NPO Blog Archive

Ohio law is not particularly friendly to genuine shared parenting. It is the only parenting arrangement that a court can terminate on its own discretion without either parent asking for the shared parenting plan to be terminated (ORC 3109-04E(2)(c) http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3109).

So it is encouraging to see the Ohio Supreme Court take a small step towards shared parenting.  Paul Fisher of Mercer County, Ohio, was a custodial and residential parent under a shared parenting plan that divided parenting responsibilities for his daughter, Demetra, equally between him and the child”s mother, Emma Hasenjager.  Both Paul and Emma went to court asking to be declared the sole custodial and residential parent.  The trial court did not terminate the shared parenting plan but modified it to remove Paul”s status as a custodial and residential parent without finding that there were changes in the circumstances.

After an unfavorable decision by the Appeals Court, Paul appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. In a 5-to-2 decision, the Court found that ‘shared parenting” does, after all, mean something in Ohio.  Even though a court may terminate a shared parenting plan on its own initiative without a finding that there has been a change of circumstances, it cannot modify a shared parenting plan by eviscerating it completely–by removing a parent”s custodial and residential status–without finding that there is a change of circumstances.  (See the OSC Summary of the decision here and a video of oral arguments here.

While this is a small victory for shared parenting in Ohio, it is still unclear how this will turn out for Demetra and Paul.  The case has been remanded to the trial court which, under Ohio law, can bring about exactly the same effect by terminating the shared parenting plan.  There is a long way to go, but this is a small but welcome step toward making ‘shared parenting” mean something in Ohio. Our cause will triumph through small incremental victories such as this one.

Okay, so the connection is a bit of a stretch, but here it is: John Trumbull created the famous painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence–from his imagination, as it was painted 42 years after the actual signing. It was then placed in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol in 1826, where you can still view it today.

What does this have to do with paternity fraud? Trumbull confessed in a letter, “I was a little too intimate with a girl who lived at my brother”s, and who had at the same time some other particular friends; the natural consequence followed, and in due time a fine boy was born; the number of fellow labourers rendered it a little difficult to ascertain precisely who was the father; but, as I was best able to pay the bills, the mother using her legal right, judiciously chose me.’

Trumbull was good-natured about this: “Having committed the folly, and acquired the name of father, I must now do the duty of one, by providing for the education of the child, to whoever he may belong.’

As the boy grew a little older, he came to live with Trumbull as his “nephew,’ as was the custom of the day. But was there some alienation, or estrangement? Trumbull was a patriot, but his son joined the British army during the War of 1812.

Why did Trumbull accept the mother”s claim with such good humor? As Trumbull came from a wealthy family, perhaps the cost was easily borne. Or perhaps, knowing that he would be able to actually raise the boy, rather than just pay the mother, the boy himself was Trumbull”s reward.

Only today are men required to pay for children who are not theirs, 1) in amounts dictated by the state;   2) that they may or may not be able to afford;   and 3) most important, without rights to the care, custody or companionship of the child.

For a blogpost another day: Benjamin Franklin and his out-of-wedlock son, William. Now there”s a story! Not to mention Alexander Hamilton, an even better story!

Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.

December 7, 1941 was a day that will “live in infamy,’ in the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Approximately 2,400 people were killed in the surprise air raid on the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii.

The great majority of those killed were men, but few were fathers. Why?

Because society held a strong belief that fathers belonged at home, supporting their families and helping to raise their children. Hence, fathers were discouraged from volunteering for military service prior to World War II, and most servicemen on December 7, 2007 were not fathers.

The strong belief in stay-at-home fatherhood soon collided with the huge manpower needs of World War II. The military draft, which had expired over twenty years earlier, was reinstated. But even then, fathers of children born before July, 1942 received a special deferment from the draft. It was only in October, 1943 that the draft boards were forced to turn to fathers as a source of manpower.

This measure was unpopular. Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana introduced legislation to postpone this provision. A poll in the fall of 1943 disclosed that over two-thirds of Americans believed it was preferable to draft single men employed in military-critical industries than to draft fathers. The public also preferred to draft single women for non-combat military service in order to avoid drafting fathers. Still another proposal to avoid drafting fathers called for drafting seventeen-year-old boys instead of fathers. As pollster George Gallup commented, “. . . drafting fathers would lead to the breaking up of too many families where there are children.’

When the war ended, both the public and the soldiers believed that fathers should be high on the list for early discharge.

