Fathers' rights groups sue states
12:33 AM PST on Wednesday, December 1, 2004
When Michael Smith got divorced, the Desert Hot Springs man lost custody of his 5-year-old daughter. He sees her only on weekends. "It's a very, very bad parenting plan," said Smith, 57, who believes he and his ex-wife should swap his daughter every seven days. "I don't have a life with her . . . I'm not a parent to her. I'm just baby-sitting her." Smith contends that he is one of 25 million parents across the country whose constitutional rights are being violated by custody laws that allow the courts to send a child to live with one parent a majority of the time. On Thursday, Smith plans to distribute fliers outside the family law courthouse in Riverside, alerting parents to an nationwide effort to reform those laws by suing state governments in federal court. The California version of the lawsuit, filed Sept. 20 in San Jose, uses a variety of constitutional grounds to argue that parents are entitled to equal custody of their children after a divorce, except in cases of abuse or criminal behavior. Spearheaded by the Indiana Civil Rights Council and other fathers' rights groups, backers contend that some parents are being unfairly deprived of their relationships with their children by custody laws. 'Valid Questions' "We are far past the time in our culture where we should be separating children from their parents simply because their parents no longer live together," said Michael McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, a 45,000-member advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "These suits bring up very valid questions with respect to how parents are being treated in the family courts and the strong outcry across the country for changes in the domestic relations laws." The California Attorney General's Office had no comment on the lawsuit, a spokesman said. Officials with the state judicial council did not return telephone messages seeking comment. In California, divorcing parents frequently share legal custody of their children but family law judges can decide whether a child will live most of the time with one parent, based on the child's best interests, said Scott Altman, associate dean at USC Law School. Judges can't base that decision on the parent's gender or which parent is wealthier, Altman said. Experts Skeptical Legal scholars and attorneys say the lawsuits have little chance of success. A handful of the duplicate lawsuits, which seek millions in damages, already have been dismissed in states like New York and Wisconsin. But experts and attorneys say the effort underscores the growing movement to change custody laws. "I don't see any substantial benefit to the lawsuit although it raises the perception of everybody to the fact that there are fathers (who) are good parents and want to be more active in their child's life," said Bob Guyot, vice chairman of the American Bar Association's subcommittee on child custody. "The fathers' rights groups are trying to level the playing field." Guyot, a Michigan attorney who has represented fathers and mothers in more than 1,000 cases, doubts the lawsuit, if successful, would reduce litigation or expense for divorcing parents fighting over custody. "Child custody and parenting issues are fact-sensitive," Guyot said. "If the facts are there that my client as a father is an excellent parent, or has been the primary (caregiver), we are going to prevail." Courts typically award primary physical custody to one parent or the other to prevent children from being shuffled between homes and schools, family law attorneys say. Any special needs that a child has may also play into the decision. McCormick said 2000 Census data show that when parents divorced, mothers were awarded sole custody in 73 percent of the cases and fathers in 10 percent. Joint custody was awarded in 16 percent of the cases. "The trend over the past few years has been to award joint custody but in 80 percent of those cases, mothers are awarded primary custody so the father still gets (to see his children) every other weekend," McCormick said. Guyot said that in the past, judges favored mothers when awarding custody. But as fathers have pressed for custody in recent years, courts have been more balanced in awarding primary custody, he added. Supporters Upbeat Peter Clark, a Livermore resident who is coordinating the California version of the case, said supporters are confident they will win. Clark, who in 1999 founded Live Beat Dads to advise parents in custody battles, said he has received more than 2,000 calls and e-mails from California fathers interested in joining the class-action lawsuit against the state. Altman, the USC law school dean and a family law expert, called the pending lawsuit frivolous, saying it has little chance of success. But he said the nationwide effort shows that fathers' rights groups are becoming increasingly organized and angry. Some fathers, especially those who were the primary wage-earner in their marriage, are upset about losing custody because they spent more time at work and away from the children. Earning money for food, clothing, shelter and other necessities is as important as the care given by their ex-spouses, lawsuit supporters argue. Lawsuit supporters cite a 2002 analysis in the Journal of Family Psychology that found children of divorced parents are better adjusted when they spend significant time with both parents, compared with children who live primarily with only one parent. Thomas Hamilton, a family law attorney in Riverside for the past 26 years, said mandating presumptive equal-time custody is a bad idea. "I really think it has to be done on a case-by-case basis because of the ages of the child, there are special needs children, all kinds of things that could affect the advisability of doing a 50-50 custody," said Hamilton, who pointed out that he has not reviewed the pending lawsuits. "I don't know that mandating something like this is really going to do the job."
