New Column: HB 315 Says
One Parent is Better Than Two

May 30, 2006

However, research establishes that shared custody is what's best for kids."

The counterattack against shared parenting is based on allegations that fathers only want shared parenting in order to reduce their child support obligations. We wrote:

"Unfortunately, rather than putting the need to preserve children's relationships with both parents at the center of the discussion, advocates of HB 315 are instead focusing on child support. In Louisiana, like most states, how much time each parent spends with his or her children helps determine how much child support is ordered. Rep. Shirley Bowler (R-River Ridge), who authored the bill, asserts that dads seek shared custody as a way to decrease their child support obligations. She promotes HB 315 as a way to 'remove this angle' in the current law, which she claims divorced dads are exploiting.

"While it is true that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, Bowler and the bill's supporters ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?

"Similarly, critics charge that the child support provisions of current law amount to paying men to spend time with their children. In reality, the provisions simply acknowledge that both moms and dads have child-related expenses."

To write a Letter to the Editor on this issue, write to the Shreveport Times regarding HB 315 is a step back for children of divorce by clicking here. To write to the Alexandria Town Talk about La. HB 315 will not help kids of divorce, click here.

To contact Louisiana Dads, the Louisiana affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children which is fighting the bill, click here. Thanks to Louisiana Dads president Nicholas James for his help.
 

Jane Spies Exposes Missouri Child Support Enforcement Whitewash

I've written before of the case of Herbert L. Chalmers, a St. Louis man who committed a quadruple murder-suicide in April over a child support dispute which left him to survive on $400 a month. Chalmers claimed that he was the victim of a child support enforcement mistake. It turned out, of course, that child support enforcement had made an error, and was charging Chalmers five times what he actually owed. For my previous commentary, see I Couldn't Be Less Surprised.

Missouri child support enforcement is under some pressure because of this, and is being investigated. Jane Spies of the National Family Justice Association reports that this "investigation" is a whitewash. According to the story Review finds few child support errors (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/16/06).

"Spurred by a shooting rampage in St. Louis last month, a quick review of Missouri's child support system indicates 99.24 percent of support records contain no errors, officials said Tuesday.

"The results were viewed as either a hearty validation of the system or too good to be true.

"The Department of Social Services was 'very, very pleased' with the findings, said spokeswoman Deborah Scott. The department felt the glowing results showed a wider review was unnecessary. But state Auditor Claire McCaskill said she doubted the findings, criticized the review's limited scope and said she now harbored even more interest in auditing the state's child support enforcement program.

"The Family Support Division, which handles the child support duties, ran the internal review after Herbert L. Chalmers, reportedly upset by his child support payments, killed four people and himself on April 18. He was supposed to be paying $133 a month in current child support, but a state worker entered a figure of $724.92, which is what he owed in back support. State officials later admitted to a data entry error. So they set out to determine if the mistake was an aberration or part of a pattern.

"The division spot-checked 396 cases in St. Louis and St. Louis County, a representative sample of the more than 88,000 cases in the region. It hunted for just one specific error: whether the amount on the child support order matched the amount logged into the state's computer database. In 393 cases, the amounts matched.

"The three cases with errors featured two cases off by $1 each and one case with an $161.50 error in each monthly payment. But the severe miscalculation had little impact: The noncustodial parent had not made a payment in years, Scott said. The errors were fixed.

"It is possible to use the limited review to hint at the number of mistakes statewide, assuming the St. Louis samples were representative, said the Rev. Mike May, chairman of the mathematics and mathematical computer sciences department at St. Louis University.

"Using the state's error rate of .75 percent, May expected 1,868 to 3,737 cases to contain these particular data entry errors out of the state's total caseload of 373,677.

"Scott said even an error rate below 1 percent allowed room for improvement. The department recently won funding from state lawmakers to establish a new call center dedicated to fielding questions in child custody cases. Scott said the move would allow caseworkers more time to work cases and boost collections.

"McCaskill said she was skeptical of the review's success because previous audits from her office have found a range of problems with the state's child support enforcement system, such as improperly distributing child support payments and not using all available resources to locate parents who owe money.

