From: John Murtari (jmurtari@AKidsRight.org)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2008 - 12:26:31 EST
Good People & People of Faith,
This message has info on:
1. Plans for Jan 15th Event - make Clinton accountable.
2. Do we share a reform goal - probably not?
3. You FEEDBACK - Sorry Brit, your not Fit?
1. Plans for Jan 15th Event - make Clinton accountable.
------------------------------------------------------
Our last message described plans for a NonViolent Action outside the
offices of Sen. Hillary Clinton at the Syracuse Federal Building,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/archive/archive2008/0000.html
The website now has a more detailed schedule for the event,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/clinton
So far we've had three mothers express interest in being arrested with
me, for using kid's chalk to write "I LOVE YOU" to their kids and "SEN
CLINTON HELP US" on the ground outside the building. No fathers have
volunteered so far. I hope some men will come forward soon.
You are invited to come, to observe and act as public supporters for
the efforts of these people. We hope to have the media their watching
as loving parents, perhaps the "Syracuse 5", get arrested for daring
to write "I LOVE YOU" to their kids and get the Senator's attention.
One Mom does live in Minnesota and really needs help in covering the
expenses to get here. She plans on driving and that is a long way and
a lot of gas! If you can help her, or live in that part of the country
and are also interested in coming, please contact her directly.
Angelina Ottinger, nateyluv@yahoo.com, she also has a web site that
describes how she lost both her children to "Child Protective
Services". http://www.theAareOna.org/
2. Do we share a reform goal - probably not?
--------------------------------------------
[ Sorry, this is ran a little long, but it represents a good dialog
and your thoughts are welcome. ]
Many people complain about the lack of unity within 'our' movement.
Maybe it is not so hard to understand. We're united in 'anger' about
what we DON'T LIKE about the present system. We're not at all united
towards a positive reform goal - and it shows.
I spoke with another Mom who wanted to attend the Jan 15th event and
risk arrest. She was really active and genuinely sincere in working
for EQUAL parenting. But ...... I make it a point to ask every
potential participant,
"This is an event for parents who share the simple goal of the
AKidsRight.Org group (http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm), that
we are FIT & EQUAL parents unless convicted in a criminal court of
being found a demonstrated serious threat to the safety of our kids
while acting with malintent toward them. Being found guilty
requires a unanimous 12 person verdict.
It's possible a reporter will ask about your child, the other
parent, and if you would be EQUAL with them. How will you answer?"
This was a tough one for her. Her husband has a daughter from a
previous marriage and he was caught in the usual custody struggles
with the other parent. I was told the daughter's mom and step-dad
were probably into drugs and had illegal drugs in the house. She told
me her husband was going for FULL custody of his daughter to get her
out of that environment. She agreed with his decision and said the
little girl was just happier with him and always became sad when going
back to her mother. A gut-wrenching experience many of us know. I
asked her,
"Has the child ever been actually abused? Do you believe her
mother or step-dad are trying to hurt her?"
She told me no. She thought the daughter did love her mom, but it was
just a bad environment. It certainly wasn't what was best for the
child....
We found we had a real difference, as I think many of you may find as
you read this. I think the reaction I saw to the events in Britney
Spear's life (Your FEEDBACK) make that even more clear. I asked this
mother what is the standard before government can interfere in your
family life? I didn't get an answer. She needed to think about, we
all should.
I know how I feel, http://www.AKidsRight.org/archive/archive2006/0007.html
and I think there's a sound justification for the following:
Our GREAT Civil Rights represent freedoms we have, our liberty as
individuals to live our lives as our conscience dictates. Aware
of the needs of the community, but not a slave to it. Without
freedom, there is no virtue.
We are free to live our lives as well or poorly as we see fit. To
make poor decisions and suffer because of them and cause
unavoidable pain to those around us. It DOES NOT make our
decisions correct or right, but we are free to make them.
Our relationship with our children is a source of our greatest
moral obligations. An opportunity for us to also grow with our
children over time (how many of us as parents have been affected
deeply by our children). We may make very poor decisions for us
and our children for a while (and sometimes a long while), but in
freedom we have the chance to grow and to change and to love.
It is difficult, but those very poor parents who may abuse drugs,
alcohol should still be protected from government 'orders'. Why?
If they are doing something illegal, shouldn't they be arrested
and jailed for those offenses. While jailed, there kids would be
cared for by the other parent/family. When released, they are
parents again. What would you do instead?
If any parent is a smoker, we should take their kid's away
because without a doubt, it may cause cancer in them....
If you speed or run a red light with your kids in the car,
we take them away, they could have been killed....
If you are convicted of stealing or white collar crime, you
are a serious bad moral example, we take them away....
We only want to do what is best...
As a community we should 'offer' help when there is a troubled
family, not force it. Why? Because in 99.99% of the 'might
happens', nothing deadly ever does happen. But in every case
where an 'order' separates a parent/child, serious damage and
abuse occurs by definition every time. When can it be justified?
