Flangan Explains Judicial Child Snatchers...

Having talked about Gregory Flanagan before I will refrain from lengthy discourse as to his person, but a question comes up... I know a girl named Evan and a boy named Kelly. Could Gregory be female? Just a thought...

The title of this article: Judicial Child Snatchers Threaten the Integrity of the Mother-Child Bond

The real beauty of this article is that there are virtually NO sources. Truth in opinion reigns online... hopefully (or I would assume) the readers of the Liberation Journal are not that educated (or smart). Otherwise how could they read such unsubstantiated garbage?

BTW, who is this guy liberating anyway? Women from the idea that they should not have an unparalleled advantage in family court, the judiciary from following rules of law, people from their senses, Congress from legislative fairness...

This article is much better than the first, almost pure opinion...

Some people now want to take away the right of men and women to set the terms of their marriage, divorce and custody arraignments. They deny the natural right of women to first custody and control of the relationship-marriage terms. They want to equalize custody between the father and mother despite the fact that most marriages break up because of the conduct of men, and that most divorcing couples agree that the children belong with their mother, therefore any equalization of custody would be an unequal denial of the rights, needs and desires of most men, women and children. (Oh lord, where do I start. Take away the right of men and women to set the terms of their marriage, divorce and custody arrangements... he really means take away the right of women to dictate all of these things. Why on earth do women have a natural right to marriage and custody terms? Both marriage and the creation of children are joint ventures, barring severe mental illness or incapacity of one of the parties, the dissolution of such should also be joint. There is no god given right to women to dictate matters of family or marriage. Once men were primarily in charge of both but after women declared equal rights wouldn't the prudent presumption be that of equality? As for most marriages breaking up because of conduct of the men - this is just false (notice no sources for any of these statements). Here is a related study: Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the United States, but if you don't want to read it all, here is a relevant paragraph: If one investigates the simple question, "who initiates divorce," we find from the Monthly Vital Statistics Report May 21, 1991 (NCHS, 1991), that from 1975 to 1988, in families with children present, wives file for divorce in approximately 2/3 of the cases each year. In 1975, 71.4% of the cases were filed by women, and in 1988, 65% were filed by women. While these statistics alone do not compel a conclusion that women anticipate advantages to being single, rather than remaining in the marriage, they do raise that reasonable hypothesis. If women can anticipate a clear gender bias in the courts regarding custody, they can expect to be the primary residential parent for the children. If they can anticipate enforcement of financial child support by the courts, they can expect a high probability of support monies without the need to account for their expenditures. Clearly they can also anticipate maintaining the marital residence, receiving half of all marital property, and gaining total freedom to establish new social relationships. Weighing these gains against the alternative of remaining in an unhappy marriage may result in a seductive enticement to obtain a divorce, rather than to resolve problems and remain married. Granted, the author could still claim they are unhappy because of the men's conduct... but give me something to work with. Show some numbers... that is purely speculation and refutable speculation, but I won't waste any more time on this specific assertion. Finally, if most couples agreed to a custody arrangement, they wouldn't have to go to court!! The courts have no problem rubber stamping custody arrangements in which the mother is the sole custodian. This preference is what men's groups are so up in arms about!)

From what I have read by Mr. Flanagan up to this point, I would peg him as a worshiper at the altar of NOW. Imagine my surprise at the following:

Largely because of the work of feminazi groups, no fault divorce has now imposed on people in all 50 states while denying the right of men and women to set the terms of their own marriage and its termination, this has had the effect of harming women and children. (Did he say feminazi!? I understand some of his argument- that the women's movement created no-fault divorce laws. However, how no-fault eliminates the ability for the family to make decisions is hazy. Women can now leave whenever they want and almost always reap the benefits - the home, the children, the support... Do they want to not be able to leave the marriage - would they like to be able to kill their spouse in some type of ornate divorce ritual - are they stigmatized by the label divorcee?)

