From: AKidsRight.Org Webmaster (webmaster@akidsright.org)
Date: Tue May 23 2006 - 12:18:01 EDT
Good People & People of Faith,
1. Newspaper column on what's best for YOUR kids
2. Shared parenting in New York - leadership FEEDBACK
3. Shared parenting in New York - your FEEDBACK
4. California Move Away Bill - blocked!
5. Dr. Phil - the ends justify the means?
This message contains YOUR thoughts on reform and it's a bit
lengthy. It may the answer the question about why we are not more
cohesive as groups and why we don't come together.
We know we don't like what we have now -- we know what we are
against. We don't know what we are for. At some basic levels we DO
NOT share a common goal.
Read the newspaper column below that ran in a major New York paper.
Mr. Braswell is a loving parent, a good person, and working for
reform. Right now I don't agree with some of the goals that are
discussed in the article, but I still respect him and would look
forward to talking about the article with him. Can we all do that
when we encounter opposing views?
Do you share his goals? Do we need to get beyond EQUAL parenting to
OPTIMAL parenting with gender based appropriate time? Do we need to
ask the kids which parent they prefer to spend more time with? Is the
solution giving Judges better training in determining what is in your
child's best interest?
There was a record amount of FEEDBACK to our last message regarding
Shared Parenting in New York. You can hear from the leadership
that hosted the LEAD conference and also your thoughts.
I was most intrigued by a conversation I had with someone who had
worked very hard on A330 (The NY bill). He admitted it was a very
weak bill, a small first step, but when I asked what, "the long term
goal was? What was the wording of legislation that would finally
bring reform?" He didn't know....
1. Newspaper column on what's best for YOUR kids
-------------------------------------------------
From: "Deborah Fellows" dafellows2001@yahoo.com
Mr. Braswell spoke at the LEAD conference.
"Joint custody -- Give kids of divorce what's best"
By KENNETH BRASWELL and ROXANNE WRIGHT First published: Sunday,
June 12, 2005 Times Union - Perspective
... The issue of "shared" or "equal" parenting is hotly debated --
so much so that we will refer to it as not as equal or shared, but
as "optimal" parenting. We will call it "optimal" because all the
research that has been done has indicated that the optimal situation
regarding parenting for children is when, if there is no abuse
involved, both parents maintain an appropriate, gender-based
presence in the lives of their children. Optimal parenting would
have both parents sharing custody on an equitable basis.
...From a "business" perspective, the continued back and forth
jostling that attends custody battles clogs the family court system
calendar in a way that is truly unnecessary and unproductive.
What needs to happen now is that the family court system has to
receive training that allows it to examine the thinking that results
in some of its decisions. Decisions that would have the father's
role be simply that of a casual visitor and financial provider
reflect rigid and outdated thinking about the role of the father in
the lives of their children.
Further, this training needs to allow judges, other members of the
legal profession and parents the opportunity to hear from the
children about the ways that legal custody decisions have an impact
on their lives.
Equally as important, the parents need to be given the opportunity
to examine their actions relative to child custody situations and to
begin to heal the hurts that cause them to behave in ways that are
counterproductive to the best interests and development of the
child.
It is only then that this issue of optimal parenting stands the best
chance of being successful.
Kenneth Braswell is the founder and executive director of Fathers
Inc. in Latham (http://www.fathersinc.org/). The organization
encourages the positive involvement of fathers in their children's
lives. Roxanne Wright is an adviser to the group and also is a
consultant, trainer and facilitator.
--- "Tammy Bowman" tamdpm@yahoo.com
> This was good, but from a biased perspective of the FATHER being
> the one cut out of the child's life. Children loose MOTHERS too.
> One of the most important FACTS that society needs to KNOW is that
> the CHILD IS LOOSING A PARENT, sometimes dad, sometimes mom, but
> always a loss.
> .. Most legislators "think" of Shared parenting, as issues of men,
> while this is a misconception. Any woman can "loose" custody, about
> as easily as any man can, in today's society.
> This is what Elected Officials, and NOW, and society needs to hear.
> Take any mom who struggled to get pregnant, only to have her baby
> stolen from her by FC, and you have a whole different perspective.
> Take any mom who had premature babies and had them "given" to the
> other parent, and again you have a whole different perspective.
> Today in society we have Elected Officials trying to reunite former
> "drug abusers" (mothers) with their children (often in Foster care).
> Yet, despite this, there is nothing that a loving, caring, fit
> mother can do to spend even 1/2 of her time with her own children.
> As long as this issue is made a "fathers" issue, we're going to
> remain in the same boat. IT MUST BE SEEN AS GENDER NEUTRAL.
2. Shared parenting dead in New York - leadership thoughts.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Some strong opinions follow regarding some comments made in
a previous list message. To read the original message:
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/archive/archive2006/0023.html
In brief:
* Why don't the 'names' of our groups reflect their constituency,
membership?
* How much do you compromise to get something called 'shared
parenting' passed?
* If there is an issue of 'RIGHTS' -- what is it? What is the
standard of proof before a Court comes between you and your child,
== just best interest?
