NPO Blog Archive

Sacramento, CA–Some of you are grumbling about the recent decision of the California Supreme Court (Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco) that legalizes gay marriage in California. You are grousing, “I don”t have anything against gays, but I don”t see why a loving, uncontroversial father can”t get jack in the way of rights, while the elites are falling all over each other giving rights to a controversial segment of society.’

Glenn and I see it differently. We see this decision, and the similar one four years ago in Massachusetts, as proof positive that the family court reform movement can and will win its goals. “If they can do it, we can do it.’

The victories by gays and lesbians prove that a small minority who are determined and committed will win their civil rights. How did they win?  The answer is simple — they organized, they sacrificed, and they fought for what they wanted.

What do we have going for us in our struggle that gays and lesbians don”t have?

1) Gays are maybe 2% or 3% of the overall population. Fathers are around 40% of the overall population.

2) Gays probably have around half the population on their side. We have 86% of the voting public on our side, as judged by the voting results in Massachusetts in 2004.

3) Gays have faced centuries of  prejudice, some of which continues today. Fathers, by contrast, historically have been a central part of both their families and society.

4) Yes, fathers seeking equality in family court face well-funded, organized opposition in the form of feminist groups and bar associations. At the same time, gays face well-funded, organized opposition from religious and social conservative groups.

Whereas many in the family court reform movement are under the delusion that our movement can succeed without money and without donors, gays have effectively and consistently raised money to promote their issues and their agenda. Whereas most fathers” rights rallies draw a few dozen people, gays have mobilized hundreds of thousands of demonstrators when needed.Whereas gays have understood the importance of having well-funded advocacy organizations and paid, professional staff, some in the fathers” movement expect its organizations to survive on air and to thrive without their personal involvement.

There are many, many civil rights and social movements that have succeeded over the past century despite facing far more problems than our movement does. The African-American civil rights movement is one example. The trade union movement — which was largely built during the Great Depression, when massive unemployment made cheap labor plentiful and undercut efforts to organize unions — is another example.

To those we can now add the gay marriage movement. The family court reform movement will achieve the same types of successes.

Addendum:

Fathers & Families has no official position on gay marriage. While most of our members have a “live and let live’ attitude on the matter, it is nevertheless divisive in this movement just as in society at large. We DO have an opinion on parenting after parental separation or divorce: that when children have come to feel that certain people are their parents, those adults should be allowed to continue as their parents, regardless of sexual preference. (If you think you disagree with this point of view, consider the following scenario: a man married to a woman has a divorce and wins joint physical custody of his children. Later he comes out of the closet and becomes the committed partner of another man. Would you deprive him of the custody of his children? If so, what effect do you think this would have on the children?

Fathers & Families supported the parenting rights of a lesbian mother who was not the biological mother of a child in an amicus brief I authored for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It can be viewed here.

By the way, this brief has plenty of information and arguments in it that are useful to heterosexuals seeking joint custody of their children.

Michigan–“Michigan family law courts are facing a crisis. As Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan explains, two-thirds of all the cases filed in circuit courts are family law cases. At least three million of the state”s 10 million people are currently involved in cases with open family court files. Corrigan warns that this has greatly expanded Michigan”s role in its citizens” private lives. Moreover, the huge caseload prevents courts from handling these weighty and complex duties in anything but an assembly-line manner.

“There are two main reasons for Michigan”s problem–the state”s high rate of family breakdown, and the way family courts adjudicate child custody.”

My new co-authored column, Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan”s Kids, Overburdened Court System (Oakland Press, 5/5/08), supports a bill to institute a shared parenting presumption. The bill will be heard by the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on May 7.

HB 4564 could help solve the family court crisis Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan has detailed. The Michigan National Organization for Women and the Michigan State Bar”s Family Law Section have come out in opposition to the bill.

The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, is below. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Oakland Press, one of Michigan’s largest newspapers, click on vop@oakpress.com.

