|
|
|
ERROR on Jackson/ Clinton Letter/ What is Necessay and Sufficient Justification to be a Parent?
From: Webmaster (webmaster@kids-right.org)
This is a message from a mailing list, members@kids-right.org http://www.kids-right.org/ To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to Majordomo@kids-right.org with the following 1 line in the BODY of the message (Subject is ignored). unsubscribe members ====================================================================== Good People, This message contains: 1) Jackson v. Jackson - Our Apologies for the error! 2) Necessary & Sufficient Justification for Parents - What is it? 3) Letter to Senator Hillary Rhodam Clinton - Sponsor our Act. 4) Retreat Invitiation - peace & quiet. 1) Jackson v. Jackson - Our Apologies for the error! ---------------------------------------------------- My (John Murtari) apologies for the error in last weeks message regarding the NOT REAL Supreme Court Decision on Jackson v. Jackson. I did the article in a rush, failed to make it clear it was NOT REAL -- then failed to send out a follow up after realizing it was confusing people. Is there anything else I could have done wrong? My only excuse was that I was delirious with joy at the time. I had my son Domenic for our summer vacation, we were getting ready to go on a trip, and I pressed "send" before I should have! If you are new to our list and want to read the message, check: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/archive 2) Necessary & Sufficient Justification for Parents - What is it? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently we ran two FALSE articles, one in which SCIENCE definitely proved that blond hair/blue eyed parents should be awarded custody, the other a LEGAL decision from the Supreme Court which said Judges alone should decide the "best interest of the child" as they see fit. This would have destroyed present LEGISLATIVE attempts at presuming equal custody. Why did we do this? We all know this deep down, but sometimes we get a little too pragmatic about our approaches to reform -- not only confusing other people, but eventually ourselves. Take the following quiz: WHY DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO AN EQUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILD? a) Because the Supreme Court says I do. b) Because the best Science and Social Research says I do. c) Because my local State Legislature says I do. d) Because the Judge or Social Services say I do. e) Because my child wants me to. f) Because the Constitution says I do. g) Because it is a most basic human right. Now most of us probably would say 'g' -- but how are we acting? There is a crucial difference. We see so much email about statistics regarding father/mother custody and how the child develops -- is that NECESSARY for you to be a parent. There is so much email about legal justification -- is that SUFFICIENT justification for your right to parent? Your 10 year old doesn't want to see you any more, does she have a RIGHT to pick her parents? Most importantly, when you are talking to your elected representives or public officials -- are you asking them to "give you" the ability to be an equal parent -- OR -- are you asking them to "recognize" you already have a right to be an equal parent? VERY IMPORTANTLY -- as we said in our earlier articles, it will take parents willing to make personal sacrifice before reform happens. We need to get people excited and willing to make that sacrifice by providing a BIG ENOUGH goal. WOULD I SPEND A SIX MONTHS IN JAIL -- a) To try to get a Judge impeached? b) To try to get my State Legislature to approve a presumption of equal custody? c) To try to get a National Family Rights Act passed which recognizes and protects my right to be an equal parent? REMEMBER, its nice to have scientific research and legal decisions on your side -- but if you assert X, it's always possible for someone to collect some 'facts' and say Y is true. BUT, when you say you have an inalienable right to be an equal parent, they have to say YES or NO. 3) Letter to Senator Hillary Rhodam Clinton - Sponsor our Act. ------------------------------------------------------------- We really want to see a Family Rights Act introduced as a bill into Congress, but first we need to find a sponsor in the House and Senate. For summary info on these attempts check: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/legislat.htm Congressman James Walsh of Syracuse doesn't feel there is any such "parent right" and that it is strictly a local State issue (he doesn't even want to talk about the details or understand our proposal). We are trying to get a group of people outside his office on October 15th, for details see: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionb_syr We had meetings earlier this year with the staffs of Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. Additional meetings are planned with the staff of Senator Schumer -- but we have gotten what can only be called "rude" treatment from the staff of Senator Clinton. Yesterday we sent a FedEx letter to her Washington office trying to bring the matter directly to her attention. Excerpt below, for details see: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/action_syr If you have a chance please write/fax her office in D.C. Email us a copy of your letter and we will post at the site. She has the potential to be a very powerful ally (We are aware her initial tendency may be not to support this -- but it's our job to help her see what really happens in the system and how reform could benefit her politically -- which is how our process works). --- The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton 23 Aug 2001 United States Senate 476 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (FAX 202-228-0282) Dear Senator Clinton, I am resident of New York and presently involved in an effort to achieve National Family Law reform. We are a growing group of Mothers and Fathers who feel that the time has come for Federal Civil Rights protection for the family. Our website is http://www.AKidsRight.Org/ My specific reason for sending you this letter via FedEx is some tremendous problems we are having with the Regional Director for your Central New York office. We have a draft version of a Family Rights Act which we would like you to sponsor in the Senate and we met with Ms. Calhoun in April. It was a 'difficult' meeting and there seemed to be a desire to dismiss the whole issue. Since that time I have written to Cathy on two occasions and made numerous phone calls. I was able to get her on the phone once and was told a follow up meeting would be setup - but have been unable to reach her since then, with both calls and letters unreturned. I am simply baffled by such treatment. Our group is trying to bring a sensitive and courteous tone to the reform effort. Our proposal is a draft and we would like to review it with you and your staff to get your feedback. I don't expect total agreement, but at least the start of a process in which we can both learn from each other. I do not know your personal feelings regarding reform, although I did take the time to read your book, 'It Takes a Village..' Ten years ago I would have agreed with you entirely, but after seeing the system at work first hand I feel we need to set some government bounds and better define protections for the parent/child relationship. This is a goal which will require both sensitive and strong leadership to achieve. We had hoped to establish some trust with your staff, but may need your help. I look forward to your response and hope that I can meet with your local staff next week ! 4) Retreat Invitation - spend a few days with yourself. ------------------------------------------------------ We'd like to extend an invitation to join one of our coordinators, John Murtari, on a brief retreat during the last weekend in September, the 28-30th, at the Mt. Saviour Monastery near Elmira, NY. (http://www.msaviour.org/). This is open to people, both individuals and couples, of any (and no) faith. For more details and to register see: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionb_syr/retreat.htm ================================================================== To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to Majordomo@kids-right.org with the following 1 line in the BODY of the message (Subject is ignored). unsubscribe members
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 08:57:13 EST |
