Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - joni

#31


.....our lawyer just sent a letter to BM asking (bribing) her to let the child alternate school years with us.  Please send us good thoughts that this works out for SD.  Child is miserable with BM and desperate to live in our home.  Much emotional abuse at her mom's.  

Thanks in advance!

Joni
#32
Second Families / Stepmoms....help me out here
Dec 11, 2004, 08:27:54 AM

I have this wonderful 7 y.o. SD.  Up until last weekend, we were great buddies and had a close and loving relationship.  SD would dread going home on Sunday and cry and constantly would ask if she could live with us.

Last weekend, SD became very withdrawn and cold, showed no remorse for saying some terrible things.  The transformation was haunting.

It's always been an uphill battle with BM.  She hates me, I know this from several sources.  She's always giving DH a hard time and excludes him from SD's life when SD is with her.

Now SD is saying she never wants to live with us, never wanted to live with us, was just saying all those things because that's what we wanted her to hear.

It's obvious that mom's worked her over.  Prior to this last visitation, we got a trial date for reducing child support (by 40%!).  Mom, of course, is fighting.  Also, BM and DH got to review each others evidence for the annulment proceedings brought by BM.  DH's evidence was pretty damaging against BM.

So I know BM is on a rampage.  Tears me up that she's taking it out on SD.  Here's my concern and dilemma, SD is terrified of her mother, has always been.  Child has consistently expressed this.  SD has low self esteem and confidence.

Prior to this, SD seems as though she was gaining in confidence and getting stronger and more independent.  But after last weekend, it's as though she's fallen to the bottom of her sand hill into a big huge heap.  I cannot believe the 360 this child has done.  She was down right cold and hurtful to us this weekend.  I'm sure BM would be beeming with pride.

Have any of you experienced where you had a stepchild go thru something similar and come out of it OK?  It's my concern that this child will never have the strength to break away from her mother's grasp and wrath.

Please share.....
#33
Second Families / Survival of the fittest
Jul 04, 2004, 08:59:10 AM
We got SD yesterday for 3 glorious weeks.  Have lots of fun stuff planned, summer camp, crafts at the park district, swim lessons!

SD comes all dolled up.  Curls and ribbons in her hair, finger and toe nail polish on (first time in months, usually that's what I do with her on our visits).

At dinner, SD tells me she brought her nail polish from home.  She says she was thinking I could repaint her nails with the same polish from home, that way, her mom won't know I did her nail polish and her mom won't get mad.

A 6 year-old should have better things to think about than how to do damage control over something SO trivial and insignificant as nail polish.  Obviously, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Any similar experiences from your skids?
#34
We just had our 7 year old SD last weekend.  We took her to see Shrek 2.  While we were waiting for the movie to start, I was reminding my SD about Shrek 1.   She's says, "Oh yeah, I remember that one, my mom took me to see it."

I said, no honey, we bought you the movie the last time you were here because you hadn't seen it and that's when you first saw it at our house.  She's says, oh yeah, that's right, my mom took me to see Cat in the Hat.  My DH says, no, remember we saw Cat in the Hat together at this very theater, with your friend Halie?  Oh yeah, she says.

On Saturday, I taught her how to play hop skotch.  Well, first she drew the diagram and said she already knew how to play.  I said for her to go first.  She throws the stone done and says "Look, I got a 3."  It landed on the #3 square.  Then she throws it and it lands on the 7 square, she says, I got 7, that's a total of 10!  I thought it was cute and asked her where she learned to play like that, she said she saw it on TV.

Then I showed her how to play hop skotch and we played all afternoon.  I thought, what a great memory I'll have with her when she's older.

Yesterday, we stopped at my friends house and she was playing hop skotch with her daughter, so we joined their game.  My friend said to my SD, you're really good at that, where did you learn to play so well?

My SD says....my mom taught me.  I couldn't believe my ears.  I feel like we're losing all our memories, she's replacing her mom  with things that we're doing with her.  

The BM has physical custody...well, actually, BM is emotionally checked out on the child, the child spends most of her time with her grandma.  Child spends most of the time in her room playing alone.  They live out of state.  We've challenged custody based on a lot of occurences and we're denied.

Like I said, I'm afraid we're losing our memories.  I was just curious if anyone else has experienced something similar to this or had any thoughts about it.

#35

...DH goes to court tomorrow about Ex's move away motion.  

Again thank you and much appreciation for everyone's good advice over the years.  I hope it pays off tomorrow!
#36
Second Families / Need advice, what would you do?
Jan 12, 2004, 08:49:57 AM

It's the same old story I've seen many times here.  I have a beautiful, 6 y.o. SD.  SD lives in NY, we're in IL.  We see her two weekends a month plus extended time at the holidays, she flies in.

SD is a sensitive and emotional child.  She is very bonded with us.  It's my belief that the child is emotionally and at times, physically abused by her mom.   The BM is emotionally checked out on this child.  The child is basically left in the care of maternal grandparents, who they live with.  Of course, whenever we take her to court, she's mother of the year.

The child does not want to go home at the end of visitation.  She hates her school, last week she faked being sick for four days.  She says she's bored and lonely at home.

To challenge custody would bankrupt us.  We're in the hole every month just paying child support and property settlement from the divorce.  I know challenging custody would entail psych eval's, witnesses and a long court experience.  BM would fight us tooth and nail, she doesn't want to lose her commission check.

It's just devastating to listen to her and worse to have to send her back.  How do you get through this?  What would you do?  What have some of you done?
#37
I'm so sad right now.  I've been reading posts here about the relationships between stepmothers and their stepchildren, just waiting for the shoe to drop.

I have the sweetest, most lovely little 6 year old stepdaughter.  I would do anything for her.  We have a great relationship.  We're very compatible, real buddies.  I have no desire to replace her mother or compete with her mother.  I just want to be someone she loves, someone who's special in her life, someone she can turn to when she needs anything.

My birthday, my DH's birthday and the PBFH's birthday are all in consequetive visitation weekends in September/October, with mine being the 3rd of the 3.  I helped her work all day making a card for her PBFH.  The next visitation, we work all day on my husband's card.  The next visitation weekend was my birthday.....nothing from her.  When my family was giving me gifts, she ran upstairs, grabbed an old art project that she made from two months earlier and gave it to me.

Today, she went to the office with my husband.  She came home and proudly showed me the beautiful card she made for DH and another for her PBFH BM.  Again nothing for me.

Obviously, my expectations are way too high.  I can't help than be disappointed.  I remember growing up and always making special things for the people I loved, whether it was my parents, aunts/uncles, teachers, whomever.