New Column: Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan”s Kids, Overburdened Court System
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Michigan family law courts are facing a crisis. As Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan explains, two-thirds of all the cases filed in Michigan circuit courts are family law cases. At least three million of the state”s 10 million people are currently involved in cases with open family court files. Corrigan warns that this has greatly expanded Michigan”s role in its citizens” private lives. Moreover, the huge caseload prevents courts from handling these weighty and complex duties in anything but an assembly-line manner.

There are two main reasons for Michigan”s problem–the state”s high rate of family breakdown, and the way family courts adjudicate child custody. HB 4564, a bill which will be heard by the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on May 7, addresses the latter issue.

Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan”s Best Interest of the Child Test. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children”s relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents, usually (but not always) their fathers. Moreover, the custody decisions based on the 12 factors are often subjective and arbitrary.

By declaring the losing party a “noncustodial parent’ with little role in his or her children”s lives, Michigan family courts are generating contentious litigation. HB 4564 will help clear overcrowded court calendars by instituting a presumption of shared parenting in divorce or separation.

Los Angeles, CA–Background: J. Michael Bone (pictured) is an eminent authority on Parental Alienation, and I’ve often quoted his work in my newspaper columns on the issue.

Starting in late April Michael is going to be doing a four-part Teleseminar on how targeted parents can overcome Parental Alienation. The 4 week telewebcast series begins Tuesday April 29 from 8:30 – 9:30 p.m. EDT, and runs each Tuesday through 5/20. To register, click here or go to www.overcomingparentalalienation.com.

Below is Part II of my Q & A with Dr. Bone. Part I can be seen at ‘Mental health professionals who don’t understand Parental Alienation will find small imperfections in the targeted parent as an explanation for the child”s alienation…’

Glenn Sacks: What are the key things that a parent who is the target of Parental Alienation needs to do in order to get their judge to understand what is really happening in their case?

Dr. Bone: I believe that the most important issue to keep in mind pertains to the history of the relationship between the child and the alienated parent. In these cases, this relationship will be dramatically different before and after the separation, or soon thereafter. The audience (the Judge) must be repeatedly reminded that the relationship between the child and the parent deteriorated during the time when the child had little or no contact with that parent. This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if the child had become resistant to seeing a parent who had, let’s say abused them. Therefore the historical picture, one that clearly and vividly conveys the relationship between the child and the targeted parent, and how quickly it fell apart, for reasons that do not justify the child’s reaction, is the issue that the judge must be made to wrestle with.

Glenn Sacks: Dr. Bone, you warn parents who are targets of Parental Alienation not to agree to “Counter-Productive Recommendations.” What are some examples of this?

Dr. Bone: Recommendations that do not work are those that do not cause the damaged and alienated relationship to be healed and returned to normal. In many PAS cases, these recommendations are outpatient counseling.

It is not uncommon for Family Law Judges to believe, and reasonably so, that counseling could and should be helpful. However, when parental alienation is present in the PAS form, such outpatient counseling often turns into a format for the child to act out their alienation to the therapist. Under these circumstances, the child”s job becomes the convincing of the therapist as to why they should not see that parent.

If the therapist does not understand the PA dynamic, they will most likely be pulled into the alienated view of the child. If the therapist does understand the PA phenomenon, then the child will begin to protest the therapy and will begin to say things such as it “…is not helping.’

Kentucky–Background: According to TIME magazine, “For nearly two years, James Rhoades…has been fighting to establish in law what science and fact already have shown beyond any doubt: He is the biological father of the boy dubbed J.A.R…the boy’s mother, J.N.R., whom Rhoades met while taking an online graduate course…was — and still is — married to another man, who was stationed at a Pensacola Air Force base during their affair in 2005. And that’s the problem.

“[A] divided Kentucky Supreme Court told Rhoades that he could not press his paternity claim, no matter what evidence of fatherhood he might have, because J.N.R. was, and remains, a married woman…The decision has left Rhoades devastated. ‘What I wanted was not just to see my son but to participate in his life. He is my son and I love him.'”

In my recent blog post If there were ever a guy in a no-win situation, it’s James Rhoades, I explained that I “have mixed emotions about Rhoades and his case.” Ned Holstein tackles the difficult case in his recent blog post Sanctity of Marriage, or Discrimination Against Dads? Rhoades is pictured with his son above.