This legislated political kidnapping threatens to advance toward an affirmative action scheme where preferences would be given to the father to counter past discrimination in custody cases, leading to quotas to see that fathers get custody fifty percent of the time, even though 90% of couples agree that the mother should get custody, and in fact, courts already favor fathers in disputed cases, that needs to be looked into to determine if that is in the best interest of the child. (Um, could this guy be less informed? First, he still hasn't been able to explain the "political kidnapping" so I guess he is referring to no fault divorce? Fault divorce would require a finding of fault by one of the parties...maybe he thinks more name calling would be helpful in family courts. Multiple other problems: 1) Cases that are in court are there because they are contested... the parents don't agree that the mom should have custody and then get a call from a judge ordering them into court to battle it out. Judges love it when parents make arrangements out of court; it demonstrates the parents ability to work together. 2) No legal quota system has ever been proposed. Ever. 3) Again, I reiterate, if 90% of couples agree to the mother having custody -- then only 10% wind up in court. I don't think the 90% is a remotely valid number but I'll go with it for agreements sake. 4) Where is the evidence courts favor fathers in contested cases. Oh I forgot, there isn't any valid support...

This movement further undermines the integrity of marriage and poses such a threat to mother's rights that it may lead to fewer women getting married out of fear that the license may be used in court to take her child away from her, because it takes away from a woman the ability to protect her and her children by entering into the marriage covenant with a man who promises to stay with her and their children, so that she is able to be secure in the trust that her children will remain with her. The only way a child should be taken away from one's mother is if the mother is unfit, or, of course, if she has made a prior agreement that surrenders partial or full custody, or the child prefers to be with the father. The mother must give her explicit consent to any arraignment for joint custody or equal consideration between the father and mother upon divorce. In the absence of such permission, a child belongs with his or her mother. (God help this man if he ever gets divorced and has children. I cannot imagine how fun it would be for his wife to read from some of his "articles" in court. Okay, as we have discussed, women initiate divorces far more than men so the covenant argument is nullified. As for the rest of this I can only assume Mr. Flanagan really needs to get laid and is therefore is trying to seem super sympathetic to women. He cites no sources for his absurd contention that mothers have a "natural" right to custody. Parents have a natural right to PARENT their children. No parent should be denied this right unless they can be found unfit. Having a child is joint venture. This is a natural right supported by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and legal precedents (even if it is not always adhered to as it should be). To propose mothers should give "permission" is dangerous, biased and inherently discriminatory. Not to mention completely ridiculous. One parent doesn't hold ownership rights to the children over the other parent.

Oh god, I can't do this anymore.... just read the article. He goes on to say men should come to an agreement with the mother privately concerning custody (as if it's that easy); he reiterates that mothers have a natural right to custody...

But I will include something from the last paragraph: If the state can steal people's children away from them after divorce, it opens the once unthinkable idea of licensing homopervert relationships and using them as an excuse to give equal consideration for custody to queer partnerships formed by former married spouses. (Isn't the state effectively stealing children from their fathers? )

This guy makes me so frustrated (that was probably his intention and now he is smirking in some dark room of his rent controlled apartment and stroking himself while he gazes at the gay porn pictures carefully taped to his walls-- isn't it generally that the most outspoken are the biggest examples of the described behavior. Think of William Bennett and the Book of Virtue). Huh, I wonder how he will feel about that inference.

Please feel free to email me relevant thought or statistics. I feel as though the two posts on Gregory Flanagan were hurried and not as well documented as they should have been. I just felt so rushed to say something about his deplorable position on the importance of family-- the ENTIRE family.

Read the article here: Liberation Journal

Michigan NOW Against Proposed Joint Custody Legislation...(Big Surprise)

Okay, this is an article from the Liberation Journal and penned by Gregory Flanagan (who apparently is the only writer for the Liberation Journal, as of yet I can find no other authors on the site...links to other sites, but no other articles written for this particular site by another author...please update me if I am incorrect)

To start, I found this article suspect since it was written by a man. Granted, there has often been cross-over in many civil rights issues in our history- men supported the women's movement, whites supported civil rights, (and the most obvious) women support men's right to equal custody. However, a man outwardly supporting NOW in a blanket fashion did seem suspect to me. So I decided to do a little research on the Liberation Journal and Mr. Flanagan.