I try too hard to make a special place for her in our home because I love her.  I don't regret that.  But it would mean so much if she could just think of me just once in a special way.

I must be PMSing.  I can't believe how emotional I am over this.  Thanks for letting me vent.
#38
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gran13.html

Let's hope Illinois is able to do the same for JLC.

****************

New law enables grandparents to file for visitation rights

August 13, 2004

BY ANDREW HERRMANN Staff Reporter
Advertisement

Orbitz

Grandparents in Illinois have an explicit legal right to file for visitation rights to their grandchildren under a new law signed Thursday.

Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago), a co-sponsor of the bill, said Illinois was the only state without a grandparent visitation law.

"This law puts the best interest of children first and helps clear a path for grandparents to see their grandchildren,'' said Gov. Blagojevich in signing the measure.

According to Blagojevich's office, grandparents can now ask judges for visitation if the parent has made "an unreasonable denial of visitation'' and one of the following conditions exist:

* A parent is incompetent, deceased or has been sentenced to jail for more than one year.

* The parents are divorced or separated for three months and one parent does not object to visitation.

* The child is illegitimate, the parents are not living together and the grandparent is related to the mother.

* The grandparent is related to the father and paternity has been established.

Cullerton, who sponsored the bill with Rep. Patricia Reid Linder (R-Aurora), said the grandparent often is "the most stable influence in the child's life.''

According to the American Association of Retired Persons, traditionally American courts ruled that a child's mother and father could prevent either or both sets of grandparents from visiting the grandchildren.

In the 1970s, state legislatures began to pass grandparent visitation statutes, partly due to lobbying efforts of senior citizen groups.

Those laws came under greater scrutiny after a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision on a Washington state case that overturned broad child visitation rights for grandparents. That decision was based on lack of standards in the Washington state law.

Under the new Illinois law, standards are spelled out that will survive court tests, Blagojevich's office said.
#39
Custody Issues / Custody Factors for New York
Sep 29, 2005, 12:33:01 PM

Does anyone know what they are?
#40
I read that often a child is abused by the custodial parent because the child resembles the Ex spouse.  This resemblance causes the custodial parent to be verbally and physically abusive to the child.

Does anyone has info on this or can find info on this?  I'm having problems googling it and need the info on Monday to finish up our change of custody motion.

Thanks in advance for your help
#41
Dilemma involves my 7 y.o. SD.  She's miserable with mom, wants to live with us.  Visitation over Father's Day yielded bruises all over her back.  SD told DH after he asked her what was new, she blurted out she got bruises from climbing a rock wall.  The next day I saw them, SD told me a friend pushed her against a wall.  Gentle coaxing and it finally came out that BM regularly hits her.

Our story is typical.  BM got sole custody after false allegations of DV and her taking the child away from DH under that guise and denying visitation for 18 mos.  Divorce final, she won.  Voila!!!!  No further complaints against DH, total compliance with visitations.

That was 5 years ago.  Since then, we negotiated a 'further' moveaway and got JC rights but not the title.  Were able to get SD medical care at eye doctor and dentist she's never had.  That was two years ago and we've provided that care.  SD lives in NY, we're in IL, jurisdiction is MI.  SD flies to us 2 weekends a month for visitation.  

BM fails at her custodial duties.  Leaves SD constantly in care of drunk grandmother while BM runs around with her boyfriend/fiance of 3 months (2nd fiance in 9 mos), takes grad classes, works out, shops.  SD is lonely and bored at mom's.

Now admittedly by child, she's abused.  Child is TERRIFIED of mother's wrath.  If I paint her nails her favorite neon green, child peels off the nails polish on Sunday before she goes home, fearful that her mother will get mad at the color.  Stuff like that.

Initial conversations with atty says well...you have the right to make routine decisions while the child is in your care, is counseling a routine decision?  I don't think so, my DH would be pissed if BM took her to counseling without his consultation.  

Further, I'm afraid if we just do that, BM will say "see....DH is still controlling and abusive towards me" and this would blow up with us at a custody motion for not notifying her.  Although, BM would never agree to it in the first place because she would be found out.

So what's the strategy here?  My idea would be for DH to talk to her about letting her live with us this coming year.  In exchange, no CS while she's in our care, we'll pay off her divorce settlement 3 years NOW in a lump sum and forgive the $4000 arrearage in child support we just won from a reduction retroactive a year ago.

Or, we just wait until the child is in our care and take her in for a psych eval to see if she exhibits signs of abuse or trauma.

Any thoughts or other ideas???
#42
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/01/24/stiSLURPizing_fathers/

StiSLURPizing fathers

By Cathy Young  |  January 24, 2005

EVERY SO often, yet another wrenching story of a contested adoption is in the news. Television cameras capture a heartbreaking scene: a frightened, sobbing child being taken away from the adoptive parents, to be handed over to biological parents whom the child has never met. The latest such drama unfolded recently in Jacksonville, Fla., where 3-year-old Evan Parker Scott has been returned to his birth mother after the adoption was annulled because it took place without the birth father's consent.
ADVERTISEMENT
   

In these cases, public sympathy is typically on the side of the adoptive parents -- while the unwed father is often assigned the role of villain. He's seen as a feckless good-for-nothing who wants the rights of a father just because he took the trouble to impregnate a woman.

Sometimes, the popular perception may be justified. (Evan Scott's biological father apparently has a history of drug abuse and violence, including toward the mother when she was pregnant.) But then there are the other cases.

Take the story of a New York City police officer identified in legal papers only as Robert O. When his ex-girlfriend found out she was pregnant shortly after their breakup, she decided not to tell Robert and arranged an adoption. Eventually, the couple got back together and married -- and one day, Robert learned that he had a 17-month-old son. His quest for paternal rights ended in defeat in 1992; the courts held that Robert had only himself to blame for not keeping in touch with his former girlfriend and not knowing about her pregnancy.

In 2000, a 19-year-old Iowa man, David Heidbreder, got quite a shock when he found out that his former girlfriend Katie Carton, who had gone to stay with her grandparents in Minnesota after their breakup, had given birth to a girl and put her up for adoption. (Carton had refused to tell Heidbreder where she was but had stayed in touch by e-mail and assured him that she would not give up the baby.)

He filed papers with the Minnesota registry which allows men to claim parental rights and block an adoption. However, he missed the registration deadline -- 30 days from the child's birth -- by one day. He sued and lost.

