NationalPLC.Org

 

kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

Your Feedback: Impossible reform goals/ Why they are necessary.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Webmaster (webmaster@akidsright.org)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2001 - 20:52:35 EDT


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


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 08:57:13 EST