"This analysis by the department goes under the category 'too good to be true,'" McCaskill said.

"For the department to come out with this self-review, McCaskill said, "that probably moves them up on our list of where we need to do audit work."

"Jane Spies, executive director of the National Family Justice Association, a Georgia-based family advocacy group, also criticized the state's finding as too narrow and not independent.

"'I just think it is really misleading,' Spies said."

The statement that a "review of Missouri's child support system indicates 99.24 percent of support records contain no errors" is outrageous--they only looked for one, narrow type of error. There are a wide variety of error committed by Child support enforcement bureaucracies. As I noted in my co-authored column Persecuting Low Income Parents (Cincinnati Post, Kentucky Post, 8/26/05):

"Beyond mistaken identity...common agency errors include: mathematical errors; failure to record or transfer records of payments; billing men for children they did not father; failing to stop child support when a child reaches the age of emancipation; accepting custodial parents' false reports of nonpayment; and failure to update child support orders with later court rulings affecting modifications." 

According to Dead Man Billed For Child Support:

"A widow says she's still getting bills from the Nebraska Child Support Office addressed to her late husband, asking for money. The Nebraska Child Support Office is asking for payments, even though her husband passed away a year ago.

"'He has two children that live in Texas and he had been paying child support on them,' said Dawn Hunt.

"Hunt used to live in Lincoln, but after her husband died, she moved to Des Moines, IA, and got a new job.

"'Mid-November, I received a bill in Chad's name to my new address in Iowa. It was from the Nebraska Child Support Office. I opened it up and it said, 'your child support is past due,' and I was like 'what is this?'" said Hunt.

"Hunt said she was told that the child support office knew he was deceased. Hunt said the office person she spoke with told her that an order needed to be made to stop payments and that the office would take care of it...

"Hunt has racked up around $4,000 in owed child support since his death. Due to the owed child support, Dawn Hunt's federal tax refunds were withheld for about a month because she filed jointly with her husband."

Perhaps the least trustworthy words ever are when an error is pointed out to child support enforcement and they promise to "take care of it."

BTW, I was just joking about "'Being Dead Is No Excuse for Not Paying,' D.A. Says." No district attorney would ever say such a thing. I think.

Domestic Violence Expert Says DV Policies Based on Gender Politics, not Science

Dutton appeared on His Side with Glenn Sacks last summer--to listen, go to Congress to Vote on Renewing Anti-Male Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (7/3/05). I also quoted him extensively in my column Domestic Violence Treatment Policies Put Abused Women in Harm's Way (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 11/7/05). I criticized domestic violence treatment programs for following an ideological, women good/man bad model, as opposed to actually dealing with the psychological problems that abusive men have. I wrote:

"Psychologist Donald G. Dutton, author of The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships, asserts that personality disorders are the cause of most domestic violence. According to Dutton:

"'Treatment providers who work with abusive men are very frustrated by the current domestic violence treatment paradigm. Research shows that Duluth-oriented treatments are absolutely ineffective, and have no discernible impact on rates of recidivism.  These methods cannot work because they preclude patients from developing the crucial therapeutic bond with their treatment providers. However, when we treat offenders like normal patients by focusing on personality disorders and employing cognitive-behavioral treatments, we see progress.'"

To learn more about Dutton's new book, click here. Dutton's email address is dondutton@shaw.ca.

Sorry but I'll Have to Pass

It's almost the one year anniversary of the death of Perry Manley, a Seattle fathers' activist who committed "suicide by cop" last June.  Manley entered the federal courthouse in Seattle with what appeared to be a grenade, refused to surrender or negotiate, and made a sudden move, after which police fired, killing him. Unfortunately in the wake of his death Manley has been made into a hero by certain misguided fathers' activists. For example, one activist recently wrote:

Another wrote:

Sorry, but I'll have to pass. I gave my opinion in this enewsletter at the time of the shooting last year, and was greatly criticized by some for it. What I wrote still seems accurate to me. It appears below, exactly as it was a year ago:

My Opinion of Perry Manley's 'Suicide by Cop'

Many of you have written to me asking my opinion of Perry Manley's 'Suicide by Cop' Monday in Seattle. Manley, angry over a family court matter, entered the courthouse with what appeared to be a grenade. According to police, Manley refused to surrender or negotiate, and made a sudden move, after which police fired, killing him. The grenade turned out to be a fake--Manley was unarmed.