* When we talk about Civil Rights, is that better pursued at the
Federal Level? Should basic parenting laws be different in every
state?
* Long term goals of the group, versus short term?
* Why type, if any, of public action (demonstrations, etc..) is it
going to take to get legislation passed. How do we organize that?
--- Randy Dickinson <randy_fafny@yahoo.com> VP of FAFNY
> ... Here's one for you, John. What would you think of an internet
> warrior who's only contribution to changing a flawed system is
> standing alone in the rain outside of U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's
> office and having himself periodically thrown in jail, and who
> then comfortably yet foolishly chooses to Monday morning
> quarterback the efforts of others who are attempting to actually
> accomplish something - anything? Only an idiot would do anything
> like that ..., right John?
> If the epistle you have been so gracious as to share with us below
> contributed anything positive to the dialogue, it might be one
> thing. As it is, however, such blather serves no other purpose
> but to discourage and undermine the time, energy, effort, and
> heartache that hundreds of people have poured into trying to
> produce something of substance. Perhaps even more significantly,
> it plays right into the hands of the opposition.
> Jesus, John, with allies like you, who the Hell needs enemies? It
> seems to me you really need to decide who's side you're on ...,
> and please spare us the all-inclusive Mahatma
> Gandi-of-the-fatherhood-movement crap!
> The next time you have a thought, John, ... just let it go ...,
> O.K.?
... I'll share your thoughts with the group -- but what I'm really
looking for is why you think the ideas in my message are not
appropriate. What do you think? I've actually emailed you in the
past and never gotten a reply.
I've got a real interest in seeing reform happen and soon. I think
getting cohesive answers to these questions is what is stopping us
from getting real traction. A reasonable discussion helps all of
us.
--- "Jim Hays" <dadlobby@yahoo.com> President of FAFNY
> I found the argument that we need to change the name of FaFNY to
> PARENTS (Pafny?) without merit.... Is not a father a parent? We
> could go for the kinder gentler name of "powder puffs", "eunichs",
> "men who want to speak against injustice but need a woman to do it
> for us" or we could just put it up for a vote of the NOW-NY
> membership and they could find a politically correct name for us.
> If you want to know the focus of FaFNY you simply need to go to
> the organization page on the web site and look at the Constitution
> fo the Association or any of the other controlling documents. We
> chose the Coalition Fathers and Families NY (FaFNY) because we
> advocate as a coalition of many, but mostly fathers lose their
> parental rights in court and also we have issues other that simply
> parental rights. We work with, and along side of both mother and
> children organizations.
> The view that "Fathers and Families NY" would oppose the views of
> "Mothers and Families NY" is the type of bone headed gender biased
> assumption NOW-NY makes. If it good for fathers it must be bad
> for mothers. This is not a zero sum game. What benefits mothers
> helps the family and benefits fathers and children, what benefits
> fathers helps the family and benefits mothers and children, what
> benefits children helps mothers and fathers and benefits the
> family.
> The "head count" numbers are also erroneous. This is not about
> numbers of individuals but numbers of organization leaders. I saw
> several leaders of several organizations (including yours). How
> many did you bring from your area? Also several were at meetings
> when the head count was taken. Would we also exclude the person
> at dinner (promoting mediation) at Pataki's who is also a staunch
> supporter of shared parenting? How many individual "attended" by
> sending a fax, making a phone call or just by being a member of
> FaFNY and letting the legislators know we speak for them.
> And if Debby and I did NOT do LEAD what would we have? There would
> be no shared parenting legislation AT ALL. If not for us the head
> count would be zero.
> Can anyone point to a group or program that is doing anything for
> social and political change? [insert crickets chirping here].
> Additionally, FaFNY is NOT a one topic organization. There are
> numerous issues in numerous government venues which require
> attention. Just take a moment to look at the FaFNY web site (the
> one packed with so much information people have a hard time
> finding it all). Who does all these, or any of these, issues?
> [crickets again].
> Who meets with the Office of Temporary Disability and Assistance
> (child support)? FaFNY. Who has a legitimate PAC? FaFNY. Who
> formed the first father PAC in NY? FaFNY. Who monitors and
> responds to legislation at the State Level? FaFNY. Who meets
> with the staff from the Governors Office? FaFNY....
> ... Who has to suffer the indignity of being labeled "those
> fathers rights guys" when we are a parental and family rights
> organization? FaFNY. Who has to suffer the blame for idiots from
> Long Island who call up and threaten legislators? FaFNY.
> ... What FaFNY does NOT do is belittle any one elses or any other
> organizations attempts to do any little piece of good. What we
> don't do is air our strategy for all to see (including NOW-NY) as
> there are many who just sit back and await our postings to turn
> them around and belittle our civil rights actions (including those
> on "our side" with organizations designed to compete with us).
> ... If FaFNY has not achieved a goal or objective maybe the
> problem is we have to many people saying what is not working or
> talking about doing something and way to many people NOT DOING and
> NOT PARTICIPATING.