From the little I have found, this site appears to be hosted by a Canadian ISP. I'm not sure if that is relevant. I did find a site in which Mr. Flanagan was commenting on content of his site about homosexuals being pedophiles and concerning some type of action by the Canadian government... but not enough to have a cohesive summation.

I can't find much else, except other articles written by Mr. Flanagan, all of which seem to be written on hot button topics. Maybe he is simply fishing for notoriety.

Anyway, I wonder, if he is a Canadian citizen, why the apparent interest in Michigan custody legislation? Or the myriad of other US issues he takes up...

I have to say that I am surprised at the lack of biographical or contrary literature available on Mr. Flanagan. He certainly takes positions on very strongly felt issues; maybe I am the only one stupid enough to give this guy the time of day. (Also, I have on no way reviewed his positions in their entirety, he may very well agree with me on other points)

On to the article... for your reading pleasure I will provide some direct quotes, but first I should give some type of summary. He does cite some sources, primarily NOW. However, at least his first paragraph is startling lacking in support. It seems obvious to me that Mr. Flanagan believes: 1) That mothers are rightly given physical custody in the majority of cases, 2) That fathers are generally happy with their visitation schedule, 3) That mothers and children have a bond not matched by fathers and children and 4) A presumption of joint custody is not inherently in the best interests of the child and any judge who rules as such is ignoring the welfare of the child.

My favorite quotes:

"To make any other decision, a judge must find reasons why joint custody is not in the children's "best interest." This is an ambiguously high legal standard that makes it very difficult for judges to award sole-custody. It is a departure from the traditionally accepted standards determining what's in the best interest of the child based on the biological bond of mother and child and the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the mother is the primary child care provider." (More ambiguous than finding what is in the child's best interest, which this author argues is the "biological" bond between mother and child. Excuse me, but I took biology at some point, and I'm pretty sure there is a "biological" bond between father and child too! Unless we are talking about immaculate conception, maybe Canada has more going on up there than we thought.)

"Most child custody cases are settled through mutual agreement, sometimes aided by mediation, and the overwhelming majority of the time the mother gets custody with the father getting visitation in a way that satisfies both of them." (This is just ridiculous. If the majority of cases were settled through mutual agreement and there were smiles all around, what in the hell would all joint custody legislation be about? Obviously, there is a problem felt by enough to warrant a myriad of father's rights groups, new legislation, etc... We all know these statistics are often used by NOW and are categorically incorrect. Through my first search I found this: This study, conducted in Arizona, showed what the wishes of each parent was, and what the resulting custody decision was:

Fathers Wishes.

Joint Custody: 74%
Paternal Sole Custody: 15%
Maternal Sole Custody: 11%

Mother's wishes.

Maternal Sole Custody: 70%
Joint Custody: 30%

For the conflicting families (Father wanted joint custody, mother wanted sole custody).
Maternal Sole Custody awarded: 77%
Joint Custody awarded: 23%

(Source: Determining the Impact of Joint Custody on Divorcing Families, Sanford Braver, associate professor at the Arizona State University)

"The decrees overwhelmingly favored the mother's custody wishes: 67% of mothers obtained both the legal and residential custody arrangements they desired compared with only 15% of fathers; meanwhile, only 8% of mothers (vs 37% of fathers) found neither stipulation to correspond to their preference."

(Source: Gender Differences in Satisfaction with Divorce Decrees, Sheets & Braver, 1993)

There are also other statistics available ON THIS SITE countering this faulty claim repeatedly made by NOW.)

"Imposed joint custody is "unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support." Says NOW." (What precisely would be the unintended consequences in child support? Mothers would no longer get de-facto alimony titled as "support" in the name of the children? Mothers might be expected to support themselves and 50% of their children's needs on their own? My heavens! Whatever will we do with this unintended accountability!)

