DadTalk

Fighting the Good Fight for Fathers’ Rights

I have had trouble keeping up with a recent onslaught of dads’ rights stories. Here are three of the more recent ones:

Court Blocks Father’s Book on Custody Battle
A Massachusetts Family Court Judge has banned the content of a book because – well, it’s so complicated you’re going to have to read the entire story. But the gist is this: Man wins only 10 hours a week with his son, so he writes a book about how “corrupt” he finds the Massachusetts Family Court. The judge, who is the focus of at least one chapter, bans usage of impounded court records, which essentially guts the book.
– Lowell Sun

Australia Close to Approving Dads’ Rights Bill
A bill that might improve divorced fathers’ access to their children is in the final stages of approval in Australia. Activists feel the changes in the law don’t go far enough because the bill will not guarantee equal time with both parents.
– The Sydney Morning Herald

Registries Trip Up Honorable Dads
Does a father have the right to adopt a child that his former partner wants to give up for adoption? The New York Times explored this issue, but I didn’t have time to get in a post. Essentially, the bureaucracy is designed to prevent men from exercising this right. Even when men have faithfully sought out custody, near-secret registries are used to prevent a man from taking custody of his child. Cathy Young, an editor at Reason, does a good job of explaining the whole thing.
– The Boston Globe

Teenage Crime Is Falling, Report Finds

Following the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, Americans feared a wave of juvenile crime would wrack the nation’s schools. It never happened.

In fact, teenage crime has been dropping, reports KnightRidder on a new Justice Department report. Homicide arrests fell from 3,800 annually at teen crime’s peak to less than 1,000. Arrest rates are down one-third.

The question is why? A lot of reasons are given, but no one is really sure. Here are some possibilities:

• Increased security at schools.
• A drop in crack cocaine prices, lessening the exploitation of kids to serve as mules.
• Population shifts, which includes blacks moving into suburbs and Latino families taking over inner cities.
• Improved programs, such as Big Brother and Big Sister mentoring.
• A decline in teenage mothers.

The most probable cause of improvement, though, is the economy. Most teenagers, who have trouble in school or drop out, will simple go to work as long as there are jobs.

Whatever the reason, it’s so nice to find a “good” story. I hope it’s true.

Governments Clear the Air With Strict Smoking Bans

One of the best things about living in California is the comprehensive ban on indoor smoking. Cigarettes are even disallowed from restaurants and most bars.

While Libertarians may disagree with such laws because it interferes with the rights of individuals, I like to argue it frees the rest of us from the tyranny of smokers. Best of all, I can take my kids to a restaurant without them or us coming home smelling like a smoky bar.

It seems cities, states, provinces and nations around the world have been following California’s lead. Britain’s Parliament, for example, just voted for a total ban on smoking in indoor places, reports The New York Times. Ireland banned smoking in public places in 2004.

Other places that have legal restrictions on public smoking include: most Canadian provinces, India, New Zealand, Norway, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Chicago, New Jersey, New York and Washington. For a more complete list, check out this Wikipedia entry.

California cities have gone one step further in recent years by banning smoking on beaches. Why? Even though the health benefits are limited, our beaches were looking more and more like a giant ashtray, which costs these cities millions of dollars to clean up each year.

These bans on public smoking greatly improve the quality of life; I hope governments continue to extend their scope.

Nasty Internet Comments May Put You in Prison

I don’t know where I was when this story was breaking, but it seems a doozy: It may be illegal to post an inflammatory anonymous comment on the Internet, CNET reported a couple weeks ago. While the law could not be used on most commenters, it could be used on anyone perceived as threatening or harassing someone else.

Here’s what happened: During reauthorization of the “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice” Act, this language was slipped in:

“Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person … who receives the communications … shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Um, I may be mistaken, but that sure sounds like you can be put in jail for a while if you post a nasty comment anonymously. Unfortunately, the final bill hasn’t been published yet, so I have to rely on this CNET explanation on how the law is worded.

I should point out that the original law that was modified was originally referring to harassing telephone calls. It seems the new law is intended to broaden the definition to include any form of Internet communications.

Here’s how Sen. Pete Domenici’s press release describes it:

Preventing Cyberstalking. To strengthen stalking prosecution tools, this section expands the definition of a telecommunications device to include any device or software that uses the Internet and possible Internet technologies such as voice over internet services. This amendment will allow federal prosecutors more discretion in charging stalking cases that occur entirely over the internet.