In recent years, some unwed fathers have been more successful in court, though not in the court of public opinion. Ottakar Kirchner, the father of "Baby Richard," was vilified in the press after he managed to regain custody of his son. The boy was born when Kirchner was away on business in his native Czech Republic; the mother, Daniela Janikova, had decided to break up with Kirchner after hearing rumors of his infidelity. She lied to him that the child had died at birth and repeatedly frustrated his attempts to track down the boy.

Biological paternity isn't everything; but it isn't nothing, either. Where is the sympathy for fathers who lose their children through no fault of theirs? Would we be more sympathetic if a woman's baby were taken away at the hospital and placed for adoption without her knowledge because the birth father signed the adoption papers?

The father in such a case faces a strong presumption of guilt. It is readily assumed that if the mother doesn't want him involved, he's either abusive or terminally irresponsible. In society's eyes, when a man doesn't want to marry his child's mother, he must be a cad; when a woman doesn't want to marry the father, he must be a creep.

People can believe that a man would wage a lengthy legal battle out of spite at his ex-girlfriend; yet many won't allow that a woman could want to deny her ex-boyfriend his child for equally base reasons. We stiSLURPize and prosecute men who refuse to support their children, but not women who willfully conspire to keep a father away from his child.

It's particularly bizarre to place the burden on the man to find out if the woman is pregnant, considering that she's the one with direct knowledge of her condition. Indeed, if a man took such steps after the woman had told him she wanted no further contact, he could be considered a stalker.

In the end, our society sends men quite a mixed message. If your partner gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby, you're liable for 18 years of child support, whether or not you want to be a father. If she doesn't want to be a mother, she can give your child to strangers and there isn't much you can do. Then we complain that men don't take parenthood seriously enough.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
#43
Custody Issues / Super Hero Dads Video
Dec 08, 2004, 12:14:06 PM
This video was made of the Fathers 4 Justice march on the prime minister's home in London this past summer. It's a beautiful tribute. If watching it doesn't inspire you, I don't know what will.

http://www.ukscreen.com/screen/95

It's my understanding the the Fathers 4 Justice is in the process of setting up a formal office here in the States.

As you'll see in the film, their signature color is purple. It started me thinking that we should have some symbol as our solidarity.

I found a web site, //www.theribbonlady.com. She has nice enamel pins in various colors. For $9 and shipping, you could have a dozen of these pins for yourself and give to friends and family members to wear to symbolize Equal Parenting Rights.

I thought purple because it's the color that Fathers 4 Justice is already using. The problem is, purple ribbons are associated with Domestic Violence in Canada. Considering most members on this board are falsely accused on domestic violence......maybe it's appropriate just for that reason....maybe not.

Please share your thoughts about this and see if you think, as a community, we should try to do something like this to get our message out. It would be nice to have the color purple to work consistently with the Fathers 4 Justice.
#44
Federal Class Action Law Suit in Michigan Dismissed.....for now

The motion hearing drew approximately 33 members of the public to the courtroom galley and it was abundantly clear that these private citizens represented a true tapestry of the American family. Three attorneys were in attendance to support our cause and the State was represented by an assistant attorney general. For tactical reasons the plaintiff withdrew the complaint without prejudice to refile and plans are in motion to re-urge the complaint curing some known defects in the pleadings. While this may appear to be a setback, it is actually viewed as a shrewd move to reposition the complaint on firmer legal grounds.

PROTEST OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE

[img src=http://michigandads.org/images/s16.jpg" border="0]


T'was the night before Christmas....FOC (Friend of the Court in Michigan...affectionately referred to as Friend of The C*#@)

T'was the night before Christmas - Old Santa was pissed.
He cussed out the elves and threw down his list.
Miserable damn bastards, ungrateful ass jerks.
I have a good mind to scrap the whole damn works.

I've busted my ass for damn near a year.
Instead of "Thanks Santa" - what do I hear?
The old lady bitches cause I work late at night...
FOC wants more money – and the ex wants to fight.

The ex gets drunk and calls to bitch.
My daughter is alienated and my son thinks I'm rich.
And just when I thought that things would get better,
Those assholes from FOC send me a letter.

They say I owe support - if that ain't damn funny.
Who the hell ever said Santa Claus had any money?
And the courts these days - they all are the pits.
They want the impossible ...Those mean little sh!ts.

I spent a whole year making wagons and sleds,
just to keep a roof over my damn head,
I made a ton of yo-yos – sold them to pay rent.
The FOC said give or to jail you'll be sent

Flying through the air...dodging the trees,
Falling down chimneys and skinning my knees.
I'm quitting this job...there's just no enjoyment.
I'll sit on my fat ass and draw unemployment.

There's no Christmas this year...now you know the reason...
FOC put me in jail so I sit out this season
#45
My DH wants to challenge custody.  Problem is all of our evidence is 'soft'.  When we filed a motion last year with the problems, the BM got her act together, fixed superficially what was wrong and looked like mother of the year when she appeared before the judge.

We were thinking of hiring a private detective.  According to my 7 y.o. SD, she says mom is never home.  Mom is out doing her own thing.  Consequently, SD is left home with grandma who's an alcoholic.  Grandma sits in the kitchen and drinks all day, doesn't go out, so there's no potential for a DUI on her, etc.  SD won't call the police on drunk grandma, she would never get her in trouble and she's afraid of her mother's wrath.

My thoughts on getting a PI would be to have proof that mom is never home.  Child is in excessive day care with grandma.  What's the point of mom being a CP if she's not there to be a parent?

Would a PI's report in this regard be enough to show the child is abandoned by the BM?  Would the judge even care?  Thoughts please!  Any advice would be appreciated!
#46

My DH's Ex has sole legal and physical custody of his daughter.  I have learned thru my 7 y.o. SD that her grandmother is drinking bad again.  My DH's Ex lives with her parents.  At the time of the divorce, the Ex swore her mother had been sober for two years.  The judge discounted my DH's concerns.

My SD tells us how grandma is drinking wine when she gets home from school (grandma is the baby sitter for about 30 hours per week while mom runs around).  SD says grandma's hands shake really bad and that grandma falls asleep at the table during dinner.  After dinner, grandma goes to bed.  SD stays up alone, often til 11pm, waiting for mom to get home because she's scared.

The family is very good at functioning around grandma's drinking.  For example, grandma's not allowed to drive.  So forget about her having any DUI's.

