Category: Blog

Wellington, New Zealand–From the Associated Press’ Judge: Girl’s name, Talula Does The Hula, won’t do (7/24/08):

A family court judge in New Zealand has had enough with parents giving their children bizarre names here, and did something about it.

Just ask Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. He had her renamed.

Judge Rob Murfitt made the 9-year-old girl a ward of the court so that her name could be changed, he said in a ruling made public Thursday. The girl was involved in a custody battle, he said…

“The court is profoundly concerned about the very poor judgment which this child’s parents have shown in choosing this name,” he wrote. “It makes a fool of the child and sets her up with a social disability and handicap, unnecessarily.”

The girl had been so embarrassed at the name that she had never told her closest friends what it was. She told people to call her “K” instead, the girl’s lawyer, Colleen MacLeod, told the court…

New Zealand law does not allow names that would cause offense to a reasonable person, among other conditions, said Brian Clarke, the registrar general of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Yet another example of family courts overstepping their bounds and invading the private lives of private citizens.  When you get divorced, you throw open your door and your life to the government.  Even though divorce courts side with women and protect women, the courts’ invasive nature can hurt women as well as men.  I don’t think enough mothers and fathers fully appreciate this before filing for divorce.

On the issue of naming, while the name in the story above is pretty out there, in general I am in favor of creative names.  Both of my children have unusual names, and could never be confused with anyone else. 

When my wife was pregnant with our second child, I wanted to name the child “Spartacus,” but she nixed the idea.  I admit she was right, particularly since my second child is a girl.  However, had our child been all boy, he would have been named “Magellan.” 

My daughter ended up with a unique and relatively interesting name anyway.  Her first name, which I chose, comes from an important battle in American history.  Her middle name, which I also chose, is the name of a famous feminist and abolitionist.  My son’s middle name is that of an ancient emperor who was known for his fairness and wisdom.

London, England–Many of you have written to me about the new English law proposal which will make it easier for allegedly abused women who plan the murders of their husbands to defend themselves legally.  I discussed the proposals and the general issue of domestic violence on the BBC last week. 

According to the article Go soft on killer wives: Women who kill in cold blood could escape murder charge (Daily Mail, 7/29/08), under the new law:

Women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.  Under a major government review, they will be punished for the lesser offence of manslaughter, sparing them a mandatory life sentence.  They must establish only that they were responding to a ‘slow burn’ of abuse.

The change sweeps aside the existing requirement in any defence of provocation that they killed on the spur of the moment after a ‘sudden’ loss of control.

In cases where a husband kills, the existing ‘partial defence’ of provocation if a wife was having an affair is scrapped altogether. 
 
The Ministry of Justice said this was in response to long-standing concerns that the centuries- old measure impacts differently on men and women.  In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer, as well as domestic violence victims, should be offered new partial defences of provocation. 
 
They include those ‘seriously wronged’ by an insult. 
 
Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours, or victims of a serious crime who are taunted at a later date by the attacker.

Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction.  Women’s groups had long campaigned for changes to the law to protect victims of domestic violence who hit back in desperation.

But the proposed new partial defence for killers who feel ‘seriously wronged’ by ‘words and conduct’ took experts completely by surprise.

Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank accused Ministers of introducing ‘gang law’ into the legal system.

He said: ‘To take someone’s life because they say something that offends you is the law of gang culture.

‘Are we really going to introduce into our criminal justice system that it is a defence to say “I was insulted”?’

He also voiced concern about the plan to give special protection to certain groups.

Mr Whelan said: ‘By creating all these special categories, the Government are making some people more equal than others before the law.

‘It seems some lives are worth more than others.’

Lyn Costello of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression described the changes as ‘utter madness’.

She warned: ‘We need clear laws, not more grey areas. This is not the sort of message to send out.

‘You will have some very clever lawyers who will twist this around to suit their clients.

‘Unless there are really exceptional circumstances, such as self defence or protecting yourself or family, then there is no excuse for killing someone and it should be murder.’

I don’t claim to be an expert on this new proposal, but I do believe it is a problem.  One of the points I made on the BBC is that there is a huge, huge difference between being “seriously wronged” by “words” and being “seriously wronged” by “conduct.” Yet this new law seems to lump the two together. 