What a change in attitudes! Today, society seems to consider fathers dispensable, except for the cash they earn.

(Acknowledgments to David Blankenhorns” Fatherless America, which provided many of the facts reported above, and which can be consulted for additional details and references.)

Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.

“My toughest fight was my first wife.”– Former World Heavyweight Boxing Champion Muhammad Ali

Research shows that women are as likely to attack their male partners as vice versa, and that a third of domestic violence inquiries are suffered by heterosexual men. I’ve often emphasized that domestic violence is a lot more than a man and a woman fighting in a kitchen-turned-boxing ring, and that female abusers often use the element of surprise to balance the scales. When you live with someone, there are an endless number of possibilities if you want to harm them.

This new Tampa case is yet another example. According to Husband wakes to hot grease from wife:

“Tanesha Young, 24, thought her husband was cheating on her, so she poured hot grease all over him. That’s according to a report from Tampa Police.

“After Antone Neely fell asleep, Young poured hot grease on him that burned the majority of his body.

“Young is being held without bond at the Hillsborough County Jail and has been charged with aggravated battery with great bodily harm.

“The husband remains at Tampa General Hospital.”

Nice that the reporter was able to get the woman’s justification for her crime right there at the beginning of the sentence, before the crime is even mentioned. Nor does the story or the others I’ve seen mention the phrase “domestic violence.”

Wayne, the reader who sent me the piece, says that various news sites have reported this crime and that “those sites that allow comments have a disturbing number of ‘cheating bastard got what he deserved’ type of comments.”

Interestingly, this is similar to what happened to singer Al Green. According to VH1:

“At the height of his popularity, Green’s former girlfriend, Mrs. Mary Woodson, broke into his Memphis home in October 1974 and poured boiling grits on the singer as he was bathing, inflicting second-degree burns on his back, stomach and arm…Green interpreted the violent incident as a sign from God that he should enter the ministry.”

[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]

“Attorney Chagit Lev…said that there is a ‘critical need for a study carried out by objective groups’…She dismissed claims by the Ministry representatives that many of the fathers cut off from their children had no desire to pursue the relationships. ‘I have grown men in my office on a regular basis, crying like babies for me to help them be able to see their children.'”

A new Israeli parliamentary subcommittee is holding hearings on fathers’ rights and child custody. It is claimed in the hearing that only 2.3 percent of divorced men in Israel have custody of their children–amazing.

Some other highlights:

1) “Dr. Orli Iness of the University of Haifa told the committee that ‘when the Knesset adopted legislation on the matter of protecting women from violence, it was reported that about 20 percent of complaints filed were false, but it adopted the legislation as the price to pay in order to protect the weak… Presently, there have been reports that in some precincts the figure [for false complaints] is as high as 50%. If that had been the case at the time, the Knesset would have thought differently about the matter.’

“Iness said that one of the main problems surrounding the issue is the lack of organized impartial studies on the phenomenon.

“They should be carried out. It is not such a difficult task.”

2) “Moshe Aberjil, who heads one of the fathers” rights groups present at the meeting, complained that the Welfare Ministry”s forms are all worded with gender inflections that are only suitable for complaints of violence carried out by men, when it has been clearly shown that female domestic violence is a reality. Other representatives alleged that police do not follow up on complaints filed by men, indicating an order from above not to pursue such investigations.”

3) “Dr. Michael Kronghaus of the Israeli Center for the Defense of the Child said…that only 2.3 percent of divorced men in Israel have custody of their children, whereas in France and Germany the figure is around 20 percent and in the US 35 percent. ‘Are Jewish fathers so much worse?’ he asked.

4) “Attorney Chagit Lev…said that there is a ‘critical need for a study carried out by objective groups’…She dismissed claims by the Ministry representatives that many of the fathers cut off from their children had no desire to pursue the relationships. ‘I have grown men in my office on a regular basis, crying like babies for me to help them be able to see their children. I am not sitting here today for the sake of the men or the women, though, but for the children themselves… Pretending that domestic violence is only a male issue leaves thousands of children in the care of violent women – and 80 percent of kids raised with parental violence go on to use violence against their own kids.'”

I have mixed emotions about the T-Mobile “Creepy Dad” commercial. On one hand, it’s nice to see a father portrayed as being caring, protective and involved, like most dads are. It also shows a strong father-daughter bond.

On the other hand, it promotes the idea that teenage boys are a hazard to teenage girls. There’s some truth to this, but there’s some truth to just the opposite, too.

