And that repetition I dare say is what you will find on every men’s rights website across the internet. That is what you do when people don’t listen. You repeat it, just like advertising, stridently and repetitively, until it get’s harder to ignore. And by my estimation, that message has started to take root.
But this is still a movement with such consequences that many members will not ever use their real names in association with their actions. I chose to use my real name because I think it is important to do so, but I also don’t think that other MRA’s out there need to needlessly sacrifice their careers and businesses in order to prove their sincerity to me or anyone else. So it is easy for me to take that logic and extend it to men who want a future with their children, and the children who desperately need that future with their fathers.
Dean Schreyer is a lawyer. I do believe his job is to defend his clients to the best of his ability. In fact, I am pretty sure his license depends on it and he doesn’t get to choose to use his clients as a tool for his own activism.
Nor is he, IMO, to forsake ethical cannons in place for the well being of his client in order to satisfy the armchair mandates of the other members of a political movement. Would his doing so do any good, since it could result in his being disbarred and unable to help anyone?
Again, I think this goes back to thoughtful strategy vs. the rash judgments of what people who are actually at risk “ought” to do in the opinion of people not assuming those risks. This is especially true where it involves children.
Your sentiment is well and good of what people “should” do, HOWEVER, it may appear a little different when someone suggests that you put your relationship with your child on the chopping block as a form of political protest. If you have read Rhodes book, you should know what folly that is.
The consequences for it, no matter how noble, aren’t just visited on the father that chooses the suicide mission. It can and has resulted in even more egregious harm to the child.
And when you are looking at your own child’s future, it may be a more difficult call for some to make than others. I know that sacrifices must be made, but mindless scapegoats that place themselves on the alter for nothing seems like foolishness to me.
As to an absence of even an ounce of cure, please note the following from the article:
It is evident, both from sound research and common sense, that it would be in the best interest of the child to maintain a close, loving relationship with both parents regardless of the marriages collapse; to let the parenting continue, to insist on it, even as the marriage ends. Courts could make that the objective if they were interested in childrens welfare.
It’s called shared parenting, Kevin, and while like everything else I wrote it is not original, it is a cure of sorts. Pounds of it. It is the solution I offered that you apparently missed.
It was on my site for quite a while before I published it here. It reached some people who never saw any problems with family courts and who never heard of Rhodes or Baskerville.
It is the only thing I know how to do without asking other people, or trying to shame them into paying the price for my beliefs.
Like I said, if you have a better idea or plan, I’d love to hear it.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
When you settle down Paul, maybe we can all have a serious discussion about what needs to be done without all the animosity and innuendo.
You didn’t have anything new to say in that article. If you choose to get irate with me for pointing that out, that’s your purgative.
—“If you go to my blog here and see my piece on the family courts you may see that our views on the matter are identical.”
I don’t agree Paul. To the extent that we agree that it’s a criminal racket, sure, I agree with that. But if you think it’s EVER a good idea to cooperate with criminals then we couldn’t disagree more. The Family Courts and their minions are nothing but common criminals and anyone who cooperates with them is no better.
If you understand that these people are responsible for countless murders and suicides, countless destroyed lives, and that it’s all done for profit, then how can any sane person recommend that anyone cooperate with them?
I think you need to take a serious look at your priorities in life. You only get one chance to get it right. Cooperating with criminals is a HUGE mistake.
BTW, I’m not asking anyone to do anything I haven’t already done; you may want to stop with the shaming and needless innuendo. If you have anything positive to say, I’d love to hear it.
November 1st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
@ Kevin,
Rest assured I am settled.
MRA’s frequently don’t agree. It happens all the time. And as someone who has put their writing out there for many years, I have quite the thick skin. I assure you the public will see to that. So I am not irate about your comments, I just disagree with them.
So we don’t agree. I am sure we will both live with it. I don’t feel shamed and I trust you don’t either.
On to other matters. Best of luck to you.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Just one more thing …
People need to stop hiring lawyers. The object of the so-called “movement” should be to provide an alternative to lawyers who are part of the criminal racket.
People need to find ways to keep from paying child support. The whole purpose of separating fathers from their children is to collect child support. Anyone who has read Carol Rhodes’s book knows that. Whether that means working as little as possible to avoid garnishment or starting your own business, this needs to be a priority.
We need to stop paying federal income tax. No taxation without representation. It may also interest people to know that this is perfectly legal. The federal income tax is based on voluntary compliance. Check out “America Freedom to Fascism” to learn more. Another good educational video available on YouTube is “Theft by Deception” by Larken Rose.
I’m not asking anyone to do anything I haven’t already done and it’s all perfectly legal.
Cooperating with criminals on the other hand is not a good idea even if those criminals have the power to destroy you. John Murtari understands this I think. He quoted MLK about the universe being on the side of truth and he is absolutely right. They may take your freedom and your life, but don’t be foolish enough to sell them your soul.