If a mitigating factor in murder comes down to a woman feeling “seriously wronged” by her deceased husband’s alleged “words,” no woman who kills her husband will ever be convicted of murder. I also wonder what conduct is necessary to allow this defense, and what proof will be needed that such conduct actually took place.

As an aside, while laws and morality are two different things, I can’t help but think that what this law implies will also be harmful.  Some women already have the bad habit of feeling continually wrong by the men in their life or by men in general.  It’s possible that this law will in effect say to them “Yes, you’ve been wronged.  And no, it doesn’t matter that your husband did not physically abuse you (i.e. ‘conduct’). He wronged you with his words, so harming him is okay.”

One of the points I made on the BBC is that the problems and challenges faced by abused women vary greatly from country to country.  I have no doubt that there are countries where a sorry excuse for a man can beat his wife continually and make her life miserable and know that there is little likelihood that the police or the government will do much to protect his wife or to stop him.  However, England is not one of those countries.  Nor is the United States, nor the countries of Europe. 

There are many, many provisions and policies in place to help protect abused women.  I could see this law as being fair if it only applied to women who are battered and who already exhausted these remedies and still found themselves stalked by their batterers. 

I pointed out that in the United States a woman who feels she is being mistreated can have her husband kicked out of his own home and barred from contacting her or his children simply on her word alone.  That certainly is not to say that there aren’t abused women who try and fail to escape their abusers, but there are many options besides murder.

Erin Pizzey discussed the new law in a recent column Erin Pizzey, champion of women’s rights, says radical feminist plans to let victims of domestic abuse get away with murder are an affront to morality (7/29/08).

Erin makes some good points.  However, while I have great respect for her, the article would have been more enlightening and convincing had she stuck to the facts and details of the new law, as opposed to devoting much of the article to venting her long-standing grudge against English feminists. (I’ve discussed Pizzey’s good work on many occasions — to learn more, click here.)

Los Angeles, CA–Kathleen Parker’s Save the Males criticizes the way “men, maleness, and fatherhood have been under siege in American culture for decades.”

In the following excerpt from her chapter “Our Fathers, Our Selves,” Parker discusses the damage that divorcing mothers and family law courts do to children when they limit fathers’ role in their lives after divorce or separation. Parker writes:

Seeing one”s dad fifty days a year–the average number of days children of divorce see their biological father–can”t be compared with having a father in-house, day-to-day. It”s an unnatural relationship, often awkward, in which fathers try to jam the month they missed into a single weekend. Never mind the impossibility of consistency in boundaries and discipline.

Experience teaches that we develop our sense of “self’ from the ways in which we interact with both our same-sex and our opposite sex parents. Further, our success in future relationships hinges to some degree on how we navigate those first relationships. One does not need to be a psychotherapist to reckon that a girl abandoned by her father will have trouble trusting men or relating to them in healthy ways as an adult.

A boy without a father will have trouble learning that he belongs to the fraternity of men and, in the absence of a strong male role model, may over identify with Mother. How does a boy learn to be a father when he has none to show him?

And finally, if fatherhood doesn”t matter, how can we expect boys and young men to aspire to become responsible fathers someday? The answer is, we can”t.

Daughters have been especially wounded by the men bad/daddy lousy story they”ve heard from their mothers and the wider culture. How does a little girl reconcile her love of her first “hero’ with the antihero messages all around her?

Interestingly, we seem to accept that children shouldn”t be raised without mothers, but we regard the contributions of fathers as optional seasoning, as though children are little casseroles, especially tasty with a pinch of Dad, but guests will hardly notice if you leave him out.

To learn more or to purchase Save the Males, click here.

Parker, a syndicated columnist who is published in over 300 newspapers every week, is concerned about the decline of fatherhood, and has favorably covered many of our action campaigns.

These include: Campaign Protesting Fox’s Reality Show Bad Dads; Campaign Protesting Florida DCF’s Mistreatment of Loving Father in ‘Elian Gonzalez II’ Case; Campaign Against PBS’s Father-Bashing Breaking the Silence; and Campaign Against ‘Boys are Stupid’ Products.