--- Deborah Fellows <dafellows2001@yahoo.com>
> John, to put something like this out there is like throwing raw
> meat to NOW and Glick. Is shared parenting in NY dead? Well if
> everyone continually feeds the vicious beast we are opposing, yes
> shared parenting is dead.
> But lets look at the big picture, not only is shared parenting
> dead, so are you, me and your family. Take away the children and
> you have an instant army.
> Everyone is so quick to criticize everything everyone else does
> and yet no body does anything better. Dale would just be sick.
> It's time to stop hitting our heads against the brick wall - I'm
> tired and my head is bloody - No one can take their eyes off their
> own cases long enough to do anything and when their children are
> all gone most run for the caves or just pop more babies out -
> there is always some sap of a person that would gladly try it
> again. Just keep producing, we need more slaves.
> .... You missed it completely. We didn't have 21 people we had
> thousands of people there. In the 4 weeks building up to LEAD over
> 10,000 faxes, emails, phone calls and personal appearances were
> made on behalf of fafny - there is only so much these people can
> do and we must respect this. you spit in their faces by your last
> email. you shot the hopes of 10,000 people that read these posts
> by making it sound like a failure. god, i can't even imagine how
> they all feel. yea I can, the backlash is being emailed to me
> every day.
> I think our physical headcount could have been brought up if
> people like you and others that have 'groups' would have promoted
> it better or showed up with some. I am really tired of everyone
> sitting on the sidelines beating their heads against the wall and
> asking me to join them.
> ... how many did you have in support of your efforts last time you
> were in court? two? maybe it's time for you to change your way of
> thinking and instead of beating us into the ground, join our
> membership and give us a hand.
I'd really like to get some thoughts from you on what I said and the
questions raised. I think that would be valuable.
You saw the thing yourself and how it compared to last year? I've
gotten some thoughtful feedback from a few folks, but more is
welcome: What about the 'rights' issues to be a parent? Do we need
public action & what type to get a bill passed? What is our
ultimate goal? Who are WE? Should group names reflect that?
3. Your FEEDBACK - others
----------------------
--- Mark Roseman <libros3@aol.com>
> I frequently read your emails of frustration and yet, with great
> hope for continued action. Have you had any support from
> Children's Rights Council members in New York? Contact
> information can be found on the national CRC website,
> www.gocrc.com. Let me know if I can be more helpful. I admire
> all you do in behalf of parents and children in New York.
--- "Tammy Bowman" tamdpm@yahoo.com
> I too read John's perspective and he makes some very valid points.
> FaFNY is a great group, one of the few groups actually DOING
> something to help children.
> The problem is, that Father's in the name FaFNY implies that this
> is a "father's rights" group. While we on board all know that
> it's about the children's right to see both parents, the name may
> be intimidating.
> Take all of the issues raised against A330, from NOW and from the
> Violence groups, and instead of the term "father" put in the term
> "mother". EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT becomes invalid.
> If some of the other groups believed that FaFNY was about Women's
> rights, or Mother's rights then there would be more incentive for
> them to become involved.
> Primarily it all comes down to the right of the child to see both
> parents.
> The name, Father's & Family's NY doesn't imply this. If I wasn't
> introduced to the folks in this group, I'd be too afraid to become
> involved, by the name alone. I'm not a Father's Rights activist
> and could care less about Father's Rights in general. What I do
> care about are CHILDREN'S RIGHTS and the ability of the CHILD to
> have a relationship with both parents post divorce. The name,
> FaFNY, however, doesn't really convey all that FaFNY is or does.
> FaFNY is a great group of people. Is the name alone causing other
> groups to strike out against us? Is there a way to better convey
> what FaFNY is really about, the child's right to both parents?
> Just my thoughts.
--- Kevin Purdy <kevinmadi@msn.com>
> As you know, I agree with your philosophy of approaching this
> issue as a "parents rights" issue. That is a more inclusive
> approach and reaches more people.
> However, many people approach this as a "Father's Rights" issue. And
> that is okay. That is one subsection of the entire parents rights
> issue. You often criticize people who are only championing father's
> rights. I think you should be more accepting of them. Let me give
> you a couple examples.
> You often mention civil rights and Martin Luther King. Dr. King
> did indeed advocate for civil rights. But he and his followers
> concentrated heavily on the rights of blacks. And that was
> helpful. It gave them a focus. By concentrating more on the rights
> of blacks, they ended up winning civil rights for other groups as
> well. I recommend you refrain from chastising the father's rights
> groups. They are an important voice in the parents rights
> movement.
> One other example: You are a religious person and you often bring
> religion into your website and newsletters. Faith and religion are
> important to you and play a major role in your life and
> outlook. What if I wrote to you and said, "This isn't a religious
> issue. Leave religion out of it." Would you do that?
> I already know the answer. You would very politely and
> diplomatically tell me to jump in a lake. Now think of all the
> times you've asked people to stop focusing on father's rights. I
> guarantee that they feel just as strongly about their experiences
> with the court system (the anti-father bias) as you do about your
> faith/religion.