The word “discretion” is what I find worrying, considering how the current administration revels in squelching free speech. And while it’s very likely that such wording violates The First Amendment, that doesn’t mean it can’t be used to wreak havoc on poor commenters.

In the meantime, no one agrees whether blogs were targeted on purpose or not, but it doesn’t matter because some prosecutor will use it sooner or later on some poor sap. In other words, be careful out there.

Judge Blocks Law That Would Ban Sale of Violent Games to Children

Just the other day, I was commenting how my 3-year-old son Seth was scaring himself by watching/not watching The Mummy Returns at a Christmas party. He would turn away, saying it scared him. Then he’d peek at it again. I took him into another room.

We strongly limit what movies and TV shows are played around our children. It’s the reason we haven’t seen the latest Star Wars movie – because there is no way to watch it without Seth seeing and hearing some of it. We’re not Luddites; we just feel he is too young for such violence. When he is ready for the more adult themes of this movie, we’ll watch it together.

We feel the same way about video games. After all, some are just too violent for youngsters.

California’s legislators reacted to some of these games by passing a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. Before it could kick in Jan. 1, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte suspended the law on the grounds it probably wouldn’t survive a First Amendment test, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Whether you agree or not, the judge is probably right. The problem becomes that such laws then could be written to limit access to music, DVDs and even books on the same grounds. Then again, some states limit children’s access to porn magazines so maybe the precedent already exists.

This creates something of a conundrum for parents. We don’t want to be in the position of limiting free press, but at the same time we don’t want our kids or our neighbor’s kids playing video games that encourage death and mayhem.

As Renee at LAPD Wife writes about Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, “I am horrified at the thought of children high-fiving each other every time they kill a cyber-cop.”

So what should parents do? Ironically, I was contacted by Common Sense Media, which reviews movies, games, TV shows, etc. on age-appropriateness, on Monday.

I have been aware of this group for some time, but have held off writing about them. The group has been controversial because it aggressively supports laws such as the one Judge Whyte just suspended.

But it seems to me that this site could serve as a great tool for parents who don’t want their kids watching movies high in sexual content or to be playing games where they dismember opponents. In that context it is just a tool and a valid one at that.

There is a big problem left standing, though: parents who believe it is perfectly okay for their kids to partake in violent media. At the moment, there does not seem to be a legal remedy that will succeed. The only real solution may be a cultural shift, which I believe is long overdue.

Additional:
Common Sense also maintains a blog.

Gay Parenting, NCLB and Violent Video Games

In the politics of parenting, a lot has been happening the last few days:

California Court Rules on Gay Parenting: Through three decisions, the California Supreme Court grants parenting rights and obligations to gays and lesbians who have children, reports the Los Angeles Times. The decisions essentially put gay couples on legal footing equal to unmarried heterosexual couples who break up after having children.

“We believe these rulings, taken together, are a victory for kids,” said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, whose office filed a brief in the child support case that was cited by the court. “The rulings recognize that the children of same-sex couples have the same interest in maintaining to the maximum extent possible ties to the people who raised them and love them.”

Suing No Child Left Behind: Connecticut is suing the federal government over the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind Law, reports The New York Times. Connecticut, which has one of the best public school systems in the country, complains that the federal government is failing to reimburse it for costs incurred by the education law. The biggest problem, according to the lawsuit, is that the federal government is refusing to be flexible in the enforcement of the law.

Violent Videos Linked to Aggression: A look at 20 years of research confirms that violent video games increase aggressive behavior in children and adolescents, reports Reuters. After the report was presented, The American Psychological Association recommended that violence be reduced in video games marketed to children.

NYT Takes on Fathers’ Issues for Mother’s Day

I’m not really sure why The New York Times Magazine came out with a story on divorced fathers’ rights on Mother’s Day, but there’s no avoiding it. Susan Dominus paints a broad picture of how the men’s movement in England may invade American organizations hoping to even the custody-dispute playing field.

Dominus’ bias against the 50-50 parenting solution shows. She seems to be painting these men, who just want to have a larger role in their children’s lives, as either flaky, desperate or whiners.

While I’ve criticized some of the tactics used by Fathers 4 Justice in the past, many divorcees of both sexes have legitimate gripes that they have been ignored by lawmakers and the courts. And Dominus lightly brushes over the financial impact the American court system has on all members of these families.

Still, the article, which is far too long for me to capsulate here, is a requisite read for any dad – or mom – locked into a custody dispute. If anything, Dominus captures the difficulty men will have in fighting cultural stereotypes and in increasing access to their own children. Please keep in mind that The Father’s Crusade will be free only until about May 15th.