As for Manley's family court grievance, the facts, as far as I can ascertain them, are:

Manley divorced in 1990 from his wife, with whom he had 3 kids.

Manley claimed the child support system had treated him unfairly. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly is a common problem for divorced dads.

Manley claimed that his ex-wife interfered with his visitation with his kids and alienated them against him. Again, I don't know if this is true, but it certainly is a common problem.

Manley claimed that paying child support in and of itself was unconstitutional and a violation of his human rights. He made this his central issue, as opposed to the alleged violations of his custody and visitation rights.

Manley claimed that a judge who had ruled against him had violated the constitution in his dealings with him, thus violating his oath of office and committing "treason" which, Manley said, is punishable by death.

I have received many letters telling me that Manley is a hero, and even that I should honor him (or his memory) on my radio show this Sunday. I'll pass. Manley was unarmed, and that certainly counts in his favor, but his actions were reckless and needlessly put innocent civilians in harm's way. It served no constructive purpose but instead makes it easier for our many enemies to portray divorced dads as violent nuts.

While many divorced dads are abused by the child support system, it is unclear whether the child support demands upon Manley, who had three children in need of support, were unreasonable. Manley made child support, not his rights as a father, his central issue.

Had Manley done what David Chick did, I could support him. David Chick is a hero.  Gary LaMusga is a hero. Jolly Stansby and Ron Davis and Gary S. and Edgar P. and John Brumbaugh and Benoit Leroux are heroes. Manley may (or may not) have been a victim of a family law system which has torn millions of fathers and children apart. But either way there was nothing heroic about his actions this week."

Around the same time last year, in a letter to one of my detractors, I wrote:

Divorced Dads in Annie's Mailbox

There are a couple of interesting letters from divorced dads in recent Annie's Mailbox columns. One involves a mother undermining a dad's attempt to teach his son the value of money and of keeping commitments. In our current climate, whenever dads try to teach their children financial restraint they are stereotyped as cheap or as deadbeats.

"Dear Annie: I have a 16-year-old son whom I love very much. I have been divorced from his mother for eight years, remarried for the last six. 'Brendan' lives with his mother in the same city, so I see him a lot.

"We had a good relationship until recently. I told Brendan I would give him a car and pay for the insurance if he kept his grades up. He agreed. His first report card, he got a D in one subject. The car stayed at my house. Four weeks later, he got another D on his mid-term.

"The day after he received his grades, Brendan gave my wife and me a very impressive presentation, with charts and everything. He promised to work hard, do extra credit and show us his test scores every week. We caved and let him have the car. Well, he had an excuse every week why he didn't have his test scores. When his grades came, he had two Ds.

"I told Brendan to bring back the car, and he said I needed to talk to his mom, my ex. Naturally, she took his side and wanted the car to stay at her house, and didn't care that Brendan and I had an agreement. The car is now back at my place, but Brendan is angry with me, and my ex is probably going to buy him a car.

"I want my son to learn that there are consequences for being irresponsible. Am I wrong? -- Worried Dad

"Dear Dad: You are not wrong. A car is a privilege, not a right, no matter what some kids think. You kept your end of the bargain, and if his mother buys him a Porsche, let it be HER problem. Your ex is teaching Brendan that he doesn't have to work for anything and that it's OK to renege on agreements. We hope you will keep trying to teach him otherwise, Dad."

One can almost hear 16 year-old Brendan fuming to his friends that his dad is a cheapskate. I wonder who taught him to think that way about his dad?