Trenton, NJ–As I explained in my recent co-authored column Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice (Newark Star-Ledger, 7/28/08), there is a controversy over a recent New Jersey court ruling which raises the evidence standard needed to obtain a domestic violence restraining order. Evidence shows that the orders are often applied for to get an advantage in custody litigation, and that many of the domestic violence claims made to get the orders are fraudulent.

The current controversy brings to mind an amazing article in the New Jersey Law Journal in 1995 which accurately reflects the mentality which is sometimes behind the issuance of these restraining orders. The article “New Jersey Judges Told to Ignore Rights in Abuse TROs” (4/24/95) details a judges’ training session given by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The article is excerpted below–after that, see the kicker:

On Friday, at a training session at the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton, novitiate municipal judges were given the “scared straight” version of dealing with requests for temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases. The recommendation: Issue the order, or else.

Failing to issue temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases, the judges are told, will turn them into fodder for headlines.

They’re also instructed not to worry about the constitution.

The state law carries a strong presumption in favor of granting emergency TROs for alleged domestic violence victims, the new judges were told at the seminar run by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Public sentiment, mostly due to the O.J. Simpson case, runs even stronger.

The judges’ training is rife with hyperbole apparently designed to shock the newcomers. It sets down a rigid procedure, one that the trainers say is the judges’ only choice under a tough 1991 domestic violence law and its decade-old predecessor. Since the Legislature has made domestic violence a top priority, municipal court judges are instructed that they can do their part by issuing temporary restraining orders pronto.

“Throw him out on the street,” said trainer and municipal court judge Richard Russell at a similar seminar a year ago, ‘give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.'”

This napalm approach to implementing the domestic violence statute has some state judges talking. No one disputes the presumption in the law of granting a TRO, and there have been no serious court challenges to the statute’s ex parte provisions.

The strident teaching, however, doesn’t always sit well with some judges, even those who characterize the instruction as deliberate verbal flares directed at a worthy goal.

“[It’s] one of the most inflammatory things I have ever heard,” says one municipal court judge, who asked not to be identified, about a presentation held last year. “We’re supposed to have the courage to make the right decisions, not do what is ‘safe.”‘

At the same time, even former and current municipal and Superior Court judges who are critical of the seminar have words of admiration for the candor of trainers Russell, Somerset County Superior Court Judge Graham Ross and Nancy Kessler, chief of juvenile and family services for the AOC. One municipal court judge says that while the statements reflect an incorrect approach, “I wouldn’t be real keen to inhibit the trainers at these sessions from exhibiting their honest opinions.”

For their part, Russell and Kessler say they are doing what the law says they should do — protecting victims, which in turn can save lives. Ross didn’t return telephone calls about the training. He, Russell and Kessler were scheduled to conduct Friday’s program for new judges, a program Kessler says the trio has conducted for judges at least five times since the law was passed.

The law, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et seq., requires judges to be trained on the issue of domestic violence, a requirement that women’s rights advocates say is unique. The TRO provisions also were reemphasized three years ago, encouraging the use of such orders after a municipal court judge hears from one complainant.

The kicker? Judge Richard “Throw him out on the street [and don’t worry about the constitution]” Russell apparently still serves on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s State Domestic Violence Working Group, the Executive Committee of the State Bar’s Family Law Section, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Family Practice Committee. He currently is the chair of the court’s Child Support Subcommittee.

Thanks to Richard Smaglick of www.fathersandhusbands.org for the information.

Hall County, GA–Wayne Gibbs is being vilified for breaking off his engagement, and now he’s been hit with a $150,000 judgment. Sounds like the guy’s only crime might have been to decide not to marry the woman when he found out he’d be taking on more debt–her debt–than he previously believed. Yes, she suffered economic losses due to relocating to be with him. But he helped pay her debts down. Can you imagine an indebted man being able to successfully sue a woman who broke off her engagement to him? He’d be laughed out of court. And why isn’t this “jilted bride” being criticized for apparently lying to the man about the amount of money she owed? There may well be more to this story than we’re being told, but it doesn’t sound quite right.
I could see being forced to pay for the cost of canceled wedding plans where the money has already been paid and is non-refundable, but not for simply breaking off an engagement. From Jilted Bride Awarded $150K After Wedding Called Off (WSBTV.com, 7/23/08):

