|
|
|
Your Feedback: Impossible reform goals/ Why they are necessary.
From: Webmaster (webmaster@akidsright.org)
This is a message from a mailing list, members@kids-right.org http://www.kids-right.org/ To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to Majordomo@kids-right.org with the following 1 line in the BODY of the message (Subject is ignored). unsubscribe members ====================================================================== Good People, This message contains some recent feedback from you. It is an impressive group of messages which hit home at some of the real problems involved with both the goals & methods for reform. [Our comments added in brackets at end of each and we don't mean to trivialize -- each of these people bring up some very important points and we appreciate their contributions! This is a LONG message, about 350 lines, but it really does summarize the hurdles that are there and ideas which will need our response in the future.] Messages from: 1) Barbara Lyn Lapp (Children abducted to save them) 2) Richard Doyle (It takes more than one person) 3) ACSCA (Federal Reform -- an excellent message, legislative hurdles) 4) Curt Miller (Equal parenting -- too much to ask for) 5) Paul Clements (Idea whose time has come) 6) Drew (Let common people see what really goes on) The first is an exception, it just describes some recent activity where the "state" new best. Barbara has been jailed for 6 months in prior efforts to help parents. For more details see, http://www.FamilyAlert.Org/ ----- Barbara Lyn Lapp (lappfamily@madbbs.com) --------------- "Hit the road" happened a few days ago. Seems like several times a year a child stealing case comes up that tugs at, then breaks, my home strings. This time it was in Ontario, Canada. We got word through an e-mail forwarded by a friend, then heard more about the case through an international publication of Amish/Mennonite communites. Seven children, age six to 14, were carried from their home by CAS (Childrens Aid Society) workers and police, amid 50-some bystanders who tried to peacefully prevent the children from being taken. A 7-yr.-old cried out, "Help me, Help me!" as they forced him away. The pastor stood nearby saying, "I would if I could." The children weren't abused or neglected. The child removal was due to a strange Canadian rule requiring that if a CAS case enters the system it can't be closed until parents sign a document declaring they will not use corporal punishment. In this case the system was notified when a child was taken to the doctor for burns (no abuse alledged), and the parents would not sign the required form for closing the case. Instead, they and their pastor publicly declared they would follow the Bible rule of discipline and would not sign. Soon another family in the same church group was questioned by CAS regarding form of discipline. That was when twenty-five mothers with 75 children from the group fled the country, publicly stating they would not return until guarenteed safety by the Canadian government. I can't possibly make personal contact with every child vs. government injustice I hear about. I am, however, strongly attracted to cases in which parents take a moral stance and the government subsequently gets heavy handed about it. These are the kind of people who need to see thumbs up from the whole world, and governments that attempt such mischief need to be shown thumbs down -- face to face. The town was Aylmer, Ontario, (population 6,000) (I went there) ... At the library I sorted through a month of papers from two towns. One of the articles said the outspoken church pastor had been charged with a crime for publishing the story, with names, on the internet. He says he didn't do it. It is my feeling the court and CAS will find a way out of it. Publicity and support for the family has grown so big that the authorities would look greatly unmerciful if another traumatizing affair would come about. As the Alymer Express newspaper editorial writer said after the first removal, "Did anybody think of those children?" and " This ridiculous performance has turned out to be a mockery of our system of justice. We feel extremely sorry for the children who were caught in the vortex." The same paper had pages of photos, some of screaming, kicking children carried from their home by police; others showed masses of decent-looking people from the Church of God group standing with signs of protest, and sadness.... ----- Richard Doyle (mdefense@pclink.com) ----------------------- John, since the mid 1960's I've seen hundreds, perhaps thousands of individual actions, such as you propose, put forth. Most of them very good. Unfortunately, all have foundered, and will continue to do so, until we build the foundation for them...By that I mean a mechanism to coordinate the activities amohg all or most of the men's/fathers' organizations. The main reason these organizations won't cooperate is EGO. Organization leaders simply don't recognize others, or other ideas that they didn't personally originate. It's sad, but true. Help us build the necessary foundation, John. Then some of these actions may stand a chance. [Yes, we need participation by more people. No one likes to be alone in any of these efforts and hopefully, at some point, more people will join in. We need both Mothers and Fathers in the effort.] ----- ACSCA@aol.com -------------------------------------------- Given that I spend a considerable amount of time on Capital Hill, perhaps it is best if I share some insight with you. In doing so, recognize that I do not have any solutions that I am able to offer you -- but perhaps my insight can get you, and others to thinking. No matter what happens, you are going to fail miserably in the "public opinoin poll", and will accomplish little, if anything. You have many factors working against you, and I do not really see any that are working in your favor. 1. Your protests at the Federal Building kind of fall on "blind eyes" for the most part as you are viewed to be a "poor loser" in the scheme of things. Your standing up for principals, albeit worthy in your opinion and beliefs, are contrary to the "principals" that society sees as appropriate... 