How do we approach this for a challenge in custody?  My DH's Ex is an emotional and psychological mess.  We think she text book Child of Alcoholic Syndrome.  Obviously, the same grandma that caused mom to be messed up is now raising our SD.  I'm sure that in a motion, we'll could list the issues with grandma's drinking and it would just end up being a he said/she denies bantering.  Of course the Ex would never admit her mother is an alcoholic.

I just don't know how to approach this.  Any ideas would be appreciated.
#47

did she go home?
#48

Credits to SallyandJack for this idea. I just mailed my letter. Regarding that custody battle for the twins in New York, apparently, the birth mom has a follow up hearing with the judge in 5 weeks.

I think we should all write letters of accomodation to the judge in this case for their strength and foresight. I'd hate to see the courts fold to the pressures of public opinions in five weeks. The judge needs to hear from our silent majority. Tell the judge your story.

It's your chance to be heard! WE FELLED DAVID AND GOLIATH for their tacky shirts. We can make a difference!

Hereis SallyandJack's post from the custody board

*******************

June 3, 2004
The Honorable Judge Goldberg
60 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10013

Email: David Bookstaver
[email protected]

SALLYANDJACK got an email response from the judge's office:

>here you go. he replied to me and said that my email was one of the more thoughtful ones and he was looking foward to passing it on to Goldberg. i am sure they are getting blasted by people who don't get it.
>
>David Bookstaver [email protected]
#49

My DH was in Upstate NY on Monday-Tuesday.  Went to the State Police to get background check on drunk SF.

He found out that in NY, there's the NYS Office of Court Administration in NY, NY.  For $52, they'll do a complete and comprehensive STATEWIDE criminal history record search.

For those in NY, the phone number is 212.428.2810.  The efficiency is mind boggling.  Any requests received by 11am will be completed by 4pm the next day!  Here's the link for the form.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/apps/chrs/

We just sent ours in.  Will let you know the results.  But it started me thinking, this service has got to be available for every state.  If we pooled our resources and you went to our perspective states and found out how this could be done....LEGITIMATELY....I think it would be a great resource for all of us to aid in our divorces and child custody determinations.

Take the time to find out for your state.  Even if you don't need it, you'll help someone else here or maybe you'll need it some day.  It was not easy for my DH to find this out.  We're in Chicago.  He went to NY for a psych eval and then drove around to three different court house (about 200 miles of driving) to get the correct info.

I am sending this info to Waylon to post on the New York links resources.
#50

Hi Gang,

Long time no post.  Been a crazy time with a newborn and in the midst of a custody evaluation for my SD.  Sorry to have been out of the loop, you're all in my thoughts and prayers.

Have come to find out that SD's SF is a big time drinker with other strange things in his life.  Anyone had any luck with online sites for checking DUI's or other info?  Can you recommend any sites?  

Thanks!
#51
Father's Issues / Background Checks
Feb 28, 2006, 07:56:09 PM
I think my SD's new stepfather is a raging alcoholic.  He called our home last week, really messed up, really drunk.  SD says there's tons of beer in the house and he drinks every night when he gets home.  Anyone use any of those background web sites that check criminal records or for DUI's?  Thanks
#52
We're in the process of starting a custody evaluation in New York.  It involves my husband's 8 y.o. daughter.  Our atty there tells us it's pretty standing to have a GAL appointed.

My concern is the alienating custodial parent.  The mother  is abusive with the child.  We have proof but she's managed to build a pretty good smoke screen to cover her abuse by acting like parent of the year around the teachers, doctors, therapist in the child's life.

Does the child meet with the GAL regularly?  The mother is coaching the child trying to make her tell lies about her father.  I'm worried that the mother will be able to manipulate the GAL against us.

What are others experience with this?  Any advice?
#53

....BAD NEWS....when you can't shut 'em up....create a a conspiracy to shut 'em down.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060118063309990019&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Police Reportedly Foil Plot to Kidnap Blair's Son
By Peter Griffiths, Reuters

LONDON (Jan. 18) - British police have foiled a plot to kidnap Prime Minister Tony Blair's 5-year-old son Leo, the Sun newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Citing an unnamed security source, the tabloid newspaper said people on the fringe of a group which campaigns for the rights of divorced fathers had planned to snatch the child and hold him for a short period as a publicity stunt.

Following the report, the Fathers 4 Justice group suspended its activities and confirmed that police had quizzed some of its former members before Christmas.

Fathers 4 Justice has staged several high-profile protests in the past few years. A campaigner dressed as Batman climbed Queen Elizabeth's London residence in 2004 and another pelted Blair with purple flour bombs while he addressed parliament.

The group says British courts unfairly restrict fathers' access to children in custody disputes.

The Sun said Special Branch officers uncovered the plot in its early stages just before Christmas and foiled it.

Both police and Blair's office declined to comment.

However, there were no reports of any arrests, prompting media speculation that if police believed there was such a plot they did not think it had reached an advanced stage.

The Sun gave no details of how the group planned to evade the tight security which surrounds Blair and his family to carry out the kidnapping.

The BBC said police sources had confirmed that they were aware of a possible plot but were not convinced those involved had the ability to carry it out.

The Fathers 4 Justice head said he had suspended its operations immediately as a result of the Sun report, and would shut it down for good if it were "hijacked by militants."

"After peacefully campaigning for three years to ensure children get to see their fathers, we condemn any individual who planned this appalling outrage which is anathema to our campaign," Matt O'Connor said in a statement.

O'Connor, 38, told Reuters his group had expelled about 30 members last year for talking about carrying out extreme stunts.

He said police had told him that anti-terrorism officers had visited former members of the group over Christmas.

"We were aware that there were more extremist elements and we acted within our organization to clean the undesirable element out," he said.

The Sun said security services had reviewed the protection given to Blair and his wife Cherie and their four children. Armed police guard them round the clock.

"Appropriate steps have now been taken," the Sun quoted a security source as saying. "They were naturally very concerned.

"It was good intelligence work. Fortunately we think we have nipped this thing in the bud."
#54
Father's Issues / Alec Baldwin on the Today Show
Dec 16, 2005, 08:19:53 AM

It was an interesting segment.  Baldwin is in court again with Ex wife, Kim Basinger over their 11 y.o. daughter, Ireland.  Seems that Baldwin is stating that Basinger is alienating his daughter from him, Basinger is stating the child doesn't want to see her father.  Prior jurisdiction was NY.  Basinger squatted in CA and now jurisdiction is there (sound familiar?).  

Baldwin was very limited on what he could disclose, stating the judge warned the parties not to make public.  He did state that the system is broken.  That he's an advocate of father's rights (or lack of them).  He also stated that it's PC now to refer to it as parent's rights because there's a "few" mothers hurt by the system.

