Category: Blog

Washington–Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group–whose columns run in over 300 newspapers–just came out with a scathing piece criticizing Fox’s Bad Dads and supporting our Campaign Protesting Fox’s Reality Show Bad Dads. Parker writes:

“Of those everyone loves to hate, few can compete with the deadbeat dad for longevity.

“How much do we hate him? While we’re counting the ways, Fox TV may try to help America organize its contempt and put a face on this loathsome character. Bad Dads, redundant in these male-bashing times, is the name of a new reality show Fox is considering. While the network reviews the pilot, outraged fathers’ advocates are trying to nip this bad seed before it buds…

“Executive producer JD Roth describes his creation as ‘justice.’

“‘It’s a show that depicts the sacrifice and heartache of incredibly brave women on behalf of their kids and then ends in the most gratifying way possible.’ Really? How gratifying can it be for children watching television to see fathers humiliated in front of the world? Not much is an easy guess.

“For that reason, among others, fathers’ advocates are justifiably outraged at this new exploration of human prurience. Glenn Sacks, a Los Angeles-based dad advocate and radio personality, along with Fathers & Families and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, has launched a pre-emptive strike against Fox on his Web site (www.glennsacks.com/foxbaddads)…

“Bad Dads is just the latest insult to men and especially fathers who feel, appropriately, that they’ve been maligned and minimized through television programming and advertising. In sitcoms, men are typically buffoons. And fathers, if they exist, are inept and unreliable, while Mom is a paragon of virtue and competence…Bad Dads reinforces a stereotype that is neither accurate nor fair. The rich pig who leaves his wife and kids for a pole-dancing aerobics instructor — or who enjoys extended martini lunches with his golf pals — is far from the norm.

“The more accurate picture of a deadbeat dad is an unemployed or underemployed bloke who sees more jail cells than golf courses. A common sequence of events for the poorest deadbeat dads goes something like this: Fall behind in child support, get arrested and put in jail, lose your job, fall further behind in child support.”

Parker’s full column is “Bad Dads” a Bad Idea (5/2/08)

Kentucky–“For nearly two years, James Rhoades, a university librarian in Tallahassee, 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. He’s got DNA tests to prove it, and videos and loads of pictures of him with the boy. In the photos too are the boy’s mother, J.N.R., whom Rhoades met while taking an online graduate course. She 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.

“Last week, in a decision that underscores the tense relationship between science and law, 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. When it comes to defining fatherhood in the Bluegrass State, where Ricketts and her husband now live, the marital ‘I do’ mean a lot more than DNA…

“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.'”–TIME Magazine, 4/29/08

James Rhoades lost a close decision in the Kentucky Supreme Court recently. As we’ve previously discussed, I have mixed emotions about Rhoades and his case. I will say this–if there were ever a guy in a no-win situation, it’s Rhoades. If he gives up and doesn’t pursue a relationship with his son, his son will only know of him as his villain dad who knocked up his mom and then ran out. If he does pursue his case–as he has–he’s vilified as the intruder wrecking a loving family’s peaceful life. It seems to me that Rhoades is probably doing the best he can to do the right thing in the difficult situation he helped create.

On one level, the case is one reason why I sympathize with family law judges and the position they’re put in–people make an absolute mess of their lives and then come to court and expect the courts to solve it.

On another level, while as a general rule I’ve little sympathy for men who have sex with married women, I can sympathize (to a point) with Rhoades. I remember in my 20s I briefly dated a woman who was separated but not divorced from her husband. I wasn’t crazy about being involved with a woman who was still technically married, but she told me a story about what a bastard her husband was, etc., etc., and I, of course, believed it. In being with her it didn’t seem like I was doing anything wrong. I suspect, with some basis, that Rhoades was given the same shtick–my husband doesn’t love me, I’m so sad with him, you’re the one who makes me happy, etc. Then she decided to stick with her husband and Rhoades was left out in the cold, cut off from his son.

The full article is Despite DNA, Dad’s Paternity Denied (TIME, 4/29/08).

London, England–From Good fathers ‘powerless against vengeful mothers’ (Daily Telegraph, 5/1/08):

“Decent fathers are left powerless to see their estranged children if vengeful mothers are determined to prevent access, a senior judge has admitted.

“Lord Justice Ward attacked child access law after presiding over a case that saw a ‘vicious’ mother falsely accuse her ex-husband of sexually abusing their child.

“He spoke out after telling the father that there was nothing he could do to help him re-establish contact with his daughter after his ex-wife turned her against him.

“The man”s 14-year-old daughter, who cannot been identified, had been influenced by a ‘drip, drip, drip of venom’ from his ex-wife, who wanted to deny him his paternal rights…

“In London”s Civil Appeal Court, Lord Justice Ward said: “The father complains bitterly, passionately, and with every justification, that the law is sterile, impotent and utterly useless…

“The malignant influence of the mother, who lives in the Lincoln area, came to a head when the girl wrote to her father when she was nine.