Another recent column deals with Parental Alienation Syndrome:

"Lastly, there is nothing wrong with telling your son, 'Mommy sometimes says angry things because she is unhappy that our family isn't together anymore. I am very sorry that Mommy is unhappy, but I want you to know how much I love you.' This says nothing derogatory about Mom, but does reassure your son about your feelings for him - and that is what counts."

Huh?

In her recent article Mothers Make a Beautiful Mark on Public Life Peggy Drexler, author of Raising Boys Without Men, writes:

"Are mothers goddesses? Or are we responsible for everything that's wrong with our children, our families and the world?

"We hail mothers as life-givers and supreme nurturers, then blame them--and ourselves--when children and families develop problems.

"Cultural convenience continues to define good and bad mothering, just as it has through the ages. Mothers have traditionally been viewed as saints, victims or villains. It wasn't that long ago when clinicians thought mothers caused autism and schizophrenia, along with 70 other psychopathologies. Even today, mothers are easy targets of blame when children develop disorders of one kind or another or when marriages go sour."

Drexler pounds home her "mothers get all the blame" theme through her book, too. Peggy and I must live in different countries. In the United States men and fathers are blamed for all family problems, including divorce, and Drexler is part of the problem. In my column Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Dads Bad (World Net Daily, 9/10/05) I wrote:

"Drexler, like many feminists, has a double standard about divorce. When men divorce women, they're rats and deserters. When women divorce men, they're independent and liberated. Raising Boys makes numerous critical references to fathers who've divorced their wives: Martha's husband 'left her high and dry'; Beverly's husband abandoned her 'abruptly' when their children were small; and Pam's marriage ended because of her ex-husband's alleged 'lack of family commitment.' In fact, the only father who departed from his family against the mother's wishes and isn't vilified for it is a guy who died.

"Yet not one of the many divorced mothers and divorced-turned-lesbian mothers in Raising Boys is ever criticized or even chided for breaking up her family by divorcing her children's father. The vast majority of divorces involving children are initiated by women, and research shows that the primary reason is not abuse or adultery, but instead emotional reasons such as a perceived lack of closeness or of not feeling loved and appreciated. Legitimate concerns, but were they proffered by a man who had broken up his family they would engender little sympathy."

After my column Are Boys Really Better off Without Fathers? (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/31/05) came out last fall Peggy was invited to debate the issue with me on one of the biggest radio shows in the country (sorry--I can't reveal which one) but declined.

In her new article Drexler also propounds the Drexler Doctrine--boys don't need fathers. She writes:

"It's increasingly clear that even without the presence of a strong father, mothers are fully capable of engendering character, self-confidence and ambition in their children. Just ask San Francisco's mayor, Gavin Newsom; bicyclist and cancer survivor, Lance Armstrong; and former President Bill Clinton. All credit their single mothers by circumstance as instrumental in their success."

That Newsom was raised by a single mother is of some dispute. One of my San Francisco readers wrote me:

"I question whether he was raised by a divorced mom, and if it is true, that he didn't suffer. His father is William Newsom, a long time State Court of Appeal judge and somewhat of a kingmaker in San Francisco politics...I  seriously doubt he was raised by a single mother and if he was, his father, who was a political advisor to him, was very influential in his promotion to County Supervisor and Mayor."

The idea that Bill Clinton is an example of good character is also of some dispute, though obviously to become president of the United States is a fantastic achievement. As for Armstrong, Paul Coughlin, author of No More Christian Nice Guy: When Being Nice--Instead of Good--Hurts Men, Women, and Children and a cycling fan, writes:

"I keep an eye on Lance Armstrong and I'm amazed by his abilities, especially his cadence and lightness on the pedals as he flies up mountains. I'm also familiar with his background, apparently more so than Drexler. Young Lance Armstrong was not 'emotionally healthy.' He was, by his own admission, a lost and angry young jerk. Two trainers, Chris Charmichael and Johann Bruyneel, took him under their paternal wing and coaxed stellar talent out of his troubled body and soul. Eddy Merckx, perhaps the greatest cyclist ever, was also a huge influence in Lance's life. When others abandoned him professionally, his agent Ken Stapleton stayed by his side.