> So, my recommendation: Continue your focus on children's and
> parent's rights, but allow other's to focus on Father's Rights
> without feeling the need to
---- "Eric D. Tarkington" etarking@ooadvocate.com
> As usual, John makes a thoughtful analysis. IMO, activism that
> works on legislation is getting ahead of the populace at this
> moment. Ordinary people support parental equality, but they need
> leadership that we are not providing.
> The main obstacle, the thing that allows the authorities to resist
> the will of the people, is fear of men. Fear of men's violence
> and fear of men's greed can stop reasonable debate on grounds that
> the interest of good men must be sacrificed in favor of the needs
> of mothers and children. Most equal parenting advocates
> unconsciously share this groundless fear of *other* men, too. It
> is an underlying part of our thought process that stops us from
> thinking clearly about the work that will get our children what
> they really need. Even we don't act and react like we all share
> the urgent need to fulfill our primal responsibility as parents.
> I don't talk enough about this problem, and it seems to me that
> other people in the movement haven't even conceived the desire to
> correct it. It is a fatal obstruction. I think it is the
> essential reason why we cannot get along and gather in great
> numbers. If we can overcome it, we will become the leaders that
> society needs, and raise the support of the public around the
> revolutionary changes that we really can't do without.
--- Jules <Jp08055newj@aol.com>
> I'm sorry I don't remember what state your from. Your last post,
> almost made me believe that you were encouraging both NCP Mom's
> and Dad's to stop harping at each, and to join hands and forces to
> help overcome the unjust Court systems! (Is that true?)
Yes, that has always been one of the goals of the group. We are
parents.
--- Marilyn <herbienym@yahoo.com>
> I am in full support of FaFNY. I am a mother and a grandmother,
> yet I have no problem with the name of this organization. I got
> into helping with the fight for the children of divorce , when my
> son became a victim of the current child custody laws in this
> state. I watched as his life and the lives of his children were
> destroyed by the laws that said they were looking out for the best
> interest of the children . I vowed then, and still vow now, to do
> everything that I can do to change these laws. I contacted the
> FaFNY organization and together we have been using all our assets
> to fight for the changes needed to protect the children.
> Statistics will show , time and time again, that it is primarily,
> the daddy's that lose out in court. Children NEED both parents,
> period. I will continue to support everything that these
> wonderful members do to fight for all the children of NY. Read
> the website for FaFNY, and you too will see THAT IT IS ALL ABOUT
> THE CHILDREN.
--- Eric Cartman <ecartmanlaw@yahoo.com>
> Try to organize a demonstration. One person will show up - you. I
> tried it - and a jail4judges guy showed up. Period.
Thanks for taking the time to write. Yes, I have experienced
exactly what you talk about on several occasions, but on a few
occasions I have been pleasantly surprised. A 'parade' of ONE
doesn't have a lot of impact, but I do think self-sacrifice by ONE
can have a greater effect.
People talk about Rosa Parks and refusing to sit in the back of the
bus, and the actions it triggered. Well, I'm sure there were many
others before her (and we don't know their names), who did the
samething, and maybe just got beat up and thrown off the bus. But
there efforts were just as valuable, all you can do is try.
--- Tom Miller <advoc8tomm@yahoo.com>
> Nice newsletter, good points and good actions taken by you on
> behalf of equal parenting, which is indeed in the best interest of
> mothers too (not just for children and fathers). The most
> important parenting skill is cooperative co-parenting, even for
> married parents. Most court reps and experts ignore this fact and
> refuse custody if just one parent refuses to cooperate, more often
> than not, giving the child to that inflexible, destructive,
> unhealthy parent.
Yes, it is crazy that by being destructive -- you win! Of course,
you must have a good reason?
> I do have one point I'd like to address though. We've wrestled
> here in Utah too about what to name our group, which finally ended
> up, "Men and Fathers for Justice." No, it doesn't say it all, but
> neither do any of the names (or proposals) of ANY groups I've seen
> to date. "Men and Fathers For Justice" does tell that it's a
> justice problem and that it's men, not just fathers, who are
> mostly discriminated against and that it's a male rooted thing,
> not just a father, family or parent thing. Yes, women get hurt a
> lot because of this anti-male bias. We didn't like titles like
> "Families or Parents For Justice" either, because they may give
> off a misleading error of intent of the group which will cause it
> to be overlooked by most. Even "Moms and Dads For Justice" makes
> your group sound like it's just another one of so many existing
> groups with men joining in to speak out for women's rights only
> and the superiority of women and mothers via feminism... The name
> "Fathers and
> Families" is nice and does seem to come close, but it still
> doesn't seem to tell what the heck they are for in their title -
> truth, real equality, real justice... I must reiterate, women are
> a very important and critical part of our groups too.
I have heard the same thing from several group leaders. That the
name is a matter of marketing and reaching out to a large group of
parents who feel hurt by the system and are fathers. Of course,
mothers would be less likely to pick up on that.