2. As you proceed with your cause, you must remember that given one-half of all marriages end in divorce, the custodial parent will also have a much stronger lobby of sympathizers than the non-custodial parent. Parents are prone to protect their children, and in many divorces, the "villian" is seen as the non-custodial parent. Traditionally, when a woman is in divorce court, she will have her "support system" around her - mother, father, brothers, sisters, etc. right there in the court room, whilst the father is there, generally by himself. It is exeptionally rare that family members of the father show up for any of the proceedings -- unless it is a hotly contested divorce / custody dispute. ... 4. You also have a long history to combat -- that of the irresponsible parent who does not support his or her children. Whilst you can argue until the cows come home that they probably would support their children if they had been given an opportunity to remain involved in their lives -- the fact remains that they did not remain involved in their lives. 5. Our country is leaning more toward the concept of "personal responsibility" -- and when you are trying to argue for your goal -- i.e. presumption of joint custody -- you will find much opposition to that concept from the legal community, social services community, etc. The primary reason is that these communities view the visitation or parenting time portion of the order to be the "bare minimum" of what should be allowed. There is nothing to stop, and it does not stop, parents who are able to put their bitterness aside, from both having great involvement in the lives of their children. What this will all come down to is thus: Given adult's inability to get along after the divorce, the concept of forced shared parenting will ultimately do the children more harm than good. The argument will continue that the government cannot force people to act like adults for the good of their children. The only way that shared parenting will work and be productive for the child is if both parents share the same standards, beliefs and perceptions about raising children. 6. Your goal for a constitutional amendment will never be realized. See number 5 above. 7. The wild allegations that appear to abound in family law -- well, as you are well aware, all that it takes is one bad apple to spoil the entire barrel. All that it takes is for one allegation not to be taken seriously, where bodily harm or death takes place, and things tighten up. 8. ... Concerns for fathers are largely lost when people . . . testify before Congress that the family court system is on the same par as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. 9. Basically, what you are asking for is the "whole enchilada" but not offering anything in the form of compromise. You will get much more mileage out of your goals if you back off from the concept of shared parenting and instead promote legislation that will provide for "family skills training" for both parents with a goal for integrating both parents into the lives of their children. 10. The discussion about Civil Rights is indeed a fine subject. However, in order to show that Civil Rights are being trampled on, you must first be able to show that the order of society is allowing such to take place. Again, the argument against the Civil Rights issue lies in the fact that the real problem is two people that cannot get along with each other and resolve their problems. Society will always error on the side of caution. The general concept is thus: If both parents cannot come to terms with each other, then technically, both parents are not the "ideal" parents. Therefore, we must place the child with the parent that we believe will cause the child the least amount of harm. Here again, you must remember that the mother is going to have the stronger support system in the majority of cases. Her family will most often come to her defense, even if it is in error, before a man's family will come to his defense. 11. As far as "utopia" -- I see efforts to attain that state each and every day by special interest groups. You are, alas, considered nothing more, and nothing less, than a special interest group. Unfortunately, the vast majority of men in our society are not capable of providing the nurturing that is viewed to be optimal for children. As you pursue your goals, you must always bear in mind that what the government may giveth you, such as a watered down version of the Family Rights Act -- it will also take away from you very quickly. Actually, if you look around, you will find that there are already "trials" and "pilot programs" and "experiements" along the lines of your Family Rights Act, though not as clearly defined. The future of any Family Rights Act is going to be largely dependant upon the successes and failures of these current programs. . . In fact, there are some preliminary indications that with the lower child support awards, some are even decreasing the time that they spend with their children. 12. Human nature is a very complex thing. It is already a well established fact that all the laws in the free world will not change human nature over night. Human nature must evolve slowly, and it will. Look at the strides that "mankind" has made over the decades. The cynics within government -- those within the human services sector in particular, who deal with the "worst of the worst" and the "just plain bad" will be able to bring out argument after argument why your Act is a bad idea. The problem that you face is thus: Even though what you propose and can back up with varous studies, looks good on paper, most people realize that in a practical application it will benefit only a few, whilst at the same time placing a larger percentage at risk. Now, and please understand this -- I do support the "concept" of what you desire to achieve. However, the problem really isn't with the laws concerning custody. Instead, the problem is with human nature. To try to cope with the problems of human nature, either fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective, we have other laws that would be at fundamental odds with trying to legislate this aspect of human nature. Assessing what is actually in the "best interests of the child" is indeed a difficult task -- and any laws that are passed will have to address what is perceived to be the "best interests of the child for the majority of our citizens." That in, and of itself may sound like "double speak." What it actually means is that with what you propose, there is no safety net for that significant