“The letter read: ‘This is what I really think about you. I hate you and you frighten me. You made my life miserable and stressful. I wish you would die. Leave me alone.'”

If only we could have 1/10th of the public awareness and condemnation of mothers like this as we do of fathers who are behind on their child support…

Read the full article here. To learn more about Parental Alienation, click here.

Saskatchewan, Canada–Background: In my recent blog post Father of Newborn ‘Did Everything One Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do’–but It Wasn’t Enough, we discussed the case of an embattled California father, Jorge C., who fought a long, hard and ultimately unsuccessful battle to be a father to his baby boy. The boy’s birth was hidden from him and the mother gave the child up for adoption after, according to one judge, she had “engaged in a web of lies.’ The case reminded me of this remarkable story–From Sask. adoptive parents win custody of baby boy (CTV, 1/29/07): “The biological father of an infant boy in Saskatchewan has lost a battle for custody, after the court decided the child should stay with the adoptive parents he has known almost all his nine-month-old life… “The biological father launched a legal battle last year to get custody of the baby, arguing he hadn’t agreed to the adoption.
He said he hadn’t even been aware he was the child’s father and once he found out, he sought custody. “The adoptive parents argued they followed proper procedures in adopting the baby. In testimony heard last year, the biological mother said she chose the couple to raise her son because she already knew them and knew they couldn’t have children of their own. “In a 35-page judgment released Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench said the unofficial adoption had served in the child’s best interests and should be maintained… “As well, the court found the biological father was capable of having a positive presence in the baby’s life, but not in a parental role. So in order to give the child a year of ‘familial calm’ to promote bonding and attachment in his current home, the court banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year. “‘My concern is [the boy] could have immense difficulty, particularly in the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult relationships in his life. In the interests of [the boy’s] stability, it is best that he have intermittent exposure to [the biological father], rather than structured continuous access,’ the court said in its ruling. “Although this case has generated considerable heartache and stress, it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong. Although lives have been disrupted, the turmoil arose from the often complex circumstances that flow from the unfolding lives of real people with human frailties.” A few comments: 1) I do recognize that the judge was in a very difficult situation here. I would’ve allowed the father and his new wife to raise the boy but given the adoptive couple liberal visitation time with the baby. But the judge is correct–there’s no easy or completely satisfactory solution here. 2) I would disagree with the judge’s assertion that “it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong.” The mother was wrong–she should have allowed the father to raise his own child, instead of sneaking behind his back to put the child up for adoption. 3) While the judge insists that mom didn’t do anything wrong, I wonder why nobody mentions the obvious possible motive she had to surreptitiously adopt out the baby–the desire to avoid paying child support to the biological father for the child. This may not have been her motive but I know one thing–if it had been the father in her position, everybody would have assumed from the beginning that this was his motive. 4) The judge “banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year”–nice. And what a jerk the dad is–wanting to impose on the adoptive couple by visiting his own child. I wonder if the mother–who caused the whole problem to begin with–has been “banned” from seeing her baby, too? Somehow I doubt it. 5) According to this story the father apparently has to pay child support to the adopted couple to raise the child he should’ve been allowed to raise. So he gets the financial responsibility for his child without having any parental rights to his child–what a cynic might call one of the core principles of modern family law.

Frankfort, KY–James Rhoades had an affair with a married woman, from which a child resulted. For three months, the married mother allowed Rhoades to visit the child secretly, and he wanted to help raise the child. Then she cut him off, and he went to court. Near the end of April, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided that he had no parental rights, despite DNA proof of his fatherhood.  Thus, he will have no custody rights, or visitation, or even knowledge about the child, nor will he have to pay child support. To read the full news article, click here.

The Court struggled with this case, deciding it by a mere 4 to 3 vote in which 5 of the 7 justices wrote separate opinions. That”s not surprising, as the case will fracture the opinions of readers here as well.

This case is like a hologram, which looks entirely different depending on the angle from which you view it.

One way to look at gender-related law is to ask yourself, “How would this decision look if the sexes were reversed?’ From that angle, imagine that a married man had an affair with a single woman, who bore a child as a result. Can you possibly imagine that the Court would order the child to be taken from the hospital, given to the married father, and that the single mother would be given no parental rights to the child? Somehow, I just don”t think so.

But before we get hot with indignation, here are some other viewpoints that may or may not have merit.

Justice Bill Cunningham wrote that married couples have a right to “be left alone’ from the intrusions of “interloper adulterers.’ He further wrote, “The severely wounded institution of marriage surely protects the parties from unwanted interlopers claiming parenthood of a child conceived and born’ in the marriage.