All he said he could say is that he thought a big part of the problem is when one of the parties in a divorce, doesn't move on with their life and continually litigates over children in family court.  When the one party who doesn't move on hooks up with a dangerous atty who enjoys perpetuating the case because of the big money it's making them.  There's no incentive to resolve the conflicts in the case.

This is the first time I heard him go public.  He'd be a great spokesman for our cause.
#55
One day a father gets out of work and on his way home he remembers that it's his daughter's birthday.

He pulls over to a toy store and asks the salesperson, "How much is the Barbie on the display window?"

The salesperson answers, "Which one? We have:

Work out Barbie for $19.95
Shopping Barbie for $19.95
Beach Barbie for $19.95
Disco Barbie for $19.95    and
Divorced Barbie for $265.95"

The amazed father asks: "What? Why is the Divorced Barbie $265.95 and all the others only $19.95?"

The salesperson annoyingly answers : "Sir..., "Divorced Barbie comes with:
Ken's Car
Ken's House
Ken's Boat
Ken's Furniture
Ken's Computer
and... One of Ken's Friends.
#56
Father's Issues / Tongue in cheek venting
Sep 20, 2005, 11:06:55 AM


http://science.martianbachelor.com/Divorce.html

"What's hell but a cold heart?" - Theodore Roethke

"A good divorce is about as much work as a good marriage."
- Judith Wallerstein

"...[from a woman's perspective] the ideal divorce. . .looks a lot like a great marriage, minus sex."
- Maggie Gallagher

"...one of the persistent demands of feminists is that the woman's emancipation from control, by divorce, shall not emancipate the man, but obligate him to make her 'independent' of him by giving her alimony and child support money."
- Daniel Amneus (source, long)

"The present destruction of the father-headed family is felt to be justified by the sacredness of motherhood, which causes judges and lawmakers to acquiesce when women demand that their marriages be terminated and that they be made heads of families. Female headship of families is disastrous. ... The willingness of ex-husbands to pay child support money to ex-wives is comparable to the willingness of blacks in the South a generation ago to sit in the back of the bus."
- Daniel Amneus (source, long)

"Child support and alimony convert marriage into a long-term contract for prostitution."
- unknown (Andrea Dworkin? coulda sworn she said this on a "Donahue")

"Sole custody awards are tantamount to legalized kidnapping." - Douglas O'Brien

"Child support is court-ordered objectification of men to benefit women and their rent-a-kid businesses. Non-custodial fathers have not only lost the most precious asset of the marriage, but then they've been given the shaft a second time by being made to pay for the privilege."
- Terelli Whisch

"Divorce is a word which means to pull a man's genitals out through his wallet."
- Robin Williams

"Divorce is the best reason for not getting married." - unknown

Divorce: Don't Be Naive-- It Could Happen to You
"In a divorce you are attending your own funeral with your lawyer officiating. There is really nothing you can do. Let him take charge, and play it cool like a good corpse should. It will be easier for you to come back to life after the wake is over."

From Chapter 8, entitled "A Man of the World", in the book Sex in Human Loving, which is attributed to Cyprian St. Cyr and/or Dr. Horseley.
"This reminds me about how the suicide rate for men following divorce is very high. Sure, the society at large doesn't care about this at all. So the key word in the quote is "play". Don't cave in to any temptation to become a real corpse. It would probably only give your ex the immense satisfaction which she in all likelihood no longer deserves or even wants from you, without you getting any of the benefits. And it might make everyone think that you really were guilty of being a bad guy..."

If the quote doesn't register fully you may want to try reviewing marriage, since obviously there can be no divorce without a previous marriage.

-------------------------------

The Shotgun DivorceTM
[Callahan GIF cartoon, 5.7K]

    "We now live in a country where 60% of marriages end in divorce and half the kids are being brought up without dads. This is not men's fault. This is women's fault. Eighty-five percent of divorce actions are filed by women. This does not mean that 85% of men are assholes. It means that 85% of women are profoundly unhappy with life.*

    "When a woman divorces her husband, he doesn't work for her anymore. A lot of women don't seem to be able to get this straight. They want the kids and the house and the money; they want bozo out of the house, but they want him to keep paying the bills. What kind of feminist outrage is this?"

Rich Zubaty, from the first chapter of Surviving the Feminization of America. [ Rich's Website ]
Later, in the fifth chapter, there's a little more:
"Probably the most extensive and outrageous manifestation of anti-male prejudice is in divorce. Divorce courts are like slaughterhouses, with about as much compassion and talent. They function as collection agencies for lawyer fees, however outrageous, stealing children and extorting money from men in ways blatantly unconstitutional. Men are regarded as mere guests in their own homes, evictable at any time on the whims of wives and judges.

    "Men are driven from home and children against their wills, then, when unable to stretch paychecks far enough to support two households, they are termed `runaway' fathers [nowadays: deadbeat dads -i nobody with half a brain is buying the cover-up euphemism deadbeat parent]. Contrary to all principles of justice and laws against debtors prison, men are thrown into prison for inability to pay alimony and support, however unreasonable or unfair the obligation.

    "In custody disputes morality and fitness are insignificant. Sex-gender is the primary criteria. We do not start from the position that a man has completely equal rights to his children. We start from the position that he might get custody of one of his kids if he battles like hell for it and completely trashes the personality of his ex-wife in court. [Warning! - this last link contains explicit language and graphics]

    "Women are routinely awarded custody in 95% of the cases and this is wrong. No one has proven severe psychological repercussions when siblings are split up. Everyone has proven severe repercussions when kids are removed from their dads. If dads had automatic rights to their kids, fretful egocentric wives would think twice about filing for divorce. They wouldn't just preen and sneer their way through mediation. They would become part of the solution, instead of posing as the perennial accusers.

    "Judges are not making decisions. To protect or shield 5% of the kids they are destroying 95% of the families where the father has been falsely accused of abuse [link #2]. I am not advocating child abuse; I am advocating fathers seeing their kids. Fine these women who bring false charges. Fine them heavily. Put them in jail. What we have done here is akin to making a law against peeing in somebody else's flower pots, without making any penalty whatsoever for doing so. Fine them. Jail them. American women, the most pampered creatures on the planet, must begin being accountable for their outrages.

    " `Once you are a non-custodial parent you are a non-parent', says Michael Diehl, an advocate of divorce-law reform. "Non-custodial parents simply have no enforceable rights. We have made men the Disposable Parents, and we have done it in the last 100 years."