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_custody01.a1136.html
13 Comments:
Hmmmm imagine that... It seems that everyone saying that shared parenting wouldnt work in this article is Lawyers, hmmmm... Of course they are against it!! They would lose their livlihood of living off the blood and money of poor souls trapped in the nightmare called "Family Courts". So therefore their opinions are about as worthless as a screen door on a submarine!!!
One Man One Voice
As a father with children that have benefitted from shared parenting since my divorce 10 years ago, let me state unequivocably that the best interest of children is served when they are allowed to have both parents.
The argument that children should not be "shuffled" between two homes is patently disingenuous. Short of the complete elimination of one parent, children of divorce and separation inevitably "shuffle" between homes. The real issue is how long they stay in those homes once they've "shuffled"?
For instance, a child that is deprived of a father's parenting with the traditional every other weekend and one midweek visitation schedule would "shuffle" between homes eight times every four weeks. Alternatively, a child allowed to have both parents on a week on and off schedule would "shuffle" between homes eight times every four weeks. The only difference is that in the scenario where the child has two parents, the times at each home are extended and a significant and beneficial relationship with both parents is fostered.
Personally, my parenting schedule is amazingly complex and my children "shuffle" between homes twelve times every four weeks, yet my two sons are excellent students,solid citizens, and as my younger son's fifth grade teacher noted, there is no evidence they are from a broken home. In other words, they are living examples that two parents, even after separation, are in the best interest of children.
The previous commenter is correct. About the only people who object to children continuing to be regularly and frequently parented by both a mom and dad after divorce/separation are the those with the most to gain by the continued destruction of children. Lawyers, psychologists, gender feminists, etc. routinely lie about the system and its effects and these people put their personal desire for power, money, and domination over the welfare of our nation's children. It remains pathetic.
My children will survive despite the malfeseance of the legal system. Unfortunately, many other children will suffer the consequences of a system run amok.
"Experts Skeptical ... Legal scholars and attorneys"
Yes, those who opose the bill seem to be lawyers. Of course they got full "Expert" status, and it never seemed to have occurred to the reporter and editor to point out that they would not be objective to this matter at all.
So, once we elimiate the lawyers' squealing about this -you can look to polls, and even the non-binding referendum in Massachusetts on joint custody recently - and you will see that the public is generally overwhelmingly in favor of joint custody.
Hmm... didn't see that mentioned in the article either.
Scott Altman, associate dean at USC Law School, said: "Judges can't base that decision on the parent's gender or which parent is wealthier".
WIth sole or primary custody going to the mother in roughly 90% of cases, claiming custody is not based on gender would be like claiming hiring is not based on race if 90% of a particular race, though equally qualified, was unable to obtain employment.
The implication that wealth is not a factor is equally false. However, rather than the implication that the wealthier or higher earning parent has an advantage, the truth is that a higher income is disadvantageous. That is because a parent denied his basic human and Constitutional rights will bring in more business for the divorce industry, as he can more readily pay the exorbitant legal costs associated with attempting to maintain a relationship with his children. The reality is that if the more wealthy parent had equal protection under the law, lawyer income would suffer just as the drop in the divorce rate resulting from equal custody would cause it to drop.
Other than keeping the hate-filled gender feminists happy with their "rights are for women, responsibility is for men" agenda, the overwhelming focus of family law in America today is to maximize income for judges, lawyers, and other divorce industry "whores of the court". Essentially, these folks are professional exploiters of children, who hide the harm they bring to children under the guise preserving the best interests of children.
Don't be surprised if 90% of lawyers and judges and 100% of Bar Associations continue to claim that sacrificing children in order to preserve their incomes continues until they are forced to accept otherwise, or better yet, forced to pay for their despicable crimes.
Does anybody take the American Bar Association seriously any more. The ABA is little more than a propaganda machine that promotes the legal industry as a business. It has nothing to do with morals, ethics or professional standards since it refuses to uphold standards. Of course, they purport to be fair in the court room - hahahhaha. I guess the hard data that proves otherwise means nothing.
Let's face it, as long as the legal system is involved, the only winners in custody issues will be the wolves (lawyers, pyschologits, etc..) who extort money at the expense of the welfare of children.
YOU WILL ONLY BE RECOGNISED AS HUMAN AND GRANTED PRIVILEGES OF HUMANITY IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO DIE IN THE FIGHT FOR THAT RIGHT!