Only when we have BAD parents, those very rare among us who are
actually trying to hurt their children with malintent. In these
cases, and no others, the parent is using their exercise of freedom to
destroy their child -- there can be no growth, no change in the
relationship, no love.
Ultimately, many of us find problems with parents exercising that much
'freedom'. Many of us may be closer to the present 'system' than we
realize, after all, it's designed purpose is to allow the government
(an extension of the community) to 'do what's best' for YOUR kids.
3. You FEEDBACK - Sorry Brit, your not Fit?
-------------------------------------------
Can you believe that quip above, "Sorry Brit, your not Fit?". Can you
believe it was used in a message thread about Britney Spears in one of
the Yahoo Groups. A Yahoo Group made up of parents who have
themselves been blocked from the freedom to see their children?
We recently ran a message asking why more parent's groups haven't rallied
to help Britney in her own public battle with the system:
http://www.akidsright.org/archive/archive2007/0049.html
Your FEEDBACK is below, and again I think it helps us learn we still
have a ways to go as far as agreeing to a common goal for reform. I
encourage everyone to read the very last message from Canadian Jeremy
Swanson -- some very sound thoughts....
In the FEEDBACK it appears you're not a 'fit parent' if one or more of
these apply:
* You don't always where underwear.
* You have used an illegal drug.
* Run a stop sign with children in the car.
* Fail to appear for a Court deposition regarding your kids.
* REALLY BAD ONE - When a body guard for the other parent shows up to
take your children after your ordered 'visitation time' is done,
get emotional, don't want to do it, and lock yourself in your room
with the kids for a while. You were not under the influence of
drugs or alcohol at the time, just emotional. If you do this one,
you don't even have to have another Court appearance because the
'Judge' can just assign sole custody to the other parent...
I don't know about you, but I know I have had to give my son up (as
he was crying and wrapped around my neck) to strangers at the end of
our assigned 'visit' and there were times I was very, very close to
saying no and keeping him with me.....
A lot of you thought this was plenty of justification to take the kids.
I couldn't help but ask, "if these things are so bad, why hasn't she
done any jail time? Isn't that how we punish people?" Or is there a
higher unwritten code government can now enforce (when it wants)
against parents?
--- David Hamu <azfr@cox.net> http://www.arizonafathersrights.com/
> At Arizona Father's Rights, we have been watching the Britney Spears fiasco
> with some amusement and some sense of poetic justice. I think that you are
> right, from the standpoint of the abuse of process and the abuse of our
> constitutional rights, the courts are doing to Britney what they do to
> hundreds of fathers around the country on a daily basis.
> However, from the standpoint of poetic justice, we see the poetic justice
> when a mother is dealt the same injustices that we have been exposed to.
--- Don Mathis <fourteenpercenter@yahoo.com>
> You wrote, One 'mantra' of our group, that goes along with our goal
> is: "Good, Average, and Poor parents are all FIT & EQUAL parents!"
> Is that the mantra for AKidsRight.org ? If so, it's not enough to
> un-subscribe but please do not list me as a member. A poor parent
> seeks to avoid responsibility for his or her child - or else abuses
> them. A poor parent is not fit. A poor parent should not have equal
> rights as a fit and loving parent. imho.
> As far a Britney,
> Sorry Brit, you're not fit. [ Shortened Version - Ed. ]
> If the judge wants you to take a urine test,
> and you don't, you should face arrest.
> The law says to seat-belt your kiddies,
> if you don't, you expose them to injuries.
> Putting the kids at risk of harm
> is evidence enough you're not a good mom.
The slogan just reflects that at moments in time we have all been
good, average, or poor parents -- and probably had those types of
parents ourselves. The 'bad' parent is an unfit parent, for they seek
to destroy their child and there can be no other moments in time, no
growth or change. The 'bad' parent is unfit.
Your opinions I feel are shared by a majority of people. I would
first think we need understand what our goals are for reform. Also,
if there is such as thing as a 'right to family', where does it come
from, how strong and deserving of protection is it?
Obviously, I think you know how I define our goal and what the
standards of proof are, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm -- but
please also check these two links about what defines our right to
family.
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil_rights_essay.htm
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/archive/archive2006/0007.html
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on those items, and then
how you would apply them to Britney below.
> After reading your essay at
> http://www.akidsright.org/civil_rights_essay.htm , I wish to
> redefine my opinion of Britney - from poor to bad. Yes, every parent
> is poor at times - as Alec Baldwin exemplifies. But when Brit was
> photographed with no seat-belt on her kid, I don't need a
> conviction. If you insist on other examples, consider her booking
> for hit-and-run and driving w/o a license.
> http://www.tmz.com/media/2006/06/spears_seatbelt_x17.jpg
> Thanks for your reply but imho, Brit is Unfit.