Deadbeat Dads More Myth Than Reality, by Kathleen Parker.

Restraining Orders, by Cathy Young.

I've actually heard feminist types say, without realizing what they were saying, that if men don't like all this then they should just not get married.

* - Anybody who looks around a little will more typically see numbers for the proportion of women filing for divorce closer to around 65 or 70 percent, so perhaps Zubaty is exaggerating a little to make a point. There are two aspects to this. First, who actually files for divorce may tell us less about who is more to blame, or who is less happy, than it does about who has the upper hand. If men could file, get the kids and house, and get her to pay child support with an equal chance of success, the numbers might easily swing the other way because men generally lose more in a break-up under the current system, even before one takes into account emotional assets. The revolution of the last generation has been the granting to women of the power to break up families on pretty much a whim. At the very least we need to resist the idea of boiling complex relationships down to a single number, which we then invest with too much meaning, however natural the tendency to do so. But that women are the ones who predominantly file for divorce does tell us that they can do so when they see it to be to their benefit, which it must be, in spades.

Second, there's John Gordon's point (which I paraphrase) that bias in favor of women always allows the following no-win bind for the guy to sound plausible: "If he walks out, it demonstrates what a cad he is; if she does, it's a testament to what a loser he is". So the numbers can always be interpreted accordingly, whatever they actually are.

-------------------------------

It's Not Your Fault
[GIF text, 1.9k] "Today's Dads are little more than walking ATM machines. . .Like blacks in the Old South, they are deemed fit for just one thing: making money. . .the idea that children are female chattel must stop. . .it's sexist if less than 10% of CEO's are women, but `normal' when just 10% of divorced men get custody."
- source

Fred: On Divorce

A relatively decent book in the area of divorce is Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's Divorce Culture. Don't get me wrong, this book does not represent men's point of view. But in its attempt to come to grips with why we have such a high divorce rate these days it does provide a pretty good roadmap of how we got to where we are today: since marriage was always one of the things feminists harked on, as the way men oppressed women, it's interesting to read the book as a history of the way men have liberated women while at the same time continuing to be enslaved to them.

I learned a lot: it was in the 1920's that it first became acceptable for a woman to divorce a man simply because he wasn't providing for her to the level of her expectations -- or just about any other reason for that matter. Previously, it was only serious cases of abuse, adultery, or desertion, or infertility, that were grounds for divorce. Remember, the 1920's was the decade of the first women's vote and the invention of the assembly line, mass consumer culture, and advertising -- in short, the beginning of the feminization of America.

There's nothing in the marriage vows on the subject of the expected standard of living, and divorcing because your house isn't big enough seems to go against the "for better or worse" clause. In one of the footnotes in the book we learn that research determined that a woman's expectations were in the main set by the standard of living she had experienced as a child. In other words, a husband had to exceed the father's ability in "bringing home the bacon" in kind of a transgenerational arms race of financial competition between males to provide a financial womb for the father's "baby". This seems rather old fashioned -- though it created the "new" woman -- and points to the irony that the more and better a father provides for, pampers, spoils, or "loves" a daughter (by working overtime to give her things), to that extent he makes it that much more difficult for men later in her life to successfully please her. After all, we all know that a lot of women are virtually insatiable when it comes to material things.

It was an acknowledgement of this that had previously been at the core of a daughter's suitor having to first get the father's permission to marry her. It was called "asking for her hand in marriage", and seems quite quaint by today's standards. But having thrown this veto power by the father over a marriage out, in favor of the woman making her own choice, the residual expectations by the woman still remained. So now women are responsible for their choice, but not really, because the husband's role is still to "make her happy", and he's seen to be at fault and the ultimate seat of responsibility if she makes, as very commonly happens, a bad choice. Sounds like a double standard to me, and a no-win bind for men -- and society in general when she falls back on any of the many taxpayer supported welfare programs, making herself, as Amneus puts it, financially independent by becoming dependent on the government (us) or the ex-husband. Even if money is not at issue, the women still has an out on the issue of personal "fulfillment", which is entirely subjective.

The other part of Whitehead's book I found interesting was her description of the "love family" which frequently results after a divorce. This is a "family" in which men are permitted as visitors at the whim of the woman. It's tempting to think of this as a new familial form, but as many scholars have pointed out it's a devolution to a pre-civilized structure, the old matriarchy. An online description and account -- Ok, a diatribe -- can be found in Amneus's book Garbage Generation. The chapter "Our Paychecks Ourselves" is also worth reading with regard to the financial matters affecting men in divorce.
Canadian feminist (the good kind) Wendy Dennis has written a review of Whitehead's book, with more emphasis than I've given on where kids fit into all this.

Maggie Gallagher's book The Abolition of Marriage also has quite a lot on the topic of divorce, again almost entirely from a woman's perspective. (Does anyone know of a good book written from a masculist perspective?) I've written up some comments.

-------------------------------

A Local Case Study In Double Standards, Female Dominance, Etc.
"The most scathing vilification of immoral women does not come from men. The feminine establishment which sees its techniques of sexual bargaining jeopardized by the disregard of women who make themselves cheap is more vociferous in its condemnation."
- Germaine Greer

According to feminist theory, some huge wave of peace, love, harmony, and understanding was supposed to wash over the country as soon as we started electing women to public office, because of woman's superior level of compassion, etc. This theory was disproven recently, as a recent local brouhaha shows.

Basically, at a hearing on child support enforcement, an already notorious female county commissioner inadvertently used the "s" word (slut) while trying to explain why some men resented or refused sending their ex's a check each month. It seems some guys don't want to support their kids' mom's partying habits, or her being a bad example by sleeping around. The commissioner maybe thought the guys had a point which should at least be considered. I mean, the nerve of someone representing men in an area belonging to women...

Call men predators or deadbeat-dads or scumbags, and nothing happens. Suggest that some women are sluts, and it's like someone kicked over the ant hill...

Well, I used to have links to all the relevant articles from the local paper, including letters to the editor. Unfortunately these links all expire after 90 days for some reason. We also have an independent weekly here (Colorado Springs), with a decidedly anti-conservative leaning. Unfortunately they're not online, so you can't read their article by a generic femsymp staffer, accompanied by an open letter from the head of the local N.O.W. chapter. Great stuff. Usually they're very anti-PC, but in this case they bust a butt backing up the status quo. Nothing they had to say explains how depriving a man of both his kids and his paycheck is either equal or fair, and why it shouldn't be surprising that men are resisting being railroaded by the matriarchy and its thugs. Actually, men are barely mentioned in either piece. (The title of the piece was "Beedy's `slut' comment ignores single-mother reality".) Instead, since only what the moms say matters from the feminacrentic perspective, the main argument in the article and letter hinged on the poverty of single mothers and their kids -- Amneus's "Mutilated Beggars" gambit. Just like the Victorian feminists of the nineteenth century, who protested in the streets with placards saying "Sir Pity Us". You've come a long way, baby. Indeed. That and a lot of moral indignation, which, as Bertrand Russell tells us, is a form of cruelty.