> But the "Men and Fathers" titles may indeed make some women feel
> left out, women who are not just supportive of men, fathers and
> children (the majority whom the justice system discriminates
> against) but are against a system hurting all, women too, hurting
> even the women who "win" sole custody and pay extortion fees and
> homage to a corrupt system in doing so. Many supportive women of
> our groups are also often hurt themselves in loss of their own
> children to the same narcissistic, anti-male system which can turn
> on anyone.
> Tom Miller Chairman, Men and Fathers For Justice,
> http://www.mf4j.org/ and advocate for equality, for positive
> parenting, for abuse victims and for the mentally ill and their
> families and friends who suffer as much as their ill loved ones
I'm glad for your thoughts on this. There are issues for men, that
aren't necessarily a 'father' issue. I went to your web site, very
nice layout. Very professional look. You are one of the few groups
I have ever heard from in Utah.
I hope that some momentum will build toward using the words
children/family to identify Family Law reform groups. I think it
would help.
--- Mark Benedyk <mbenedyk@yahoo.com>
> My two cents:
> To legislators, a bill, is a bill, is a bill. If a legislator
> takes ownership of a bill and feels invested in it, he/she will
> have far more motivation to see it succeed than he/she would
> otherwise. For a constituent, hearing about "my bill" from a
> legislator should be a good thing - that means there's a champion
> in the capital who can push to get consensus.
> Re Terri's comments, I think one of the greatest failings of the
> "Father's Movement", for lack of a better phrase, is the
> misconception that sympathy will be engendered by voicing disdain
> for women. Let's be honest - no one cares about fathers or boys
> in this country the way they do about mothers and girls. That's
> just the way it is. That tells me that if you want to win, align
> with the winning team - women, in this case.
> Some men will continue to undermine efforts to get gender-neutral
> laws passed regarding custody and child support by shooting
> themselves in the foot with their misogynistic comments.
> Endorsement of those hateful views by voting those same people
> into leadership positions is just as bad and inexcusable.
> If the goal of the Fathers' Rights (which really should be called
> Parents' Rights) movement is successful passage of parent-neutral
> laws in states and counties across the country, then men in the
> movement have to align themselves with sympathetic women, who
> often, quite rightly, point out that the debate really is about
> parents' rights.
--- Greg Fischer <perfect100@hotmail.com>
> It would be a lot better if the writer crossed out every negative
> comment before he sent it out. It is too easy to pick things
> apart and difficult to build things.
> Let Harvey call it HIS bill ! So what. Harvey is taking a LOT of
> heat. God bless the guy.
> Let FAFNY be "FATHERS and Families". Surely that is fine and
> there is room for a lot of other groups.
> Anything negative about any group or any person, take that up in
> closed session --- anything else is GOSSIP and Gossip Kills
> Volunteer Organizations.
> It's better marketing to say "BEEF, ITS WHATS FOR DINNER" than to
> say "BEEF, ITS WHATS FOR DINNER and it makes you have a heart
> attack." Just put a line through ALL of the negative and the
> message gets far stronger.
> The bottom line is we need to advertise better and that usually
> means .... FAKE IT UNTIL WE MAKE IT.
--- Charles <iamjahlul@aim.com>
> John, as a parent that has move-away children without my consent,
> and the assistance of the family courts illegal and criminal
> violations to help the mother do so. I also was active in the
> civil rights movements in the 60's. You are on point with what I
> hear you say here. John you must not be disillusioned about what
> you will find within our struggle to change the way things are for
> parents who rights are being violated.
> You find many that will have their own agenda, and will use our
> cause to vent their anger, and mental illness through. Being that
> we are using the political system to make the changes I am sure
> that you are aware of the games that are played in the political
> arena.
> From what I have comprehend from your writings, and communication
> you are a spiritual person. John you must realize that
> spirituality plays no part in politics. Sure there may be
> spiritual people in politic, but the game of politics is not in
> the order of spirituality. If anything spirituality teaches us to
> stay clear of that game. It is not my intention to lecture you on
> this matter however the 2 don't mix.
> ... The reality is that this gov'ment agenda is to have control of
> our families, and any rights that we feel we have civil or
> spiritually. Take the good and work with that, and continue to
> point out the evil. There is one simple process that must be done
> to change things.
> That is to have the total, and complete right as a parent upon
> conception of a child between to people. After that all else will
> fall in line. Pass that law and see what happens. Do you really
> believe that gov'ment has our families best interest? No. Then we
> must project our strategies and tactic from that prospective. By
> any means necessary.
> John, in the family and parent rights movement I have found many
> that are in it for what they feel is best for them. The leaders
> of these organizations have there own agenda, and if you don't
> agree they will make you the enemy. They know who they are so I
> won't name, names. Again each one of us as a parent must learn,
> and do what every it takes and not be follower of egotistical
> maniacs that are looking to stroke their ego. and political
> positions with our rights, inherent,civil, or constitutional.
> John, we are on the same team. Over the years we have communicated
> here and there. As a grass roots brother I say to you, keep your
> eye on the prize.