HALL COUNTY, Ga. — The jury has awarded a Hall County woman $150,000 after she sued her former fiancé for calling their wedding off. RoseMary Shell sued her ex-fiancé, Wayne Gibbs, after he broke off their engagement in 2007. Shell argued her fiancé’s promise of marital bliss amounted to a binding contract. She said she left a high-paying job in Florida to be with Gibbs and she said she has suffered financial losses since their break-up. She also said she has suffered emotionally. Gibbs testified that he had taken Shell on trips and paid $30,000 of her debt while they were engaged. He said when he found out she had even more debt, he canceled the wedding by leaving Shell a note in their bathroom. Closing arguments were heard Wednesday morning and the jury awarded Shell $150,000 by Wednesday afternoon. “People shouldn’t be allowed to do that and hopefully he’ll think twice before he does it to someone else,” said Shell.

Newark, NJ–“Wood calls the current law on restraining orders ‘an efficient system.’ We disagree. Yes, the system is efficient in separating men from their children and their homes. However, it is hardly efficient in delivering justice.”

My new co-authored column, Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice (Newark Star-Ledger, 7/28/08), defends a recent New Jersey court ruling which raises the evidence standard needed to obtain a domestic violence restraining order.

To write a Letter to the Editor of the Newark Star-Ledger, a top 20 newspaper with a circulation of 600,000, regarding Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice, click on eletters@starledger.com or letterstotheeditor@northjersey.com.

To post a comment about the article, click here.

The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, is below.

Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Women”s advocates and the state Attorney General’s office are criticizing a new court ruling which will make it harder for women to get restraining orders against their male partners. Star-Ledger columnist Fran Wood, in her recent op-ed “Don’t soften protection for women,’ called New Jersey”s Domestic Violence Prevention Act “one of the best statutes in the country,’ and said the new ruling could “diminish the ability of domestic violence victims to get the protection they need.’

Certainly abused women need protection and support, but there are many troubling aspects of the DVPA”s restraining order provisions that merit judicial and/or legislative redress.

Under the DVPA, it is very easy for a woman to allege domestic violence and get a restraining order (aka “protection order’). New Jersey issues 30,000 restraining orders annually, and men are targeted in 4/5ths of them. The standard is “preponderance of the evidence’ (often conceptualized as 51%-49%), and judges almost always side with the accusing plaintiff. 

Under the DVPA, the accuser need not even claim actual abuse. Alleged verbal threats of violence are sufficient, even though it”s almost impossible for the accused to provide substantive contradictory evidence.

The restraining order boots the man out of his own home and generally prohibits him from contacting his own children. Men are cut off from their possessions and property, and some end up in homeless shelters. Yet most have never even had a chance to defend themselves in court. In recognition of the gravity of these orders, the Hudson County judge, Francis B. Schultz, found the current standard of proof unconstitutional, however, and required the stricter “clear and convincing evidence” standard in the case before him. His ruling was not binding on other judges, but will likely be appealed, which could lead to a decision with a broader impact.

There is a large body of evidence which shows that restraining orders are frequently misused. For example, the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, recently explained:

“Protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…[they are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person….it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.’

An article in the November, 2007 issue of the Illinois Bar Journal explains:

“If a parent is willing to abuse the system, it is unlikely the trial court could discover (his or her) improper motives in an Order of Protection hearing.”

These orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.’

Newark family law attorney Bruce Pitman says:

“Anybody who practices family law sees people who abuse the restraining order process. Some create false allegations or take minor or insignificant acts and use them to remove their spouse or partner from the home for advantage in litigation. Such abuses undermine victims of real abuse and violence who seek protection.’ 

Opponents of the ruling point to the relatively rare instances where men have killed their female partners as evidence of why the current law should stand. While these cases are heart-wrenching, they do not constitute a viable argument against the new ruling.

For one, the new ruling does not eliminate restraining orders, but merely requires a proper evidence standard for their issuance. Moreover, it is highly questionable whether restraining orders protect genuinely abused women. A violent spouse intent on killing his ex is not going to be deterred from doing so out of fear of violating his restraining order. In many domestic violence killings, a restraining order was already in place. In general, a restraining order is only enforceable against a law-abiding, non-violent man.