The ironic thing is that both Betty Beedy and her antagonists are actually on the same side here, trying in different ways to do what women have always done, namely increase the already exorbitant value of the female body. The former by emphasizing the supply side (women w/kids kept out of "the market" by not being allowed to date, with reprimands for those who date but don't hold out for enough); the latter arguing from the standpoint of reputed intrinsic value (maternal entitlement/neediness). These have, for about as long as anyone can say, been the two basic female strategies. Either way, she wins, and the guy still pays. Ms. Beedy's method just takes a little more time to work its way through the market.

The Dept of Social Services' Lloyd Malone says, "We try not to categorize people, because it's not helpful in dealing with their problems...". You've got to wonder where he was on the undoubtably many occasions when the categorical term "deadbeat dad" was used, and when they were implementing harsh measures to hunt him down and make him work and pay, like a proper man/slave should be made to do -- even if he never formally agreed to work for her by marrying her. In other words, you don't have to get married to suffer the costs. I also liked David Bern's remark about putting the needs of the children first. Sounds like an argument for father custody to me, which would allow mom to do as she pleases without being a possible bad example to her children, especially her all-important female children. If he's got the dough, isn't that where the kids should go? Why should he be forced to make time payments on kids he doesn't own?

The real downer in this whole thing is that an initial opportunity to hear men's concerns devolved into an argument almost entirely among women about how many men a woman has to sleep with (and over what time interval) in order to be considered promiscuous. (I haven't yet mentioned that this episode has been all over our TV and radio, too.) The matriarchy once again co-opted the "debate", which one gathers is something like what goes on among gossipy girls in the hall of the average high school -- "Yes she is". "No she isn't". "She did too". "I'm sure - not!". The female equivalent of hazing... This ensured that men would be confined to the margins of the conversation and to less than their traditional role in the actual world.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, if only because Ms. Beedy sounds like she's at least willing to listen to what men have to say, and maybe even be an advocate for positive change. Instead, she ended up allowing others to portray her as a kook who at best can't keep from shooting herself in the foot, though this may be less her fault than a measure of what men are up against. It takes a great deal of courage to speak out on behalf of men, so Ms. Beedy appears to be the radical in this drama. She certainly has shaken things up like a radical. Perhaps there's some sign here that the right wing view on things, namely that "men are the problem", is undergoing a change and broadening.

Impossible not to miss also how clear the traditional view is: they're her kids when it comes to custody, but his kids when the bills need to be paid. She has rights, while he has only responsibilities. A divorce means she doesn't have to have sex with him anymore, but he still has to keep giving her money. Who'd ever be dumb enough to commit to that double standard?

An update: The above was written near the end of 6/98. It's now some 10 weeks later. Ms. Beedy's local notoriety got her on a national TV talk show (the kind no guy watches), where she made yet another gaff. One of her constituents has initiated a recall process. What's ironic is that the woman doing this is neither single nor black nor gay. But she's convinced it's only a matter of time before her group (Hispanics) comes under attack. Here's a brief news editorial from a Denver paper to give you an idea of what the mainstream supposedly thinks.

Needless to say, Ms. Beedy has continued to be a regular feature of the local news. Like most areas, I'd imagine, we have virtually no investigative reporting around here. Consequently, the coverage has been very unsubstantive at best since there really hasn't been much news, though it's been fun watching people come out the woodwork in support of sluts. There's been one interview on the topic in a local free monthly paper mostly dedicated to lite news, ads for boutiques, and ideas for things to do in town when you've got time and money to kill. After reading it, it strikes me that we've still yet to hear much from the invisible men at the heart of the story.

Anyway, the recall petition drive came up short about 20% on the number of signatures needed, though Ms. Rodriguez blamed it more on their inexperience and difficulty getting organized than on a lack of negative sentiment for the county commissioner.

Now, can we get back to the debate about fathers and kids?


#57

From Kanye West, a rapper, interesting take on what happens with child support.  The video is really popular now, he's got Jamie Foxx singing with him.

[Verse 2]
18 years, 18 years
She got one of yo kids got you for 18 years
I know somebody paying child support for one of his kids
His baby momma's car and crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV Any Given Sunday
Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai
She was spose to buy ya shorty TYCO with ya money
She went to the doctor got lypo with ya money
She walking around looking like Micheal with ya money
Should of got that insured got GEICO for ya moneeey,(money, money)
If you ain't no punk holla We Want Prenup
WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeaah
It's something that you need to have
Cause when she leave yo ass she gone leave with half
18 years, 18 years
And on her 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his

[Chorus]
(She did me wrong)
Now I ain't saying she a gold digger (When I'm Need)
But she ain't messing with no broke niggaz
(She did me wrong)
Now I ain't saying she a gold digger (When I'm need)
but she ain't messing with no broke niggaz
get down girl gone head get down (I gotta leave)
get down girl gone head get down (I gotta leave)
get down girl gone head get down (I gotta leave)
get down girl gone head

#58

-----------------------------------------------

Duped dad's right to sue is upheld

Thursday, September 1st - 2005

BY MARGARET McHUGH

Star-Ledger Staff

A man who found out 30 years after his youngest child's birth that he was
not the father had the right to sue the biological father for nearly $110,000, the cost of raising the child, an appeals court ruled yesterday.

In the first ruling to extend a statutory deadline in a paternity case, the
appellate panel said the man could collect the money even though he missed the deadline under New Jersey's Parentage Act by eight years. The court said it made sense because the biological father, along with the duped man's wife, never told him he was not the boy's father.

The attorney for the biological father said his client had not decided
whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"The court has finally shed light on the parameters of the Parentage Act and what it covers and how far it can go," said the attorney, Scott Bocker. "Unfortunately, I don't necessarily agree with everything they said, but ... they have the say in how the statute is interpreted."

Family court expert John Paone Jr. called it "a groundbreaking case."

"There is no precedent in New Jersey where a parent has been compelled
to pay child support more than 15 years after the emancipation of a
child," said Paone, who has been practicing family law for more than 20 years.