--- David Clapper <dvdclpr04@yahoo.com>
> simple question: who has the rights? the parent or the child?
> right now, it seems sometimes the rights of the parent is ignored
> "in the best interest of the child"....how can that be?
Yes, you are right about parent's being ignored -- which certainly
doesn't help your child. A lot of things lead to it, and a lot of
people mean well, but it's just not working out the way they
planned.
--- Barry Worrall <bpw@freenetname.co.uk>
> There has been few or no movements in history that obtained
> change, against entrenched enemies, by talk alone.
> Force of argument is useful but only when backed up with : - lots
> of money - threats that we will punish them, ot at least make it
> worse for them than it is for us.
Thanks for the message. I do agree with you that talk alone is not
enough. Money certainly helps in buying awareness/influence. I'm
not too sure about threats being the only other option. I think you
have heard me talk about NonViolent Action and personal
self-sacrifice. History says that is also an effective method, and
probably the most appropriate method here. We have some history at
http://www.AKIdsRight.Org/civil_back.htm
If you have time to talk a look at it, I'd welcome your thoughts.
--- Heil <grnmantwilla@yahoo.com>
> I enjoy your postings. I have such a depth of feeling on the
> subject it's like a rogue wave circling the globe. In measured
> doses I glean another piece of understanding as the wave comes
> through again. It's a "Big Sunday" kind of wave, the type that
> reality checks you every time it passes because you realize how
> small you are against such force. When you're out there in the
> water alone between sets it's a good time for meditation and
> contemplation. But if you let yourself emotionally drop into that
> trough between the waves it's easy to lose perspective and see
> nothing good. Before I drop in on this wave I HAVE to know I will
> make something good with this wall of difference otherwise the
> harm to those I love could be incalculable. I sense you have your
> own wave and have already dropped in. I respect the commitment and
> sacrifice (not to mention courage) you have given this thankless
> struggle. The only gratitude we will receive comes from the light
> in our children's eyes. It's a good fight worth any
> sacrifice. Thanks again, Neil
Thanks for taking the time to write and the kind words, I like your
last two sentences,
"The only gratitude we will receive comes from the light in our
children's eyes. It's a good fight worth any sacrifice."
--- Joanna <hope4kidz@houston.rr.com>
> I have so much respect for you!! You really are the "real deal"
> and I could not know this until I had read enough of what you say,
> and seen enough of what you actually do.
Thanks for the kind thoughts. I am trying as hard as I can to see
the rights of parents protected no matter who the threat is, the
other parent or social services. You know my main focus is using
NonViolent Action to get Sen. Clinton to meet with parents hurt by
the system -- if that can happen, and other parents help -- we will
have a 'real deal'.
> This Mothers vs. Fathers crap has to end! I lived in Dallas, the
> birth of Father's Rights, and I know Fathers who have been nailed
> to the wall and I fight for them just as I would fight for a
> Mother's right to know and love their child.
Yes, I quite agree. The Mom v. Dad stuff does not help anyone.
> One issue that I had not thought of, but that you made more clear
> to me, because I have been trying to "hear" you for many years, is
> that many fathers and mothers have to choose between paying child
> support or having a relationship with their child. Which is more
> important? The law says you must pay child support. What does
> the child need most? Which does depend on the situation because
> there are no two cases alike!
> ... My [second] husband is an engineer and the bottom fell out in
> Austin TX and there were no jobs to be found. Our children were not
> used to living with such extreme "lack of" and wanted to live with
> their dad in Houston. In order to get the court to stop sending the
> child support check to me, which I had to in-turn send to their dad,
> we thought it would be as simple as me filing a request with the
> court to stop sending the child support to me as the children, ages
> 16 & 17, were living with their father. Right? Should be a simple
> deal, they are OUR children!
> NOOOOOOooo... We had to go through a complete change of custody
> hearing, pay two attorneys (although we were in total agreement),
> and the court required we take parenting classes! For WHAT? I
> had been their primary parent for 25 years and I can assure you,
> not one of the 22 year old caseworkers who teach those classes has
> ever taught me anything! ...
You get the feeling the government actually owns your kids, and you
just have some type of 'lease agreement'.
> Although Texas law allows a 17 year old child to leave their home
> at any time they so desire, we have compulsory attendance laws for
> school, and if my 17 year old goes out and does something illegal,
> I am responsible; but I cannot force that child to do anything, so
> says the law. They can move into a gang house (as long as they
> are in school), and I am not allowed any input. If they commit a
> crime, I am responsible for their behavior!
> So why the need for this overlap where my ex husband and I have to
> go to court and pay out the wazoo in order to get the child
> support from coming to my home, because a 17 year old has decided
> to live with her biological father? We never had a custody fight
> over our children. The courts create 3/4 of the problems in
> divorces, pitting one parent against the other in order to
> determine custody.
Yes, it really is crazy. It's almost like trying to encourage a fight
by forcing people to take a very clear cut position.