Today as a docile, mass apolitical-masculine species you are beheld across the western world as appropriate beasts of toil, burden and death. You rightly are treated as such because of your very species-innate-apoliticality. Your docility is of the beast of burden hence your world historical denigration, enyokment, incarceration and enslavement unto death. You are apolitical by your very nature as mass males. A docile species simply needs to exist to assume the role of burdens beasts. No matter that youve done no wrong, committed no violence nor treason, no sedition evil or crime and otherwise.These are irrelevant. Your existence as male in itself fullfils the conditin-precedent required of species historically appropriated for humankinds burdens.
THIS MENDACIUOS BEAST IS AT WAR WITH ALL MEN TODAY
http://www.newint.org/issue373/keynote.htm
Always bear in mind what we are fighting. The parasitic beast is entitled to what-ever it can get from Men. Mens person, Mens property and Mens progeny. What-ever the parasitic-beast can get is by retrospect its right. Your reactions to preserve your person, prperty or progeny is a violation of the parasitic-beasts rights. The parasitic beast is because of the above entitled to coercive-unrestraint over you regardless of your dignity as a person. You have become an un-person. This parasitic-beast is the VICTIM-ORGANISM
Are some of you people completely insane? Courts are generally overwhelmingly biased in favor of the mother. Notwithstanding, nearly every family lawyer represents both fathers and mothers. Which means he or she is on the losing end of the battle half the time. Most family lawyers would be glad to adopt ANY law that would make their clients act like adults and work out their differences. Lawyers aren't needed when people can be mature, despite not liking one another, and solve their own problems. If blame needs to be passed out, give it to the dumbshits who can't be successful in either marriage or divorce. Or perhaps it is easier to simply blame the lawyers and judges for that too........
I laugh at your naive view of lawyers. You are completely out of touch with reality. Let me give you a hint - lawyers always make money and1 always win (and isn't that what law's all about? duh) Whether they win for their clients or not is just an ego thing.
What none of the shysters and pettyfoggers want to admit is that NO magistrate, judge or family court commissioner has the authority to award that which they never possessed.... a child. THe ABA has created a system of human trafficking, and claim the legislature gave them the authority to "award" or modify custody, depriving mostly fathers of their fundamental liberty right to the care and custody of their own children. Any judge who obtains jurisdiction to commit an act of child kidnapping deserves the death penalty, for an act of sedition and henious criminal activity. I'll give each judge a trial.... and then hang 'em.
Lawyers and judges have NO business in the child custody biz. They have proven they are capable of only corrupting it and at the expense of children (Gee-let's hear it for professional ethics!). Let's not forget that the Holocaust couldn't have happened without lawyers to make it legal. Lawyers are nothing more than leaches of society.
One of the realities in our society is that the domestic courts are part of a "human assembly line". Should I presume that when my ex-wife filed for no-fault divorce the Court would look at it as a action unlike all other no-fault filings? When viewing the court system can't we see its' similarity to the Ford engine plant 15 minutes from my home? It converts every individual custody case into a homogenous form allowing the court to "stamp out" the same judgement. The majorital direction toward sole custody to the mother is comparable to the production of the Chrysler K-cars from 1984. Everyone was the same...everyone was a piece of shit!
Ya know what? I am angry that, my ex husband abuses our daughters verbally and physically but the state of michigan will not help. They even allow him to take my daughters around pediphiles. I have this in writing from the good ole FOC. Not every mother is bad. I do not hit nor abuse my children but the FOC acts like I do. Not al dads are bad. But not all mothers are bad either. I cant even sleep at night because I have to worry if this is the weekend one of my daughters will get raped or killed. Recently my fourteen year old was talking suicide because of her dad and my twelve year old is cutting herself because of her dads actions. The FOC is ignoring my children and my letters/concerns. Nice.
I am the victim of a judge who has denied me my Constitutional Right of Due Process, the victim of a biased Court Services Office and have documented evidence of over 24 counts of contempt of court at the hands of the ex wife. I have an attorney and I am very much interested in my case receiving national attention. It may bring some long overdue light and understanding of the fight the father who wants to be a part of his childrens lives gets the shaft by the court. My evidence is so damn compelling it is sickening. I have "Joint Custody" but you would never know, and the court could careless.
Anybody who would like to follow this mess, along with local media who I have on board is welcome to.
I would enjoy and welcome the support. Together maybe we can make a difference.
Kevin Legg (Retired Police Detective) @ kwl5681984@aol.com
Post a Comment
<< Home