Children Made Fatherless By Family Courts

One impressive vote last November second has been overlooked by the media. By 85 to 15 percent, a ballot initiative in Massachusetts approved equal legal and physical custody of children whose parents are divorced.

That ballot initiative is nonbinding, but it certainly is indicative of the will of the people and the growing recognition that children are best off under the care of both parents. The initiative came out of the grassroots with a massive signature-gathering effort during the summer.

The proposition appeared on the ballot as follows: "Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the courts shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children and the children's right to maximize their time with each parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing child support and abuse prevention laws?"

This initiative was sponsored by a fathers' rights group whose members believe that fathers are systematically discriminated against by family courts which nearly always award physical custody to the mother even when the father has committed no fault. Family courts typically deny faultless fathers their equal parental rights even when state law appears to require equal custody.

California Family Law, for example, states (Sec. 3010(a)): "The mother . . . and the father . . . are equally entitled to the custody of the child." The only specific examples the statute gives for denying custody to a parent are child abuse, false accusations of child abuse, abuse of someone else with whom the person has a domestic relationship, substance abuse, and conviction of certain felonies. State laws about custody rights vary, and only about a dozen states specify a legal presumption in favor of equal custody. Iowa's new law says that if a court denies a request for joint physical custody, the judge must explain why it's not in the best interest of the child.

Whether or not a state law mandates equal rights to both parents, family courts appear instead to rely on a concept called "the best interest of the child." Since that notion is wholly subjective, an undefinable rule with no standards or accountability, in practice it rests on the personal whim or bias of the family court.

Family court judges find unwelcome the task of rendering a judicial decision detached from the law and from any due-process finding of fault, so they call on a court-appointed psychologist to provide his opinion of who should have custody. But the issue before the court is not psychological (except in rare cases of mental illness), and the psychologist's credentials no more qualify him to determine what is "the best interest of the child" than the judge -- or the father or mother.

The social ills that are caused by the lack of a father role-model and discipline-dispenser in the home have been voluminously reported. We've been led to believe that the plight of fatherless children is caused by husbands walking out on their wives, fathers abandoning their children, and deadbeat dads.

That may be a primary cause in the matriarchal welfare system, but no evidence supports a claim that large numbers of non-welfare fathers are voluntarily abandoning their children. Thousands, perhaps millions, of middle-class children are growing up fatherless because the family courts have deprived them of their fathers.

One of the best-kept secrets in American society today is that two-thirds of divorces are now sought by wives, not husbands. The feminist movement has taught wives that they can seek "liberation" by walking out on the marriage contract and marital duties and still reap the benefits of marriage, i.e., their children and his money.

Some 80 percent of divorces are involuntary, over the objections of one spouse. Very few of these divorces involve grounds such as desertion, adultery, or abuse.

We urgently need a comprehensive study of how many family court decisions deprive fathers of their parental rights, and deprive children of their fathers, when that awesome punishment is not based on any finding of fault. Information is difficult to gather because most of what family courts do is not available to public scrutiny.

How many children are separated by judicial fiat from involuntarily divorced fathers who have done nothing wrong? How many children are separated from their fathers because of questionable child abuse accusations without any evidentiary hearing or due process of law?

Fathers are starting to fight back. During 2004, federal class action suits were filed against 46 states on behalf of an estimated 25 million non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, claiming violation of their right to equal custody of their children.

The gay-rights lobby has a national strategy based on federal "equal protection" to get their day in court to demand marriage licenses. What we really need are laws ensuring that children of broken homes have equal access to their fathers and mothers.

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/jan05/05-01-12.html

I think it all goes back to the abortion issue. "It's a woman's body" "A Woman's Choice" reasoning places all the responsibility on the mother.

It takes two to make a baby, so it should take two to raise one.

I think it all goes back to the abortion issue. "It's a woman's body" "A Woman's Choice" reasoning places all the responsibility on the mother.

Not really. You have to remember that just half a century ago most mothers stayed home while the fathers worked. Even further back than that, it was the mother's duty in the tribe to nurture while the men folk when out hunting.

Most of the family court judges I know were born just before or after the 1950's. The courts have been slow in turning away from the idea of the mother as the most qualified primary caregiver. This gradual turn is good for the children and good for the fathers.

Children raised by single fathers are much better behaved than those raised by single mothers. The prisons are full of single-mother-raised men.

Women have had it both ways until now.

Equality in the workplace, and a lawsuit if such workpace is deemed less than equal, yet put that same woman executive in divorce court and watch how they will proceed to deprive the man of EVERYTHING.

