|
|
|
Goals for Reform / July 28th, NonViolent Action and Senator Clinton
From: John Murtari (jmurtari@AKidsRight.org)
This is a message from a mailing list, members@kids-right.org Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message. ====================================================================== Good People & People of Faith: I just completed a wonderful six week vacation period with my Sun, Domenic. It was just a great time and we were very fortunate to have it together! Next Monday (July 28) I'll be outside the office of US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton with a picture of my Sun and I, and also some of yours, see: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr/petitions.htm -- I hope to see some of you there! I also expect to be arrested and to spend the night in jail for attempting to "petition" my Senator for reform (even though I'm quite peaceful, don't bother anyone, and have a great deal of respect for her). Why would anyone do that? I actually got email from a couple of people who registered at the site, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr, and were ready to "walk" with me. I haven't heard anything more yet, but maybe they will be there or others? Why risk jail, is that really necessary? What are your goals for reform? What do you want? How much do you have to "believe" before NonViolent Action makes sense? NonViolent Action - What is it? ------------------------------ We have held up the ideal that people willing to demonstrate: Faith, Love, and Personal Sacrifice can be the means of effective social change. More specifically, that Parents can promote reform by demonstrating: 1) Faith in a loving God, 2) Love for their children, former spouses, and other "brothers and sisters", and 3) Willingness to make Personal Sacrifice, NonViolent Action allows you to demonstrate through "unambiguous physical action" the depth of your Faith and belief in your "cause." It is a positive demonstration of love given at sometimes tremendous personal cost. (http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil_back.htm) Being an NCP ------------ As may of you Non Custodial Parents (NCPs) know, you can never be sure you will have your child for a "visit" until they are in your arms. So.... I was really quite honored to be able to be a parent for a solid six week period to my child. It is so wonderful the powers-that-be deigned to give me a solid six weeks in the summer. (Please excuse the sarcasm!) Many of you weren't so lucky, heck -- some of you not only didn't get five weeks, you didn't get anything. Sorry, the powers-that-be decided that being with you was NOT in the "best interest of your child." What are you going to do about it? I mean -- after you go through repeated cycles of anger/depression? Hopefully, you won't "accept it." Hopefully you won't complete that final stage in the "healing process" -- many of you may have heard this from others, trying to compare divorce and separation from your kids like a death in the family? Imagine that! Is that supposed to be healthy/real? Hopefully, every morning you feel the pain of that separation, the indignity, the injustice. Hopefully, your heart will broaden and grow. Yes, Faith is important here. When I began to appreciate a loving God (abba, daddy, papa), who loves me even more that I love my Sun -- how can I worry? Then you may also feel the pain of others separated from their kids: divorced, separated, accused of abuse by social services (but not quite proven). But What is Your Goal? ---------------------- We have talked about this in the past. Maybe it needs to be a BIG goal, not a little goal. People are willing to sacrifice for BIG goals, maybe not for little goals. Jesus of Nazareth wanted us all to recognize we are brothers and sisters, that we should love each other -- talk about a BIG goal! Many of use BIG words about our right to be a parent! But then we accept reform that calls for something like "a rebuttable presumption of joint custody" or "shared parenting." Do our goals match our words? Are you willing to sacrifice everything you have to get a "rebuttable presumption" law passed? I don't think I would. I always measure by my case. Some might say my original Judge (NY Supreme Court, Charles T. Major) was biased and unfair and didn't follow all procedures (yes, he was a human being). He did treat me with courtesy and respect. But I have to say the guy genuinely didn't understand why I wouldn't joyfully accept being a parent every other weekend? He was a parent and he didn't think he was violating any fundamental rights. He couldn't understand why I was lengthening the proceedings just because of custody. Heck, he even gave me Thursday-Monday every other weekend (4 whole days!). Isn't that "shared parenting?" I'm sure if there was a rebuttable presumption law, or a "clear and convincing evidence" law -- he would have signed off on all that -- after all HE was sure. It is always easy for ONE person to be sure. This is why we have juries to protect other "valued" rights (we need 12 people to be sure). Can we just fill in from the back of the bus? --------------------------------------------- Most of us recall the Bus Boycotts and Rosa Parks, but do you know what the original goal was when the boycott started? Martin Luther King and the committee just wanted blacks to be able to fill in from the back of the bus, and whites to still fill in from the front -- first come first serve. Talk about a "little" goal. You see back then there was a line in the bus, and blacks couldn't sit forward of that line (even if there were empty seats) -- and if a white person got on and the white part of the bus was full, a black would be asked to stand (that's what got Rosa all fired up!). Thankfully, the city "fathers" were so stubborn, they wouldn't even agree to that "little" goal -- or the whole thing might have stopped there for a while and real reform would have been delayed even longer... Equal Parenting unless you are a BAD parent ------------------------------------------- I think the words "equal parent" make the goal pretty clear (it's a more precise definition of sharing). The question we all need to ask ourselves is what standard to apply before the powers-that-be can interfere in your family life? Should government interfere here: * You are an "average" parent, but your spouse is objectively a good (maybe great) parent -- should that matter? * You are definitely below average/poor (no time for the kids, don't read to them, just keep them fed and safe -- should that matter)? * Your spouse smokes "like a chimney" You just can't get them to quit. Should Social Services take your kids away for safety? Maybe even to motivate both of you? * Just like the above, only you and your spouse separate. Is their smoking your "trump card" in Court? Should the kids spend equal time with them without wearing a gas mask? * Similar to the above, but your spouse is handicapped, maybe in a wheel chair. They are quite mobile/independent -- but do you REALLY want to leave them alone with a three year old? Couldn't something happen? * With cruel intent you beat your child severely and send them to the emergency room? (I vote for BAD parent here). I've come to accept "poor" parenting. Why? Because people change and no relationship is more fruitful of change than that of parent/child. I recently had a friend's wife tell me she was so caught up in her job that she "missed" most of her daughter's teen years. But a change in circumstances caused her to have more home time and she realized what she was missing and CHANGED. BUT, what if a divorce had happened earlier? Do I like "poor" parenting, no. I agree we should have all the social programs in the world to "encourage" poor parents to become better parents -- but treat them as less than an equal parent. Never. The parent/child bond is special and unique. You don't get to pick your parents. What makes you BAD - a demonstrated mal-intent to HARM your child. It is pretty easy to understand, easy for a jury to enforce. We have some solid "example implementations" in the DRAFT Family Rights Act at our web site, http://www.AKidsRIght.Org/act.htm -- what do you think? Do you have any examples of your views? The Seamless Protection ----------------------- As we think about goals (and remember those BIG words about basic rights we all use). Shouldn't the basic goal which both mother's groups, father's groups, and child abuse reform groups have be common? A clear standard (your a BAD parent), protected by a Jury, which must be proven before the powers-that-be can interfere in your relationship with your child. Unfortunately, many of us aren't past the anger/depression -- the only solution we see is: 1. I just want to get complete custody of my child back from the other parent (I've suffered as an NCP -- but really, they do deserve it -- trust me!) 2. I just want to get custody of my child back from social services (but, don't talk to me about sharing time with the other parent -- they really are a danger, too bad no one else can see it!). Leadership that does not believe in Reform? ------------------------------------------- Many people on this list are "leaders." Have you become more pragmatic since your early "enthusiastic" days? Are you beginning to realize that BIG reform just isn't going to happen in your life time. Maybe it's best to just tweak the existing system. Have you just lost hope in real change? Do we remember that for the majority of "written" human history: slavery was a norm, there was no freedom of religion, no real democracy. The "early promoters" of modern freedoms were persecuted and killed. They just didn't "get it." But BIG change did happen. We think we have "arrived" in our modern time. That "all civil rights" are recognized, but in the near future folks may look back and say, "Can you believe how it was back then, just because you separated -- you weren't an equal parent anymore! Barbarians!" Have you become cynical about "mass movements" supporting the cause? That the average American/Canadian/New Zealander... is too much of a Neanderthal to really sacrifice for change -- try to remember who the folks were that supported Gandhi and King. Just Imagine ------------ In 1950, in Alabama, you could have talked to a college-educated-middle-class-white-just-coming-out-of-church voter and they would have had a LOT of reasons why blacks should "sit in the back." What made them see it differently in just a few short years? Why risk jail? -------------- The history of NonViolent Action in Civil Right's movements certainly says that "actions speak louder than words." I could talk/write till I'm blue in the face about my Sun and I and the terrible anguish we have both been through. I need to convince our good US Senator that this is an important issue and she needs to make time to talk about it (that it will help her political future). The "risk" I take is jail. The "risk" she takes is publicity. If a news source picks up on this and runs a sympathetic story, she'll have some tough questions to answer. Obviously, the more people involved, the easier it is for ALL of us. If you notice the link, it ends with /actionc_syr (it's unique to Syracuse). Could you imagine a day when we have /action_bos (Boston, home of Senator John Kerry, Candidate for US President), or /action_nc (North Carolina, home of Senator John Edwards, Candidate for US President). Actually the group has met with staff from both their offices, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/legislative.htm -- and gotten a "real" letter from Senator Kerry. Obviously just a few mothers AND fathers outside the offices of his Boston office might make National News -- especially if they can't just be dismissed as "cranks", but as loving parents, willing to sacrifice their freedom, to convince the good Senator Family Law Reform is a BIG National Issue. Imagine that! We just first need to convince ourselves, by our actions, that it is a BIG issue. John Murtari jmurtari@AKidsRight.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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 03:12:00 EST |