portion of our society that will use the concept of shared custody just to avoid the payment child support, and fail to provide the best possible environment for their children. It is the lack of that safety net -- especially given societal attitudes -- that dooms your proposal on the Hill. No legislator with any clout will sponsor that which you propose, especially when Congress is debating the massive problem of unpaid child support. Clinton, given her political aspirations (White House) will never touch a hot potatoe such as this for the simple fact that what you propose is offensive to most of the female population that will get out and vote. Add to that the demographics of her support -- the black and hispanic community primarily, where the "mother" rules the roost almost to the sole exclusion of the father. In those communities as well, with shared parenting, then many of the entitlements provided to mothers will be lost -- which is perceived to be devastating to the entire community. So, my recommendation is to quit wasting time, postage and whatever on Ms. Clinton. [Wow, very well said! Trying for a Federal Family Right's Act is one step short of trying to amend the Constitution. If such a law were struck down, that next step would be necessary -- but by then we certainly hope to have made the Nation aware of not only the problem, but a solution. Yes, people are people, and sometimes they need to be lead through a change in attitude. NonViolent action may be the key in overcoming these hurdles, comments similar to the above were made to the blacks in Alabama trying to break out of segregation. It will take Faith, sacrifice, and people with the courage of their convictions. Our goal is just to restore our rights -- Many would say the present system is an attempt at Utopian government control.] ------ Curt Miller (cmiller@berkshire.net) ----------------------- I consistently stand as the voice of dissent in the men's movement regarding the issue of presumptive joint custody (and humbly proclaim my position is correct on the point). Wheher the Court did, or did not, rule on such a case is virtually irrelevant. It is also VERY critical to the future of joint parenting that we NEVER see a presumption statute at the state level. While I have the same feelings in my gut - and in my head - regarding joint custody as any other loving father, I have a much keener sense of political and legal realities than most. Values and attitudes must change, NOT statute. Most trial-level judges are anti-male bigots (suprising since most are ment, huh?). Were men and their allies to ever become successful in pushing through a "presumptive" statute, joint custody awards will actually stay the same or go down. Yup, it's true. There will always need to be "escape clauses" in the statute (or it would NEVER pass through ANY legislature or be signed by any governor - at least not in this country). These clauses would give the judge an out, merely by writing an opinion that "joint custody in the instant case is innapropriate because..." These opinions accumulate in what's known as case law, or precident. Know what happens when you get a bunch of case law in the face of joint custody statute? Take a guess. The ONLY way to achieve a solid position for joint custody is to change the bias. You really need to get thinking and moving on that. That's a real struggle. And it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. ANY time spent on lobbying governors and legislators on joint custody is WASTED time. Sure is. Believe whatever else you want. [Very valid points, any reform statute without a jury would be meaningless. It is a pretty big goal, but the same things have been said in the past about ending Slavery and Segregation, only time will tell.] ----- Paul Clements (pclem@juno.com) You are absolutely correct. This same subject, and response, was brought up in another e-mail from a different correspondent. Perhaps this is Carl Jungs' "UNIVERSAL CONCIOUSNESS" at work. An idea whose time has come. We can no longer afford to allow judges, supreme or not, to "interpret" our constitution. We have to spell out those constitutional presumptions, rights, whatevers, in basic statutes. Leave no room for political hacks to "interpret". [Amen!] ------ Drew (drew214@dcsi.net) I am a 53 year old female and have raised my two children, divorced twice, and never would have put father's through what is going on with the laws in this country now. . . The "best interest of the child(ren)" is no longer an issue, but rather a game the court plays - meaning judges, child support division, attorney's. It's all about money and ego now. I am so disgusted with this I can't put it into words. If more people took a day off from their busy day and went into a family division of their court they would see what is happening. All I know is something needs to happen and the court is NOT the place for this to be happening. There is no justice within the court system. The court states they are over worked, but yet over the past twenty or so years the court has completely changed. Nothing gets done, just prolonged or extended to the next court date where nothing happens. I feel that a jury is the place for decisions to be made. Three times a month there could be nothing but jurys listening and making decisions for the court and the parents where criminal accusations have been placed on one parent, usually the father by the mother. No other court actions done in that court room, just jury decsions. Timely and quick. This way the public will get a birds eye view of what is happening within the court system because one will be able to see it in one day. Eliminate attorneys entirely and have it set up like small claims court so each parent much represent themselves is vitally important. Attorney's are making a fortune on doing nothing but causing more problems when the money spent could be going towards the kids. The court loves it the way it is now because it fattens their pocket book and boosts their ego. Makes them feel important on the gold course I suppose. ================================================================== To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to Majordomo@kids-right.org with the following 1 line in the BODY of the message (Subject is ignored). unsubscribe members
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 08:57:13 EST |