Brit Electronically Tagged Over Truant Daughters

Some governments take education more seriously than others. In Bury, England, a mother of two teenagers will be electronically tagged for three months because she has failed to get her truant teen daughters to attend school, reports the UK Guardian.

Because the girls showed up only 10 and 14 days each out of a possible 179 days in class this school year, the court at first ordered Barbara Woodall to take parenting classes. The court also imposed $209 in fines over her truant children.

But Woodall was subsequently truant herself to a follow-up court hearing. So the Bury court ordered Woodall into new parenting classes and imposed a curfew of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. , which will be enforced via the electronic tag.

While Americans would probably react with outrage if our courts imposed similar sanctions, I find it fascinating that the children’s interests are being put first: “Over the last two years these two girls have had an appalling attendance record, due to Ms. Woodall’s failure to take her parental responsibilities seriously,” Alan Cogswell, the head of Bury’s education welfare service, tells the Guardian. “Their life chances are diminishing rapidly and we have to reverse that process.”

The leaders of Bury, which has the seventh lowest truancy rate in Britain, seem mighty serious about education. If Cogswell fails to get her daughters into school, she faces prison time! Here’s Cogswell again:

“[For Ms. Woodall] not to improve after a previous parenting order speaks volumes. She has got to make a better job of her parenting, as education is vital to a child’s future. We work very hard with families and schools and these children are going to miss out if things do not change.”

Communities in this country are rarely so activist about making sure each kid finishes their education. While I’m not sure I want to live in that restrictive of a society, the merits are obvious. Bury makes sure all children get a good life start despite bad parents. In America, the Libertarian belief that it is up to the parents and only the parents has taken root. As long as the parent isn’t physically or sexually abusive, America does not hold parents legally responsible for children failing to attend school.

While I don’t expect Americans to ever again accept such a degree of social interference from government, it might be instructive to consider new tools that ensure children get their basic educational needs met even if they have bad parents. Prison time for parents may be over the top. Fining the parent and then putting the money into an educational fund for the children seems quite reasonable to me.

Men on Notice: Mom Gets Away With Lying in Court

A custody battle in New York proves that men are often their own worst enemy. Here’s the back story: Casino mogul John Alysworth, 54, and his wife raise four kids to adulthood. He then has an affair with ex-playboy model Bridget Marks, who becomes pregnant and has twin girls.

Marks sues for child support in what should have been a routine case. It’s easy for a judge to say, “Well, John. You played, now you pay.”

But Marks wasn’t satisfied with sticking Alysworth for $4,200 a month in child support, reports Glenn Sacks in a column he penned last year. Instead, Marks decides to punish the guy by coaching her two girls to make false sexual molestation charges against him.

I can say false, because the courts, the press and even her own expert witnesses agree that the accusations were made up. Surprisingly, the divorce court gave custody of the twins to dad, reports Sacks. Their reasoning: Marks abused the girls by making them lie about their father.

Marks turned to the television media and performed the victim role to perfection. “Larry King Live,” “The O’Reilly Factor,” and “Dr. Phil” were only too happy to help. While she continued to shred Alysworth’s credibility, he mostly stayed quiet.

But a few days ago, a New York appellate court turned custody back over to Marks on the grounds that while she was not really a fit mother, she was essentially a “good enough” one.

“The judges agreed with Family Court Judge Arlene Goldberg that the girls were coached into falsely accusing their father of abusing them – a tactic they branded as “abuse,” writes The New York Daily News. “But they declared it was too harsh a punishment to take away the kids (from Marks).”

Not surprisingly, Glenn Sacks returned to the airwaves to decry the decision. Here’s an excerpt from his radio show:

This week we had one of the most stunning and unconscionable court rulings I’ve ever seen. … Marks won custody in part due to the widespread media sympathy she created through constant theatrics, playing victim, and her determination to place her little girls in the public spotlight.

The courts apparently ignore Marks coaching, both from a legal perspective and a parenting one. Says Sacks, who is reading from the court record:

“There is ample support in the record – that the mother coached the girls to make false accusations that their father sexually abused them. The Law Guardian and the neutral expert witnesses who testified in this case – the psychiatrist appointed by the court as the independent forensic evaluator, two certified social workers retained by the Law Guardian, and two social workers who supervised the father’s visitations – all take the view that the accusations are false, and that the children were coached to make them. Even the expert witnesses called by the mother seem to have recognized that the accusations were made in a manner consistent with coaching. … Such misconduct may or may not harm the child or interfere with the child’s relationship with the other parent.”