Jane Hanson, executive director of Partners for Women and Justice in Montclair, argues that Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz is wrong in ruling that the DVPA violates parents” “fundamental’ right to “be with or maintain their relationship with their children.’ Yet when a restraining order is issued, fathers can be (and sometimes are) arrested for calling their own children on the phone or going to their Little League games.

Moreover, by removing the father from the home, a custody precedent is set with mom as primary caregiver and dad as occasional visitor–a precedent which harms fathers” ability to gain joint custody of their children in divorce proceedings.

Wood calls the current law on restraining orders “an efficient system.’ We disagree. Yes, the system is efficient in separating men from their children and their homes. However, it is hardly efficient in delivering justice.

This column first appeared in the Newark Star Ledger (7/28/08).

Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. Their website is www.acfc.org.

Glenn Sacks” columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennSacks.com.

Yorkshire, England–These vicious lesbian custody cases are popping up all the time now. Mom & mom agree to have kids together or to adopt kids together, and when the relationship breaks up, one mom drives the other mom out of their kids’ lives.

In this case, mom did the international-abduction-under-the-guise-of-taking-the-kids-to-another-country-to-visit routine that I’ve seen heterosexual women do to numerous readers.

Oh, and don’t forget the spurious claim of abuse or danger (check!), and the spurious plea for the best interests of the kids (check!). Funny how mom’s definition of the children’s best interests somehow never seems to involve the partner who she chose to have the kids with.

Kudos to Justice Jennifer Mackinnon of the Ontario Superior Court for seeing through the nonsense and ordering the kids moved back. From Lesbian’s children to be returned to U.K. (National Post, 7/24/08):

An Ontario judge has ruled that a woman who fled to Canada from the United Kingdom with her two adopted daughters must return with them to allow her former lesbian partner full access to the children under what amounts to a joint custody agreement.

Justice Jennifer Mackinnon, of Ontario Superior Court, ordered Connie Springfield to return to England with her two daughters, Kita, 8, and Freda, 6, whom she adopted with her long-time partner Sarah Courtney six years ago. Ms. Springfield had spirited the two children to Canada late last year in what the judge called a “long thought out, deceptive method of her removal of the children.”

The lesbian couple had broken up five years earlier and had, apparently amicably, continued to share custody of the children until Ms. Springfield took them on what was supposed to be a visit to family members in Ottawa last December, but which she acknowledged planning for some time as a permanent move.

Ms. Courtney applied to have the move declared a child abduction under the Hague Convention governing international child custody disputes and the judge agreed, brushing aside arguments from Ms. Springfield that the move was necessary because of the children’s special needs, behavioural problems and the threat of abuse from another lesbian lover she had become involved with after splitting with Ms. Courtney.

“There is no doubt that both children have significant special needs, but the record does not persuade me that those needs cannot be met in the U.K.,” Justice Mackinnon wrote in her decision, released last week. “[And] this is not a case where the left behind parent was abusive to the other parent or to the children.”

The couple adopted Kita and her sister Freda in 2002, although because the U.K. does not allow same-sex couples to adopt, Ms. Springfield applied to be the sole adoptive parent. The couple later obtained a Joint Residence Order, which effectively recognized that they were both parents to the two little girls and lived together in the small village of Hebden Bridge, in West Yorkshire in northern England.

Read the full article here.

I’ve covered many of these types of cases–to learn more, click here.

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

Denise Richards-Charlie Sheen custody battle returns to court (The Canadian Press, 7/21/08)

Tenn. reports record child support collections (Associated Press, 7/23/08)

Wife on trial for stabbing husband claimed he stabbed her (Rocky Mountain News, 7/23/08)

Woman held after chase (Metro Boston News, 7/24/08)

Newly divorced Waco woman allegedly shot at ex (Associated Press, 7/24/08)

What’s tougher to get than a same-sex marriage? A same-sex divorce (LA Times, 7/25/08)

Divorce: division of assets, division of loyalties (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 7/27/08)

Living together no longer ‘playing house’ (USA Today, 7/28/08)

Ex-Court Clerk Sentenced For Quickie Divorce Scam (CBS4, 7/29/08)

Hulk Hogan Accuses Wife of ‘Dirty Tricks” in Divorce (TransWorldNews, 7/29/08)

Charlie Sheen vs. Denise Richards (Mirror.co.uk, 7/29/08)

Boston, MA–Last week, we wrote about how inequality in parental leave – in that case, maternal leave in the UK – increases workplace discrimination against women. Here in the US, the trend federally and in major corporations has been in favor of gender-neutral family leave, to be taken by men and women to care for kids, elderly and sick relatives, or their own medical needs.