A teenage girl can falsely accuse a boy of assault or rape and set him up for vigilante retribution, expulsion, or criminal prosecution. She can decide she wants a baby and put him on the hook for 18 years of child support. Yes, this is something of a paranoid and extreme interpretation, because only a small percentage of girls would do that to a boy. On the other hand, only a small percentage of boys would harm or assault a girl, too.

Perhaps it’s just something innate in fathers. The other day I allowed my neighbor Julio, who has a girl my daughter’s age, to take my daughter with his family to see the Christmas lights up on the windy roads at Griffith Park late at night, a very unusual move for me. Before they left, I put my arm around him and said, “Julio, I love you but if my little girl doesn’t come back safe and sound, you’d probably be safer not coming back at all.” He nodded and said, “I have a daughter. I understand completely.”

To watch the ad, click here or see below. Thanks to Robert, a reader, for sending it to me.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ltYQlFuzrg]

In general I’m dubious about family courts allowing children age 12 or older to decide which parent they want to live with. Some children that age have the maturity to make a good decision, some don’t. Also, kids can be easily manipulated and bribed, not to mention alienated or poisoned by one parent or another. Plus, in most cases the child would be better off spending significant time with both parents, not one or the other.

On a more political level, another problem is that family law advocates on both sides (our side and the feminist side) can easily fall into the trap of applauding the child’s decision when it goes our way and condemning it (or blaming bribery or alienation) when it doesn’t.

The English case below, however, I think transcends this. According to the London Times Judges back two British boys who refuse to live in France (11/8/07):

“Two boys who hated living in France so much they asserted their Britishness and refused to return to live there with their mother have been granted their wish by senior judges.

‘In a highly unusual case, Lord Justice Thorpe, one of three judges sitting at the Court of Appeal in London, said that the desire of the brothers, aged 11 and 16, to live in England deserved to be respected and overrode even the wishes of their own mother.

“Describing the case as ‘not just exceptional but very exceptional’, the judge said that the boys” French mother had taken them back to her homeland with her in 2005 after her marriage to their British father had broken down. But the two boys, who at the time spoke no French, failed to settle into their new lives in a market town in southern France and, after a holiday in England with their father in July this year, refused to return.

“The boys” mother came to England to take them back to France but they insisted that they wanted to stay in England…

“In his original decision, Mr Justice Coleridge described both parents as ‘impressive people’ and said he was ‘quite satisfied that the father has not, in any shape or form, put the children up to this’. The boys had ‘simply and strongly expressed the view that they will not return’ to France.

“The mother had argued that her sons” life in France was happy and settled and their views were ‘not a matter which should be given great weight’.”

As much as I’m uncomfortable with allowing kids making custody decisions, I think the judge probably made the right call in this case. Both parents are apparently fit, and I think it is very difficult for an 11-year-old and a 16-year-old to be uprooted, taken from their schools and their friends, and taken to a country where they don’t even speak the language.

Read the full article here.

We’ve often discussed the way innocent fathers are harassed, persecuted and sometimes jailed by the child support enforcement system, and here’s another example.

A man was jailed for three months over a petty arrearage created because his now-bankrupt former employer kept the money withheld for child support instead of paying it to the state. According to the Boston ABC report Innocent Man Sent To Jail For Missed Child Support (WCVB TV, 12/3/07):

“Systemic problems allowed an innocent Massachusetts man to be labeled a deadbeat dad and sent to jail.

“Team 5 Investigates’ Rhondella Richardson reported that it happened to John Caliri.

“‘I wake up in the morning and I go to bed at night, knowing that I’ve been in jail because of something I did not do, and I don’t deserve it,’ said Caliri.

“Caliri was sentenced to 90 days in jail after he was accused of falling eight weeks behind on child support payments.

“‘There was a balance of $2,240,’ Caliri said.

“He has proof of a good payment history. But problems came last spring with his new job at Daniel’s Townline Pizza in Weymouth.

“Townline Pizza garnished child support from Caliri’s wages but never sent the money to the Department of Revenue for his ex-wife and three children.

“He went to court last month to explain it all but instead went to jail.

“‘He heard the case, and he found me in contempt, and I was absolutely floored,’ he said.

“Townline Pizza failed financially and closed in July. Manhattan Deli opened in September. The new owner told Team 5 Investigates that the child support issue is just one of the problems the old place had.