Paone said he does not expect the ruling to be applied widely.

"I still think it's going to be the rare case that the biological father knows he's the father and participates in the fraud," Paone said. "The facts of this case call out for a remedy you don't normally see in the court."

In a 30-page opinion that does not reveal the identities of either man,
the mother or the son, the appeals court upheld a nearly $110,000 award
granted by a Morris County judge in 2003.

Under the state's Parentage Act, an action to determine paternity could
be filed up until the child in question turns 23. But the man who raised the
boy did not find out until 1999 — when the child was 30 — that his ex-wife
had had an affair with his friend in the late 1960s and had gotten pregnant.
She gave birth to a son in 1969, and as a friend of the family, the
biological father, identified in the ruling as P.J.S. Jr., agreed to be the boy's godfather, the decision said.

Ten years after the child was born, the couple divorced, but the plaintiff,
R.A.C., paid child support and kept a relationship with all three of his
children.

The families had originally lived in Morris County, Bocker said. The
biological father now lives out of state, he said.

In 1996, just before the son was to be wed, his mother, identified in
the decision as B.E.C, told him who his real father was because she wanted him to know his biological father had two children with muscular dystrophy.

Three years later, she told her ex-husband, who has said he was dumfounded and shocked.

"He had difficulty coping with the news and was angry that B.E.C. and
the defendant had deceived him," the decision said.

R.A.C., who says he maintains a good relationship with the boy he raised,
sued P.J.S. Jr. in September 2000 for reimbursement of child support,
fraudulent concealment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A DNA test in April 2002 confirmed P.J.S. Jr. was the father.

In February 2003, a Morris County judge awarded R.A.C. $109,697 for
child support reimbursement up until the boy turned 22.

The judge dismissed the claims of fraudulent concealment and intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and said R.A.C. was not entitled to money
he spent on the boy's education between the ages of 22 and 25.

The biological father, however, appealed on the grounds the Paternity Act
does not allow lawsuits to be filed after the child turns 23.

But the appeals court said just as murderers who avoid detection for years
before they are caught can be sued for wrongful death long after the statute of limitation, so too can a duped man sue for child support from a
biological father.

The doctrine of equitable tolling, as it is called, "applies to prevent a
statute of limitations from being used as a sword by a defendant whose
conduct contributed to the expiration of the statutory period," the decision
said.

"Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity
was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the
child," the judges said.

The panel ruled R.A.C. was not entitled to interest on the child support,
but they sent the case back to a trial judge to consider awarding him legal
fees.

The court also determined R.A.C could not sue for emotional distress
because his relationship with D.C. "had not been destroyed or negatively
affected in any way. He continues to have a loving and trusting father-son
relationship with him."
#59


SUCCESS IN THE HOUSE!

After months of hard work, our VAWA campaign has
registered a major success. On Wednesday the House
Judiciary Committee did its mark-up of the Violence
Against Women Act and added this language to make the
House bill male-inclusive:

SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRAMS
RELATING TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN. Part T of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is
amended by inserting before section 2001 (42 U.S.C.
3796gg) the following new sections:

'SEC. 2000A. CLARIFICATION THAT PROGRAMS RELATING TO
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ARE GENDER-NEUTRAL. "In this
part, and in any other Act of Congress, unless the
context unequivocally requires otherwise, a provision
authorizing or requiring the Department of Justice to
make grants, or to carry out other activities, for
assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating
violence, stalking, sexual assault, or trafficking in
persons, shall be construed to cover grants that
provide assistance to female victims, male victims, or
both."'


You can see it for yourself by going to
http://thomas.loc.gov and entering HR 3402 (which is
the new number for the House bill).

There is one slight problem with the wording: "unless
the context unequivocally requires otherwise." That
means someone who wants to defy Congressional intent
might come up with some ridiculous argument why male
victims cannot be helped. But we'll deal with that
problem later.

To every person who has written a letter, sent a fax
or e-mail, or made a phone call for RADAR's Shock and
Awe campaign, we say, "Thank you!"

But this is just the beginning. The Senate version of
the bill still ignores male victims, so now we need to
take advantage of the moment.

Consider a following up message as such:


RE: S. 1197, Violence Against Women Act

Dear Senator _____________:

The House of Representatives has just changed the
wording of the Violence Against Women Act to make it
male inclusive (see H.R. 3402). It is only fair that
VAWA help the 835,000 men who are victims of domestic
violence each year.

I am asking you to make sure that the following
language is added to S. 1197:

'CLARIFICATION THAT PROGRAMS RELATING TO VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN ARE GENDER-NEUTRAL. "In this part, and
in any other Act of Congress, a provision authorizing
or requiring the Department of Justice to make grants,
or to carry out other activities, for assistance to
victims of domestic violence, dating violence,
stalking, sexual assault, or trafficking in persons,
shall be construed to cover grants that provide
assistance to female victims, male victims, or both."'



Thank you for making VAWA a law that helps all victims
of domestic violence.
#60

My DH just renewed his professional license several weeks ago. I did it for him online. One of the questions was regards to child support. If he had an arrearage, he could not have renewed his license. Without his license, he could not work....period.

We don't have an arrearage but for grins and giggles, I called the License Renewal and they stated he would have to pay his entire arrearage to get his license renewed. I created a scenario for them, stating the court was aware of the arrearage and his was current with his repayment plan. Didn't matter that it was all he could afford, still had to pay the arrearage in full to get his license.

Thank God it wasn't applicable to us.

But this lien on arrearage, as many of you know, falls way beyond just professional licensing. You can't get driver's licenses, license plates or your income tax refund. Even if you're current on your arrearage repayment plan through the court, when the opportunity arises, you get everything taken from you.

Now this is where it gets interesting.....

Although my DH pays CS, he had an overpayment of over $5000 because of a retroactive filing. In March 2004, he filed for a reduction. Mom fought it to trial, the final order, entered in our favor was received last week. So between child support and child care over the past 16 months, mom owes us $5000.

So we have to wait for repayment at $200/mo for the next two years of so. I called the state. There is no lien against this mom's income tax for our overpayment because she's the custodial parent. Mom can still have her license renewed and the plates renewed on her car. Mom can still get her teacher's license renewed.

The hypocrasy of this double standard has got to end. How many noncustodial parents never receive their refund when they wait for it when their child turns 18? Many states won't even let a NCP get their abatement from when the children were in their care until child support obligation is done. Do you think these CP pay them back? Without the same diligence in laws available for NCP like going after licenses and income tax refunds...of course not.