But Justice Lizabeth Hughes Abramson wrote, “Our world is full of inconvenient truths. We accomplish nothing for families, the broader community, and our justice system when we deny those truths.’ She believes the Court had made a serious mistake in holding that the father of the child is “the man married to the mother’ rather than the man who “provided half the child”s genetic makeup.’ While Judge Cunningham felt that a ruling in favor of Rhoades would weaken marriage, Judge Abramson felt it would strengthen marriage. She wrote that if men had parental rights in such cases, it would discourage women from straying outside of marriage.

(In fact, 33 states allow a man in Rhoades” situation to pursue parental rights, although such a man might not always win, even when DNA evidence shows he is the father.)

Rhoades” lawyer wrote, “The law is supposed to be a search for the truth, and here, the Supreme Court put its head in the sand.’

Diana Skaggs, a Louisville lawyer who is President of the Kentucky chapter of the American Academy of Trial Attorneys, said that Judge Cunningham calls the man an “interloper’, but “declines to judge the wife”s infidelity.’

Glenn Sacks wrote, “…the case is one reason why I sympathize with family law judges and the position they”re put in–people make an absolute mess of their lives and then come to court and expect the courts to solve them.’ To read this blog, click here.

There is much to be said for the point of view that marriage is sacrosanct and should be supported by law, that the baby is better off raised by the married couple, and that “interlopers’ like Rhoades should be prevented from intruding into the married family. But any such view needs to deal with the sex-switching scenario I described at the beginning.

Tell us what you think about these thorny issues below.

Los Angeles, CA–“Well, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There’s no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.”

Country singer Craig Morgan (pictured) has a powerful song about a post-divorce move-away called Every Friday Afternoon. It captures the way the move-away is often a devastating blow to the post-divorce father-child relationship.

The mom in the song gives the standard rap–she supposedly has a great new job in a different city, it’s OK that dad won’t be around any more because her parents live there, everything will be better wherever she’s going, and dad can still talk to his kids on the phone, etc., etc.

To watch the music video, click here. The lyrics are below.

The move-away issue is one I’ve often written about–to learn more, see my co-authored columns Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and No Virtue in Virtual Visitation (Boston Globe, 7/12/02). To learn more about our two campaigns over move-away legislation in California, click here.

We’ll put Every Friday Afternoon in our divorced dad song collection, along with Trace Adkins’ I’m Tryin’, Doug Supernaw’s I Don’t Call Him Daddy, Toby Keith’s Who’s That Man?, Tim McGraw’s Do You Want Fries With That?, and Sting’s I’m So Happy I Can’t Stop Crying, which was also later recorded by Toby Keith.

Craig Morgan’s Every Friday Afternoon

She called me up this mornin’,
Said: “There’s somethin’ you should know.
“There’s a job back home in Boston,
“And I think I’m gonna go.
“My parents are in Cambridge,
“An’ I’ve got some old friends there.
“An’ I know you think this isn’t fair.”

And the tears started fallin’,
There was nothin’ I could say.
Even if I fight it, someone loses either way.
Whoa, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There’s no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

I have him every weekend,
He’s got his own room here.
He’s all that’s kept me goin’,
These last three years.
There’s little league in Boston,
Oh, but who will coach his team.
How’s he gonna grow up without me.

And the tears started fallin’,
There was nothin’ I could say.
Even if I fight it, someone loses either way.
Whoa, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There’s no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

What about Christmas?
If I can’t get off of work?
What about his birthday?
If I’m not there, he’ll be hurt.
And I know the day is comin’,
When she’ll find someone new,
But he’ll never love him like I do.

Well, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There’s no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

The campaign against Fox”s proposed new reality television show “Bad Dads’ continues to gather momentum.

If you have not already protested the planned show, please do so now by clicking here.

If you need to know more first, click here.

By now, Fox has received over 5,000 calls, faxes and emails protesting the planned show.

In addition, we have learned that the mainstream child support collection world opposes the tactics used by the private collection companies. The mainstreamers will likely oppose any show that would glorify these companies. Read more.

Our campaign has been covered in US News and World Report. This on-line story deserves your comment. One suggested complaint: ditch the demeaning phrase “deadbeat dad.’ After all, noncustodial moms have a worse record; and “deadbeats’ are people who have the ability to pay but deliberately choose to walk away from their obligations, whereas all the studies of fathers who do not pay show that most are due to inability to pay.

Now, Kathleen Parker has written a great column mentioning Fathers & Families and supporting this campaign. Kathleen”s column will be coming out in over 300 newspapers over the course of this week, including the Washington Post and USA Today. Read more here.