“Deli owner Ari Black said bill collectors for food vendors still visit looking for the previous owner.

“For court, the Department of Revenue provided Caliri with a letter stating that $2,240 had been withheld in pay…”

A few comments:

1) Knock me over with a feather–child support enforcement made a mistake.

2) Notice the assembly line justice/lack of due process.

3) This guy goes to jail for three months over a lousy $2,240?

4) How does jailing him over a lousy $2,240 help his kids?

5) As usual, the “deadbeat dad” is not a high-flying rich guy with a Porsche and trophy wife, but instead a low-income man. This “deadbeat” works in a damn pizza parlor, and the system can’t wait for him to fall a little behind so they can toss him in jail.

Thanks to Trevor, a reader, for sending me the piece.

A man who was kind enough to donate his sperm to a lesbian couple has now–18 years later–been stabbed in the back and hit up for child support. According to the New York Post:

“A sperm donor who sent gifts signed ‘Dad’ to his biological son has been slapped with a child-support order, 18 years after helping his friend get pregnant.

“The Nassau County man donated his sperm to a work colleague, and included his name on the child’s birth certificate, saying it would give the boy an identity, courts documents revealed.

“He then blurred the lines between donor and full-time father by sending money, presents and cards signed ‘Dad’ and ‘Daddy,’ and having phone chats with the now college-bound teen.

“But the man’s goodwill backfired: A court ruling says he is now liable for financial support of the 18-year-old, who lives with his mother in Oregon.

“‘It really is no good deed goes unpunished,’ said the man’s lawyer, Deborah Kelly of Potrush and Daab in Garden City…

“‘He was assured that he would have no responsibility on his part and of course 18 years has elapsed where there hasn’t been responsibility,’ she said.

“‘He did not anticipate this would happen now, when the child is almost an adult, that the mother would come forward for child support.’

“She said her client had requested a DNA test, ‘because we have no concrete evidence he is the father.’

“Nassau County Family Court judge Ellen Greenberg ruled Nov. 16 against a paternity test, saying it would have a traumatic effect on the child.

“The child signed an affidavit stating that he has ‘never known anyone other than [the man] to be his father,’ according to court documents.

“If payments were to go ahead, the child support would be determined based on the mother’s earning capacity; the reported income of her partner, who is also a doctor; and the father’s income…

“The father said he had contact with the child from his birth until 1993, when the lesbian couple and his son moved to Oregon, according to court documents. From then the contact dropped to seven phone calls in the past 15 years and one meeting for a few hours three years ago.”

A few points:

1) Incredibly, the court won’t even allow him to have a DNA test to confirm that he really is the father.

2) According to the Post, “The child signed an affidavit stating that he has “never known anyone other than [the man] to be his father.” One wonders what pressure his mother may have put on him to sign this and be a part of this scam.

3) The boy is 18–he’s no longer a child, and nobody should be required to pay child support for him. This is a court-ordered double-standard–as a married father, my wife and I are not legally required to give my son a dime when he’s 18.

4) The kicker is “If payments were to go ahead, the child support would be determined based on the mother’s earning capacity; the reported income of her partner, who is also a doctor; and the father’s income.” So it’s not enough for the biological mother to have her own income and be supported by her lesbian partner, who is also a doctor–she needs to suck money out of yet another person to pay for this.

I’m sure in any other aspect, the biological mother would fiercely assert that her lesbian partner fills the second parent/parental role for the boy, and that he doesn’t need nor ever did need a father. Yet somehow when it comes to child support, her lesbian partner means nothing, and she’s got to go get money from a man.

The full New York Post article can be seen here.

Below are some recent articles and items of interest from Fathers & Families’ latest News Digest.

Planet feels heat of divorce (The Sunday Times, 12-2-07)

New child support debit card system hits glitches (Wisconsin-Madison News, 11-27-07)

Wrongly convicted man upset over child support case (WRAL.com, 11-28-07)

Carver County gives aid, not jail, to deadbeats (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 11-28-07)

Mothers scrimp as states take child support (New York Times, 12-1-07)

Court says sperm donor liable for child support (Newsday.com, 12-1-07)

Missed child support ends up costing him plenty (Associated Press, 11-30-07)

Disabled father feels ignored by the system (WLBT3, 11-27-07)

Deputy assaulted during domestic violence in Anderson County (Anderson Independent-Mail, 11-29-07)

Divorce often doesn’t bring the expected results (Houston Home Journal, 11-28-07)