In a recent post, fathers’ rights activist David R. Usher called Rhoades “a predatory marital gigolo.” I quoted from Usher’s article and linked to it so my readers can see Usher’s perspective and judge for themselves. However, Usher took his article down and asked me to remove the quotes. My quotes were fair use but, as a favor, I have removed them.

Rhoades’ reply and the readers’ comments are below. As I noted earlier, I remain ambivalent about Rhoades and his case.

James Rhoades’ Rebuttal to Dave Usher

David R. Usher in his post “The James Rhoades Case: Mercenary Gigolo Does Not Make Three” has leveled many stinging accusations against me as a man and as a father. He has called me a mercenary gigolo, marital gigolo, disgusting individual, creep, redundant father, marital invader, mercenary gigolo du-jour, and marital offender. Of course I’ve never met Mr. Usher nor have I ever spoken to him, never-the-less he insists on insulting and belittling me for trying to participate in my son’s life.

Usher asserts with his diatribe that I be considered not as a father but rather as someone who should be on a “marital offenders” registry. He claims that the 2nd husband of my son’s mother is the father of my son and that I should have no rights or should not be identified to my son as his father. He also says I should be held responsible for the financial expenses and mental torture I’ve inflicted on Mr. Ricketts. He concludes his post by saying, “…save fathers’ rights for good men who did nothing wrong.”

I believe Usher has characterized me and my intentions unfairly. I have admitted that engaging in an affair was wrong and take full responsibility, however, that should not bar me nor my son from continuing the father-son relationship we had for the 1st three months of my son’s life. Why should I be stripped of a relationship with my son because he was conceived during an affair? How does that make me a non-father? The facts are undeniable, which prove I’m my son’s father. To say that I should go to jail for having an affair is very different from saying I should be stripped of my fatherhood.

According to Usher’s views there should be no blended families nor should we recognize unmarried fathers who have children. Usher has in one sweeping blow declared I don’t deserve any rights because a married woman had my son. Furthermore, he has concluded I’m a bad man and I should wear a scarlet “A” around my neck. In his diatribe he neglects to consider the implications upon my son or the value and importance of the truth. A truth my son deserves to know and will know, for one day my son will discover the truth and will discover how much I love him.

I’m not asking to be initiated into the men’s movement that Usher promotes–rather, I seek a place in my son’s life.

Chicago, IL–Most fathers would do anything to protect their children, and here’s another example.

Like hero fathers James Kim and Albert Collins, Chicago father Joseph Richardson gave his life to save his child.

From Mitch Dudke’s Dad died saving his little girl: Father’s last act protected 4-year-old from crash (Chicago Sun-Times, 5/7/08):

“With an out-of-control car bearing down, Joseph Richardson grabbed his 4-year-old daughter and held her up out of harm’s way.

“It was his last act — and one that apparently saved his daughter’s life.

“Richardson, a 39-year-old father of three, was killed Monday evening by the car, driven by a man who police say was drunk.

“The car pinned Richardson and his daughter Kaniyah against a wrought iron fence at 95th Street and Wentworth, police said.

“Kaniyah survived and was listed in critical but stable condition Tuesday evening at Comer Children’s Hospital, where a spokeswoman said she was doing well.

“‘He held the baby up to keep the car from destroying the baby, but it totally destroyed him,’ said Richardson’s father, the Rev. L.V. Richardson.

“Richardson was walking his daughter to a McDonald’s for burgers at 6:40 p.m. Monday when a 1990 Chevy Cavalier jumped a curb and careened towards them, police said, citing witness accounts.

“He grabbed his daughter just before the car slammed the two into the fence, police said…

“Joseph Richardson, the father of two girls and a boy, all under the age of 11, was described as a devoted father. His other love was music. He was a gifted pianist and organist and performed in choirs at Cottage Grove Baptist Church and Greater Revelation Missionary Baptist Church, where his father ministers. His idols were Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder, his family said…”

Read the full article here.