Give us your comments below. And again, if you have not already done so, register your protest here.

Fox Television may have stepped into a very big hornet’s nest when it purchased a pilot episode of “Bad Dads.’ The concept of this show is a cross between “Dog the Bounty Hunter’ and “America”s Most Wanted,’ in which a private child support collector tracks down and confronts non-custodial dads who allegedly owe back child support.

Not only is this proposed show hated by non-custodial parents (see below), but Fox”s choice of a hero — a private child support collection agency — is hated by many of the very people it allegedly serves.

This industry is in such disrepute that the state of Florida has just sued one of the leading companies in the field.

It is hard to see how Fox can continue with its plan in the face of our massive protest campaign plus the longstanding hostility of the mainstream child support community to these companies.

Vicki Turetsky is Director of Family Policy for the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a Washington organization that lobbies for low-income families and supports more effective policies for collecting child support. But she has no admiration for private child support collection companies, which have a history of harassing custodial and non-custodial parents alike while diverting a whopping 30% to 40% of child support collections to their own bank accounts.

In September, 2004, she wrote “Private child support collection companies often fail to deliver any genuine services. Instead, they strip income from low and moderate-income families that could have been spent on housing, childcare, clothing and school expenses, or saved for their children”s education, and trap them in perpetual contracts. These companies exploit the child support indebtedness of low and moderate-income non-custodial parents through the use of predatory and abusive tactics that increase their debt levels and often destroy their credit histories.’

She also wrote, “CLASP has reviewed about 400 state consumer complaints and lawsuits filed by mothers, fathers, grandparents, employers, and courts around the county against some of the largest private child support collection companies. The complaints routinely allege that companies make money in four illegitimate ways: (1) promising help with back support, but instead pocketing a fee from ongoing monthly support; (2) taking a cut of support collected by state child support agencies; (3) demanding payments from grandparents; and (4) coercing payments from non-custodial parents that are not owed or authorized by state law.’

“The complaints reflect an offensive and disturbing picture of deceptive advertising, misleading contracts, fee gouging, harassment and abuse, posing as the government, dunning grandparents, inflating and fabricating debts, undermining creditworthiness, and abusing legal process.’

Fox should have known this, since Fox 7 in Miami reported on just these abuses on February 28, 2003. 

The abuses of this industry are so bad that Virginia sued one of the leading companies three months ago, charging that:

• “Supportkids, Inc. sends wage-withholding notices to employers of noncustodial parents. In these documents, the company refers to itself as “Child Support Enforcement,’ a name easily confused with Virginia”s “Division of Child Support Enforcement.’

• “Supportkids, Inc. also directs, unlawfully, the employer to send payments directly to the company”s office in Texas, rather than to Virginia”s DCSE.’

• “It then charges the custodial parent a 34% fee before forwarding the remainder of the payment to the custodial parent, regardless of whether it has undertaken any work on behalf of the parent to collect such payments.’

Several years ago, this industry tried to take advantage of the Bush administration”s admiration for privatizing government and introduced legislation in Congress that would have vastly increased their powers of collection. The legislation was adamantly opposed by:

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
National Women”s Law Center
Children”s Defense Fund
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support
National Organization for Women (NOW)
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers Union
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
National Consumer Law Center
American Public Human Services Association
National Council of Child Support Directors (the heads of state child support collection agencies)
Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association
American Payroll Association

Flash-forward to the present: the protest campaign against Fox”s “Bad Dads,’ coordinated by Fathers & Families, Glenn Sacks, and ACFC, has already netted over 4,000 fax and email protests, and we”re not done yet. The outpouring of opposition reflects the passion of non-custodial parents who are tired of being demonized in the media.

Now, organizations such as those above are also likely to oppose the show. They do not want impressionable viewers to sign up for the services of such companies, who will be portrayed on the show as heroes.

Fox has stepped into a hornet’s nest. Stay tuned to this story.

As a final note, if you are a noncustodial parent, beware the tricks of these companies. Many of them have assumed names and designed stationery to make them sound and look like government agencies. If you are contacted by an agency claiming that you owe child support, verify that they are indeed a government agency, not a private company.

And beware of some of their techniques, as described by Turetsky:

“The company pursues decades-old debts barred by the state”s statute of limitations, and inflates those debts by charging tens of thousands of additional dollars as ‘interest,’ even when state law does not authorize the interest charges. The company continues to harass the parent even when non-custodial parents say they do not owe the money, and provide documentation (such as a zero-balance account statement from the state child support agency, adoption papers, or cancelled checks). Even though the company knows they do not owe the money, it continues to pursue them, and will not respond to calls or letters. The company makes no effort to verify debt, but instead tries to extort a settlement. They also may try to shake down your parents, embarrass you with your neighbors, or seize your assets.’