> ++++++Last week, My kids dad told my husband, of almost 15 years, "I
> appreciate you taking such good care of my son. I know you don't
> have to since he's not your child, but you do, and it takes a lot of
> patience, and you probably do not hear this much, but I really
> appreciate, and want to thank you, for the work you put into being a
> parent to him."
> BLEW ME AWAY John!!... (our son is special needs and life has always
> been a huge challenge for him, and his parents and siblings)
... But I think when we treat people with courtesy and respect, it
brings out the same in them. Those are very nice words.
> Wouldn't it be nice if there were thousands of fathers, thanking
> step parents, for parenting their child so well?? He was on the
> list to testify FOR us in the fight with the state to adopt
> Rebekah (our personal story) and will be the first to tell anyone
> what a good mom I am.
> Why? I think because we both know the flaws in the other, and we
> accept one another as the person we fell in love with, understand
> the reasons for the break up, both still care about the other's well
> being, and now we have these children we must find a way to make
> life less complicated for. It is that easy. My second husband has
> always been a huge part of his children's lives; although we have
> been divorced for 16 years. We all have Christmas together, because
> we are adults and we all love our children. Everyone leaves their
> egos at the door!~<S> People say we are weird but I think there need
> to be more WEIRD families, because it is a kids' right to have their
> parents be models of how to deal with conflict in an appropriate,
> caring, manner.
> I am not as nice as you are and unless you have a ghost writer, you
> are genuinely a wonderful, kind, caring, gentle man. I may not be
> there if you lay down in court, we are not in the 60's John!, but I
> will respect your right to choose how you will deal with this issue.
> This would be a good media issue and I know an ACLU guy in NY who is
> a really good friend, father, and a decent person. We created case
> law because of his, usually silent, help. LMK if you need a good
> ACLU man who I just do not go the whole distance with on the Freedom
> of Speech, but he has too many good arguments for my concerns.
Thanks for the kind thoughts, I think my former spouse might share a
different perspective. And I do have Findings of Fact from the Judge
in my divorce that said I'm self centered and incapable of
understanding the feelings of others -- but I fake it well!
I have my 6 weeks with Dom till the end of July. In August I will be
going back to the Federal Building and 'going for broke' with
Sen. Clinton. I'll paint the outside of the building with hearts if I
have to. Media attention is crucial and sound legal advice -- if know
anyone interested in that, I welcome that. They can check the whole
background at http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr
> Now that I am understanding your "issue", would you please try to
> take the time to comprehend my own passion concerning our children,
> all of our children, but specifically those who end up in state
> foster care and because of the vast amount of children being taken,
> many end up in "residential treatment centers" "group homes"
> "cabins" "wilderness camps", "ranches", And there are two sides to
> this story and no one is listening to the side where the children
> who the state cannot find foster homes end up in these horrid
> facilities and are abused beyond anything ever alleged to have
> occurred in their own homes.
I am concerned equally as much about protecting parents who get their
kid's taken by social services. I know a lot of people in local
groups for reforming child abuse laws. I think everyone benefits when
parental rights are better protected.
> All kids should have the right to see their parents, including
> children who are in state foster care. H4K is in a different area
> of caring for children, but it is not so different in reality. We
> have one boy who has not been allowed to see his siblings since
> Sept. 8, 2004. The Probation Officer prevented his mother (in
> collusion with CPS, but testified to be a decision made by the
> probation officer (an illegal act, violating judge's orders, and
> detention center policy!) >From seeing him for two months. For two
> months this boy did not know if his family still existed and during
> the two months, he adjusted to things that no real defense lawyer in
> this world would have her client adjudicate to, especially since the
> evidence was in direct violation of his guilt!!! [he was internally
> terrified because he had a secret he had held onto since age
> 7. [Kids do not think like adults for certain] No parental contact
> so that the Juvenile Justice System and CPS are able to do their
> manipulation of the child, and seriously questionable statements
> that the evidence, the reports, will not cause the average person to
> consider this child guilty of anything other than defending his body
> against a 17 year old Mentally Retarded boy, being severely injured
> during the altercation, no real medical treatment (peroxide for a
> human bite wound!), and sent to jail for the night, and is now doing
> some serious time, with up to 40 years hanging over his head. This
> could ruin a boy's life, And I am beginning to believe this is a
> bigger problem than any of us realize.
Okay, I think you are broadening the scope of your effort. It is
not just let's stop taking kids away from parents needlessly -- but
you also have a significant effort in saying, the kid needed to be
taken from bad parents -- but let's improve the foster care system
and how they are treated?
--- Michael Galluzzo <magalluzzox@hotmail.com>
> Greg is correct, we need an extremely aggressive, heads-on
> father's rights campaign.
> Yes, the NY bill was weak and left too much open to cause
> conflict, "...in the absence of allegations that shared parenting
> would be detrimental to the child." Raise and allegation and win
> custody!
> Ohio -- HB 232 of a few years ago was an excellent bill until the
> Legislative Services Committee rewrote it and added the words
> 'substantially' At that point, even the judges stated they
> couldn't define what 'substantially' meant.