Canada–This article by Rebecca Eckler, author of Toddlers Gone Wild!, is so offensive in so many ways it’s hard to know where to begin.

Here’s one. Rebecca writes:

“On behalf of my four-year-old, who has a Yahoo account in her name, I recently sent an e-mail to her father, who lives in Alberta.

“‘Hi Daddy,’ I typed, as my daughter was fast asleep. ‘Mommy has been talking about Mother’s Day. I only have 143 pennies in my piggy bank. She’s the best mommy ever. She’s been pretty exhausted. I’d like to get her something nice. Can you help? Love you.’

“It was a slightly pathetic, but possibly cute, way of reminding my daughter’s father about Mother’s Day.

“On what is perhaps the Hallmark holiday of all Hallmark holidays, what’s a single mother to do to get some sort of recognition? It’s certainly not going to come from a child who still licks glue and is too young to understand the concept.

“But modern single mothers, whether they’ve chosen to be single, still get along with the father of their children, or have no contact with the father at all, are finding new ways to make Mother’s Day special (and, in some cases, more fruitful)…

“As for me, the e-mail worked. I’ll be at a spa, thanks to my four-year-old’s request via her mother’s e-mail.”

I love that–mom is so entitled to even more of dad’s money that she brags in the national media about her need to “remind my daughter’s father about Mother’s Day,” as if it’s his problem.

Here’s another:

“All mothers of young children rely on gifts made by someone else. For the single mom, feeling the need for something more than a crumpled card in a knapsack – something that comes with a gift receipt – presents a particular dilemma. You can’t very well hand over $20 to your three year-old to do your shopping.

“So some have learned to lobby on their own behalf.

“‘I’ve drilled it into him,’ says Toronto-based Vanessa Craft, the author of Out of Character, about her three-year-old daughter’s father, who lives in England.

“Growing up, Mother’s Day, like most holidays, had always been recognized in my house. So it’s a big deal. I even remind my daughter’s father that on her birthday I should also get something, for the fact that I gave birth,’ Ms. Craft says.

“‘Her dad knows to make me cards, at the very least, on behalf of our daughter,’ says Ms. Craft, adding, ‘I’ve never had a bad Mother’s Day being a single mom.'”

Huh? Her ex owes her a Mother’s Day gift?

One other note–in both cases (Rebecca Eckler and Vanessa Craft) the children are very young and the fathers live far away. Rebecca dumped the father of her child, to whom she was engaged to be married, for another man. I don’t know what happened in Vanessa’s case, but statistically the odds are good that she was the one who initiated the divorce/breakup. In both cases it was probably the women who moved away. So having already severed most of the loving bonds between the fathers and their little children, the women now feel deprived and entitled to even more from dad.

Here’s a third section:

“Stacey Otis, a single mother of three, says that without a partner there is ‘such a greater connection with your children,’ and that Mother’s Day is always ‘awesome.’

“She celebrates the day at her house, or at one of her siblings’ houses, and has turned it into ‘Family Mother’s Day.’

“Unlike many of my mother friends, who moan about husbands forgetting Mother’s Day entirely, or who complain about partners not even giving them two hours of alone time, Ms. Otis says, ‘My Mother’s Days are always special. When my kids get excited to give me what they made at school, it’s like gold. When you know all you have is each other, it makes the day really special.'”

So Stacey Otis’ kids are better off because they don’t have a dad? That’s odd, since being without a dad greatly increases their chances for most youth pathologies, including drugs, crime, teen pregnancy, and dropouts.

And of course Stacey is better off, because all of her friends’ husbands are louts who spend much of the their time working to support their wives and children. And Stacey’s excessively critical female attitude probably gives you a good clue as to why her and Rebecca’s and Vanessa’s relationships ended, too.

The full article is–get this–Get what you want this Mother’s Day. Twist the ex’s arm (Globe and Mail, 5/6/08). To write a Letter to the Editor of the Globe and Mail about this piece, click on Letters@globeandmail.com.

Thanks to Luc Chagnon, a Canadian reader, for sending the article.