Just like I must prove expenses, women who get child support should be required to prove that the money actually was spent on the child - and not on dinners with her new beau.

Agreed! However, unlike the homosexual minority -selfish heterosexuals who abandon comprise a hefty portion of the population... Sometimes the patient will refuse the medicine....

The rules need to change. I think in most cases the custody and visitation should be decided between the parents --- maybe before they hate each other and decide to use the kids to hurt the other. Maybe when people marry they should have it in writing how things would be handled for future children in the event of a break up --- you hate having the government have to decide everything.

Just like I must prove expenses, women who get child support should be required to prove that the money actually was spent on the child - and not on dinners with her new beau.

No child should ever be placed in the custody of a person incapable of their care, protection, and support.

Period.

Removal of children from a willing father who is capable of their support to place them with a mother who is not so capable is a travesty and a scandal.

It would have been impossible 80 years ago. Pray God, in less than eighty years it will be impossible again.

There is just a huge economic incentive for women to walk out on their marriages. During a period of relationship difficulties when in past times things would have been "worked out" nowadays the woman can eye ...

1. Getting primary physical custody of the children, especially if they are of a "tender age".
2. Getting tax free child support payments for the children.
3. Being assured the child support payments will not go away even if she remarries a millionaire.

Of course she would be giving her children a classic "broken home" but if she is angry with her mate just think of the punishment value. She can really teach him a lesson about those insensitive comments or whatever.

I'm one who knows.

But even with school age children, it is very rare here in Alabama for the children to swap equally between the father and the mother.

For parents with a degree of geographic separation, it is deemed disruptive of their lives if they were to attend school in one area one year and the other parents area the next year. Yet military families are uprooted about every three years. The only "fair" thing (given that broken homes are a terrible thing) is true 50-50 custody.

"Children raised by single fathers are much better behaved than those raised by single mothers. The prisons are full of single-mother-raised men."

I think you missed the point. The majority of prison inmates are men. One of the reason so many men from broken homes end up in jail is NOT because they were raised by their mothers, but because their fathers were not around. They had no male role models in their lives.

Those fathers CHOSE not to be involved in the lives of their sons. I'm sure many/most of those single moms would rather not have been single.

No fault divorce allows the adulterer (as happened in my family:) to kick his pregnant wife and their toddler son out with no support until the divorce is final, his mistress and their child in (as it turns out, from an apartment in the same building), the wife has no choice about the divorce (as soon as the baby is born) and the adulterer still gets 50% of the property (which he holds hostage until the divorce is final, including baby clothes and furniture).

"Daddy" also has the life-long opportunity to disturb "his" daughter any time he feels sadistic, such as her wedding or the birth of her child. It doesn't matter that she considers her grandfather as acting as her father should have or that the State had to file charges and force "Daddy" to finally come up with back child support when he made the mistake of going to work for a company based in her home state when she was 18 years old (not all states cooperate with other states in enforcing child support laws).

Moral Absolutes Ping.

[I'm restarting this pinglist - let me know if anyone wants on/off.]

Schlafly gets it right. Easy divorce is one of the heads of the many-headed Gorgon that is devouring the foundation of human civilization. It is significant that feminism is behind the demand for easy divorce - and there are some interesting figures in the article - 80% of divorces instigated by wives!

Virtue is necessary for individual happiness and social peace. In a society where virtue is scorned and whoredom and ill behavior is glorified, jack booted thugism is around the corner.

For parents with a degree of geographic separation, it is deemed disruptive of their lives

Keeping the children's lives in a constant state of upheaval isn't healthy either. In a lot of cases, parents have joint custody but one parent is primary custodian, or has physical custody. In cases where one parent is given custody, the standard language of the court order is "care, custody and control", without having to consult with the noncustodial parent. That means that parent sees to all their medical needs, etc., has physical custody and makes all the controlling decisions about the child's life, education and so forth.

In joint custody, even with geographical difference, both parents make decisions about the child's life, medical needs, education, etc. Even though one parent may be the primary custodian, both share equally in things that affect the child's future and in involved in all aspects of the child's upbringing instead of leaving only one parent with the last word.

My son was told to move out by his wife, and is fighting for any reasonable visits with his 2yo daughter. Ex doesn't want any of our family to have her either (I ight add my daughter is licensed daycare and my husband and I licensed foster care). Immediately she had boyfriend move in. I am finding more men in this situation. I really believe there are alot more men in this bracket than the ones that left. There are alot of selfish women out there that claim abuse when their is none because they want to wipe their ex out of the picture and just have his money. Shame on the courts for allowing this to continue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.