"NOW warns that, "Forced joint custody is also a top legislative priority of fringe fathers' rights groups nationwide. These groups argue that courts are biased and sole custody awards to mothers deny fathers their right to parent. They allege that, in most cases, mothers are awarded sole custody, with fathers granted visitation rights. The men cite this as proof of bias against fathers."

"The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases." According to NOW." (Here it is again, mutual agreement, fathers win a majority of custody disputes... Notice NOW only cites several studies, no study titles authors, or dates. Must have slipped their mind. I mean, come on, the findings are so prominent how could you not know this stuff! Women always get screwed, men are oppressors, we (women) are so weak and delicate and intelligence challenged that the courts must be biased in our favor in order for there to be a level playing field. Oh, but BTW, we still want you to "help our children" in the form of cold hard cash. Don't forget to sign the check!! This is a an article on the effects of joint custody and the need for fathers: SPARC)

"NOW says, "The legislature's determination to impose joint custody on parents in conflict is a frightening proposition for many women and places them and their children in harm's way. There is documented proof that forced joint custody hurts children." "In the majority of cases in which there's no desire to cooperate, joint custody creates a battleground on which to carry on the fight," one researcher reported in the legal magazine, The Los Angeles Daily Journal (December 1988)." (I'm not even sure what to say here, NOW speaks more crap... What documented proof? Provide some sources... There is documented proof joint custody is beneficial (see SPARC above), that is the beauty of statistics, you can almost always find some to support your point. The difference is here I'll provide mine, NOW just uses "one researcher" who reported in The Los Angeles Daily Journal. I don't know, but I gotta think that if you go to the card catalog of your library and look up one researcher and the magazine title, you are going to come up with... squat. But then who knows...)

"In "Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access," Janet Johnson and her colleagues compared children in court-ordered joint custody with children in sole-custody homes. In both situations, the parents were in "entrenched conflict." This study showed that under these circumstances frequent shuttling between both parents in joint custody "is linked to more troubled emotional problems" in children than the sole-custody arrangement." They reported." (I just love the "They reported." Anyway, the problem here is that the article says there were conflicts in both scenarios and while they may have been aggravated by joint custody, isn't the real problem the parents? Should we punish, or keep the children from having meaningful and regular contact with one parent because the parents (note the plural) are too stupid to act like adults around each other? That doesn't necessarily negate their ability to properly parent their children and if it did it would require the law to remove the child from the care of both parents, not just one.)

"Imposed joint custody is particularly dangerous to battered women and their children. As the director of the Michigan Domestic Violence and Treatment Board said in her testimony opposing this bill, "...the exchange of children during visitation can be the most dangerous time for the [domestic violence survivor] and her children." (This is a legitimate concern but a ridiculous point. As even the article itself notes, the judge can demonstrate why joint custody is not in the best interests of the child and order sole custody. I'm reaching here, but I think documented abuse would warrant such a decision...)

"My experience with presumptive joint custody as a domestic relations lawyer in Louisiana was almost uniformly negative," said NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy. "It creates an unparalleled opportunity for belligerent former spouses to carry on their personal agendas or vendettas through the children -- and with the blessing of the courts."
"Attorneys often referred to it jokingly as the `lawyer protection act' because repeated trips to court over minor issues kept the fees rolling in, and the mothers were more likely to suffer," Gandy said." (Well everybody clap for NOW since they seem to be the only ones worth quoting. As if a lawyer who also happens to be the NOW Executive Vice President wouldn't have an agenda or possibly a differing opinion from your run of the mill divorce attorney. But everyone listen to Kim --mothers are more likely to suffer. Now let's bow down and kiss the feet of this impartial, benevolent pedagogue. What on earth would we do without her to suffer for all the meek, half-witted victims (oops, I meant women). God bless the predominately male judiciary who will save them all from having to share their children with the person who shared the responsibility in their creation and pay their own way.)

Oh crap, there is a link to another article by this Flanagan fellow... Guess what!! It is just as moronic and misrepresented. Thankfully I have very little to do at work today...

Link to the first article here: Mother's Rights and Children's Welfare Threatened by Forced Joint Custody (from the Liberation Journal)