The court then goes on to award custody to Marks.

While I don’t know enough about either of these people to make a judgment call about their fitness as a parent, one thing is clear: we have here a precedent saying that a mom who coaches her children to lie about dad will not be punished in any way for committing perjury or harming her children to win the case.

Which brings us to why I think men are their own worst enemy. Men who make mistakes such as cheating will continue to provide fodder for the media and courts that will be used against dads who behave in an utmost proper fashion. The decision rendered by this court now puts men around the nation on notice: If you get divorced and your ex-spouse decides to lie about you in court, tough luck.

Only Lawyers Profit on Divorce in West

Parents and their children pay a high price in this country – as well as much of the Western world – when they get divorced. The only people who ever really profit are the lawyers.

While the system is unfair to both sexes, it tends to be downright hostile toward men. One case that recently grabbed the headlines involves a U.S. Navy Seal named Gary who was sent off to Afghanistan in 2003. While there, his wife moved to Israel and filed for divorce, reports the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Instead of a welcome home, Gary came back to a $2,100-a-month bill for child support and an empty nest. When the story first hit the air, Gary hadn’t seen his son in nine months and was rarely allowed to talk to him on the phone, syndicated radio columnist Glenn Sacks originally reported here.

Gary, who only has seen his son three times since he went to Afghanistan, is nearly bankrupt paying for child and spousal support, travel costs and legal fees, Glenn Sacks and divorce rights lawyer Jeffery M. Leving write in a new column.

While a recent California Supreme Court decision has made it more difficult for a spouse to move far away with children, most states do not have similar protections. Anyway, the decision was too late for Gary, whose case is based out of California.

Reservists who come home may face an even more dire situation when they switch from civilian pay to lower military pay. That’s because the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from lowering child support benefits below the original amount. A drop in income doesn’t matter. Some reservists are coming home to possible felony charges and prison time if their arrears reach $5,000.

Such mistreatment from the legal system is not limited to military reservists. The courts placed two restraining orders on Christopher Kennedy of Connecticut that prevent him from seeing his children, reports The Associated Press via Newsday.

“They will not enforce a father’s motion, and they will do everything they can to rule in favor of mothers,” Kennedy tells The Associated Press. “You would honestly have to sit through a hearing to believe it yourself.”

I believe it, because it has happened to family members and friends. By court order, one relative of mine had to bring a security guard with him just to see his own three children. The distraught father had to scrimp and save for weeks at a time just to save up enough money to see his own children, before the judge finally relented. My relative’s biggest complaint? The judge automatically rules against him without even hearing his side of the story.

Some dads are beginning to fight back in this country, albeit slowly. Kennedy and other fathers, for example, are backing a bill that promotes shared parenting, which encourages judges to consider co-parenting custody arrangements. The idea is that both parents get equal time with the children. But such efforts attack the problem slowly, state by state.

Another effort, by The Indiana Rights Council, is taking a more aggressive approach by attempting an enormous nationwide class-action lawsuit. But whether the lawsuit will work is yet to be seen, and so far the press seems largely uninterested. You can read my post on the issue here, but keep in mind the dollar amounts are no longer accurate.

Just north of us, Canadian dads may be in worse shape. That’s because dads may be facing an onslaught of retroactive child support payments, reports the Calgary Sun.

It all started in Alberta courts, which decided that four dads who had been faithfully making child support guidelines owed more because of changes in income. Not new income, but increases since 1997, when Canada-wide child support guidelines were only partially implemented.

The judges fined these dads, who were not deadbeats in any way, up to $100,000 in back child support. The dads are appealing, but if they lose, fathers across Canada may have to dig deep into their wallet.

In all these cases the courts and attorneys seem determined to bankrupt dads, which results in hurting his former family as well as a new one. Which brings me back to my basic point: the Western legal system is a disaster for families.

Bad court decisions and ridiculous legal costs serve only to make dads resentful. While some men are deadbeats, did judges ever stop to think by cutting them out of family time that dads lose their vested interest in paying child support? Even if dad has limited custody rights, I’ve seen moms get away with making it impossible for some guys to see their children by claiming junior has a “cold” or a “school project.” What incentive does a dad have to pay in such situations? He still should, of course, but mistreatments as mentioned above must leave an awful lot of men feeling hopeless and bitter.

It is time for reform that does not enrich the lawyers at the expense of parents and their children. Any solution should be inclusive of dads rather than exclusive. It is time for a fair, equitable solution that protects the rights of moms, dads and most importantly, the children.