As men attempt to use these newfound rights, many encounter resistance and hostility from some employers who still see things the old way, i.e. mom=caretaker. The National Law Journal reported today, “More Men Filing Workplace Lawsuits‘ with “lawyers calling this a byproduct of the father”s rights movement.’

It turns out we are making progress, however slowly, at least in this one area. The Federal Equal Opportunity Commission reported a near-doubling of male sexual harassment complaints (9% to 16% of all complaints) in the 15 years through 2007. The article stated that most of these complaints are driven by fathers, both married and single.

“One the parental leave front, lawyers note, a growing number of men are filing Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims, many of them single dads with more responsibilities at home. Others are simply asserting their desires to spend more time with their children.’

Family law attorney Sari Friedman said, “Without question, it’s the next step. It’s an expansion of fathers in the court system seeking their parental rights. Now they’re asserting their rights with respect to the labor laws.”

Chicago employee rights attorney Charles Siedlecki said, “”I think it’s just a societal thing. There are so many more single dads out there than there used to be who have custody … and of course everybody has aging parents.”

Los Angeles, CA–“It’s great to be an independent creature. Today you don’t need a man any more. In the old days, a baby without marriage and people would put you out. I’m very into feeling this female thing.”

From No role for dad, says Minnie (MSN, 7/23/08):

Minnie Driver (pictured) has revealed that she has no plans to include her baby’s father at any time during the birth.

“I’m not married and I don’t know if I’ll stay with the guy,” she told the New York Post.

“My mum and aunt Serena will be with me, as will my best friends, a midwife and a yoga teacher. And I’ll be the wailing monster at the centre.

“It’s great to be an independent creature. Today you don’t need a man any more. In the old days, a baby without marriage and people would put you out. I’m very into feeling this female thing.”

She also had an unlikely companion to help her through the early months.

“With this pregnancy I was very sick the first four months. My black Labrador, Bubba, my forever constant loving companion, knew it,” Minnie revealed.

“He’d see me lying on the couch. He’d stay with me. He felt for me.”

The 38-year-old, who is expecting her first child next month, announced her pregnancy in March on TV, though she has kept mum about the identity of the baby’s father – only saying that he’s English and in the same business.

“If he wants to come out and talk about it, he’s more than welcome to,” she said.

“But since he doesn’t live his life in the public eye, it’s something I want to keep private.” 

Driver’s viewpoint is similar to that espoused by the “Single Motherhood by Choice” movement: 

1) She apparently believes that her children do not need a father, even though choosing fatherlessness for her child is the equivalent of saying, “I love my child.  That’s why I am going to intentionally and unnecessarily create conditions under which the child is far more likely to grow up maladjusted.  My child will be more likely to drop out of school, experiment with drugs, commit crimes, or commit suicide.  If my child is a girl, she’ll be more likely to become pregnant as a teenager.  My child will also be less likely to marry and more likely to divorce.”

2) Naturally, the man she’s with somehow isn’t good enough, or there’s something wrong with him.  This isn’t surprising, since there is something wrong with every man, and women are very, very skilled at finding out whatever it is that is wrong.  Whatever might be wrong with the woman, we don’t discuss.  Minnie does sing the praises of her dog, who apparently is a better “loving companion” than her child’s father.

3) I love how she refers to the baby’s father–“I don’t know if I’ll stay with the guy.” She’s about to give birth to his child and he’s just some “guy” who she may or may not decide to stay with.

4) If pressed on why she has declined to create a family for her child, Minnie will probably say what most single mothers by choice say–she was unable to find a good guy or the right guy. I find it very hard to believe that an attractive, famous, wealthy actress like Driver couldn’t find “a good guy.” The problem isn’t a lack of “good guys”–the problem is usually that women like Minnie are too critical and picky.

To learn more about the problems with the Single Motherhood by Choice” movement, see my co-authored column Are Single Mothers the ‘New American Family?’ (World Net Daily, 9/28/06).

Thanks to Malcolm, a reader, for sending the story.