--- Chris <sflraptor@bellsouth.net>
> Being as we are looking out for what is in the best interest of our
> children and not wanting parents to be needlessly separated from our
> kids, I have to take you to task on the Britney Spears issue.
> While the biggest difference from Britney and any custodial parent
> is the attention of the poparozzi, she has very clearly demonstrated
> her contempt, not only for her children and their father, but for
> the law as well.
> Every action she has taken has either been as a smokescreen to make
> the courts think that she has been cleaning up her act or has been a
> blatant disregard for both the court's orders and the safety and
> wellbeing of her own child.
> The actions taken against her have been justified by her own
> actions. She torpedoed herself. She has intentionally disobeyed
> court orders, committed dui's with the children in her car with her,
> driven recklessly with her kid in the car and driven with her kid
> in her lap (both illegal and dangerous for the child).
> All in the presence of the popparazzi...50 cameras, all taking
> pictures every step of the way.
> If any parent is deserving of the wrath of the courts, it has been
> her.
> We cannot go defending parents who blatantly and flagrantly flout
> their responsibilities just because they are NCP's. And
> particularly when they are celebs and do it.
> It's bad enough when a custodial parent violates the court orders,
> but when one of us does so, particularly when they are a celebrity,
> that makes things even worse. More so when when we defend their
> blatantly illegal and immoral actions.
> For Britney Spears being an NCP does not justify her actions. She
> screwed herself and should suffer the consequences. There are
> plenty of divorced celebs out there that are keeping their kids safe
> and following the courts orders. Both custodial and non-custodial,
> so there is no excuse for Britney. She has demonstrated that she is
> irresponsible both as an adult and as a parent.
> We should not be irresponsible by defending her until she in fact
> cleans up her act. If she ever does.
Thanks for taking the time to write a thoughtful message on this and
I'm interested in discussing this with you. I think we can all learn
from it. Your opinions I feel are shared by a majority of people. I
would first think we need understand what our goals are for reform.
Also, if there is such as thing as a 'right to family', where does it
come from, how strong and deserving of protection is it?
> NO REPLY.
--- Joseph Toman <joseph_toman@yahoo.com>
> What you got with Britney is a child who became a star with no
> parental role models or help. Now thrown into the PUBLIC that
> judges her and a legal system that is only out for part of her big
> bucks. If I were her I would drink and abuse drugs too.
> People in general are "no damn good" and the "masses are asses"!
> I can only pray she finds a way out of the hell she is in. While
> others of course will condemn and burn her at the stake.
> Nothing ever changes. People for the most part are idiots. IF you
> have a birth certificate you are a HUMAN RESOURSE hypothicated to
> the National debt. YOU have no voice as you are a citizen slave of
> the master who you adore with your bank accounts and bank cards and
> bank loans. YOU are the tail they are the head and they as the head
> can say and do whatever they want with you because you OWE THEM. No
> one seems to get that fact. We have a government that does not
> represent US but represents the corporate beast. Plain and simple.
> Just ask one of them for help and they will say "go find a lawyer"
> "I can't help you"!!!
> I think you have a fairly good take on all of this. And I
> personally thank you for that. Common sense is not common any more.
Wow. I think you have hit some points there and that is how we treat
each other. I'm glad you said 'in general'! We are idiots 'sometimes'
-- the question of how much and when is a tough one.
--- Jeremy Swanson <swanson@storm.ca>
[ This was a good one from Canada. Unfortunately, I wish the number of
groups protecting Britney's due process rights could have been
greater. ]
Life, Sports and Other Pursuits By Kathy Rumleski
Men's rights groups sympathetic to Spears
Posted: 2007-10-04 16:45:17
http://www.lfpress.com/perl-bin/publish.cgi?p=19&archive=Live&page=3&x=blogs&s=blogs
Father's Rights groups could have praised the judicial decision which
awarded Kevin Federline custody of his children over Britney
Spears. Instead they respectfully asserted that children suffer
whenever they can't see a parent, whether it is a mom or dad.
"We make it clear that we support equal parenting and that children
belong in the custody of their mother and their father. What has
happened in the Britney Spears case is all very tragic and unfortunate
- for the children," wrote Canadian father and activist Jeremy
Swanson.
"As casual observers and like most parents we don't care much for the
mother and her social difficulties as she is but we recognize that her
children love their mom and they need her. Just as they need their
dad.
It would have been easy to say, finally we won one. Instead fathers
took the high road and said nobody wins in these awful battles.
Swanson deserves credit for his statements. After years of heartbreak,
he knows how Spears must be feeling and he reached out instead of
attacked.
What would you say to Spears, Federline or Swanson if you had the
chance?
--
John Murtari
____________________________________________________________________
Coordinator AKidsRight.Org
jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
Toll Free (877) 635-1968(x-211) http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
=======================================
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
A Kid's Right to Both Parents!
------
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org subscribe/unsubscribe info below:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 03:12:04 EST