> Michigan's bill is running into the same problem. They continue
> to weaken the bill with discretionary language until it has no
> teeth.
> Unless there is a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing
> evidence, both parents will have EQUAL CUSTODY, legal and
> physical, except in cases of an agreed entry. > This is what we
> should all be pushing and nothing less. Reasons why: 1) Both
> parents have equal rights before the pending divorce or separation
> and should have the same after. 2) Knowing the outcome and what
> it takes to overturn the status quo, it takes the profit and
> control out of the situation and will make for a more equitable
> and civil divorce. 3) And finally, we have constitutional law and
> USSC decisions to support our arguments. I know the courts donè^
> want to hear it, but we are right and sooner or later they will
> have to admit it. Between now and then, we have to keep pushing
> our constitutional rights at the legislature to affect change
> there.
> So, we have 4 areas that need to be covered. 1) The Media; radio,
> TV, newsprint, internet, etc. 2) Publicity; i.e., rallies (LARGE
> ONES!!), booths at fairs and other public gatherings, parades and
> special events. Generate members! 3) Legislative initiatives and
> lobbying efforts. We could use more individuals to run for office
> and more support for those who do run! MUCH MORE!! 4) Legal
> battles before courts at all levels. These need to be properly
> prepared and argued.
I saw your message and the background info. I know you have been
working hard on this stuff and battling in the courts. I think the
comments on A330 are right on; it would not have helped most people if
conflict was present.
But I think we've really got to think about:
"we need an extremely aggressive, heads-on father's rights
campaign."
Aggressive? Towards who? Are we looking for something special for
Father's to make it a Father's rights campaign -- or should it be
for Parents or Families?
--- Mike's reply:
> Aggressive? Yes! We need to make enough noise to get the
> attention of the media and the legislators. They need to know we
> are tired of being treated like "mere visitors" and
> "non-essential," except for our cash, to our children. We need
> numbers at rallies, flooding the legislative offices with mail,
> faxes and phone calls. Towards who? Legislators, judges and
> ex-spouses. As a parallel issue, we need to attack immunity as
> they are doing in South Dakota. They need to know we are not
> going to go away.
> Father's need to lead but it since we have been deprived for so
> long, but unlike other groups who marched for "equal rights," and
> then wanted "special rights," we are asking for equal treatment
> because it is best for all concerned, especially the children.
> The problem is motivating enough people and keeping them motivated
> once the have been screwed over by the system.
4. California Move Away Bill - blocked!
---------------------------------------
--- Glenn Sacks <glenn@glennsacks.com>
> Bill Pulled in Face of Huge Opposition In the face of over 4,000
> opposition calls, letters and faxes, California Senator Gloria
> Romero (D-Los Angeles) has decided to withdraw a bill which would
> have granted custodial parents an almost unlimited right to move
> children far way from their noncustodial parents. Romero pulled SB
> 1482 just before today's scheduled hearing on the bill. SB 1482
> would have weakened if not abrogated the California Supreme
> Court's 2004 LaMusga move-away decision, which affirmed that
> courts have the power to restrain moves which run counter to
> children's best interests.
5. Dr. Phil - the ends justify the means?
-----------------------------------------
--- John.Burke@aliant.ca
> It would be interesting to see this sort of thing on Dr. Phil who
> also throws out catch phrases like whats best for the kids and
> they are his number one concern.
--- Doug Heffley <dheffley1947@yahoo.com>
> This week in Davenport Dr. Phil had a two day segment about a man
> who fled the U.S. because he feared he was about to lose custody
> of his two daughters. Dr. Phil and the mother lead Michael to
> believe he could address the custody issues through MEDIATION and
> would not be prosecuted for Child Stealing?
> ... his ex-wife and Dr, Phil were without honor and were only
> setting a trap for Michael to step into once he returned to the
> U.S. He will go to trial within two months in Illinois where I
> assure you he will not face un-biased judges. Illinois is one of
> the worst states in the union when it comes to the judiciary!
> Please ask your members to contribute to the Michael - - - - - -
> Defense Fund
I feel bad about the story and what happened with Dr. Phil -- must
have made good TV. Lied to the guy, got him back, and put the cuffs
on him. The ends justifies the means?
But I'm not sure what to think of Mike. I admire and would make a
public effort to help someone who is standing up for what they
believe in. I don't know the full story ... I don't think this Man
thought his kids were in real danger? Just didn't want to lose
custody -- so you take them? Pretty much taking them away from the
other parent? Put them through the same pain you wanted to avoid?
The ends justifies the means?
What do you think about that? Doesn't it just get crazy? I believe
in action, loving self-sacrifice -- could Mike have done that
instead?
It's a crazy system. I'm sure the poor guy went through a lot and
it's hard to make a logical decision. You have to be perfect trying
to navigate a mine field. It should encourage the rest of us to
really take public action.
--
Webmaster
__________________________________________________________________
webmaster@AKidsRight.Org "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
Toll Free (877) 635-1968(x-211) http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
=======================================
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 07 2007 - 19:19:32 EST