"And it was another racer who, seeing young, brash, angry Lance in a field sprint with him near the finish line, who taught Lance a lesson in humility that he never forgot. The well-respected racer hit his brakes because he did not want to appear on the same podium as troubled Armstrong. This man gave up money and fame to distance himself from a young racer whose emotional immaturity and reckless disregard earned him a growing list of detractors who rightly complained that Armstrong did not know how to win well or live well.

"He was not always the good ambassador of one of the world's most incredible sports that he is today. It took the intervention of some big souls to make that happen."

In other words, Armstrong's childhood was not the "fatherless but happy" experience that Drexler pretends it was. I'm sure his mother did her best but it wasn't until there was intervention by some male father figures that Armstrong changed from a antagonistic young man into the man he is today.

Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, whose columns appear in over 300 newspapers, discusses our Campaign Against PBS's Father-Bashing Breaking the Silence in her recent column on Parental Alienation Syndrome--Let's not alienate parents in custody battles.

Parental Alienation Syndrome is when one parent--usually the custodial parent--tries to poison his or her children's minds and turn the children against the noncustodial parent. Parker describes Parental Alienation Syndrome as "agony for a noncustodial parent and emotional problems for children alienated from one parent," and commends a recent proclamation signed by Maine's Governor John E. Baldacci that recognizes April 25 as "Parental Alienation Awareness Day."

In my column PBS Declares War on Dads (World Net Daily, 10/20/05) I described in detail numerous examples of PAS. One of them, experienced by one of my readers, is as follows:

"After Jim L.'s wife divorced him and moved his daughters out of state, she sent the two girls fake or altered e-mails purporting to be Jim. Afterwards, Jim's daughters refused to see him, explaining only 'you know what you've done, you know what you said, you know what you wrote.'

"Once when Jim flew to see his girls for his scheduled weekend visit, his ex-wife decided at the last minute to block the visit. Jim flew home on Sunday without having seen his girls. When he arrived at the airport back home he checked his messages and found a message from his ex-wife. On the recording his girls could be heard crying in the background. His ex-wife said:

"'Jim, the girls are here at the restaurant waiting for you to come pick them up. You said you'd meet them here for breakfast and spend the day with them, and you didn't show up. The girls are very upset. Jim, where are you?!?'"

Parker also wrote:

"Fathers who feel disenfranchised when courts award custody of their children to the mother during divorce have used PAS successfully to pressure judges to allow greater access to their children. One can hardly blame men for trying to be fathers.

"But critics claim that abusive fathers sometimes use PAS to force access where none should be granted. Mothers claim in such cases that they're trying to protect their children, not alienate them.

"This latter argument became the centerpiece last fall of a controversial PBS documentary about abused women and children, 'Breaking the Silence,' that fathers' groups attacked as unbalanced and unfair.

"No fathers were interviewed, and the cases reviewed tended to be extreme and sensational.

"Several women interviewed, for instance, said that they lost custody of their children to abusive fathers (confirmed by the children themselves) when fathers used PAS to 'prove' that the women were systematically teaching their children to hate their fathers.

"Glenn Sacks, a radio show host and columnist, called the film a 'direct assault on fatherhood,' and organized a protest on his Web site. Others - many of whom I know and respect as fellow toilers in trying to advance fatherhood - joined in.

"Sacks' campaign had an effect, and PBS ombudsman Michael Getler wrote a lengthy response agreeing that the show was unbalanced."

As we've noted, in the end PBS agreed to commission a new film to examine the issues raised by the film and our campaign in a more balanced, detailed light. To learn more, click here. The groups to which Parker refers when she writes "fellow toilers in trying to advance fatherhood" include Fathers and Families, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and Help Stop PAS Inc.

As for Parker's comment that "Several women interviewed, for instance, said that they lost custody of their children to abusive fathers (confirmed by the children themselves)" this "confirmation" is dubious in several cases. We revealed court findings, records and testimony show that Sadia Loeliger--portrayed as a heroic mom in the film--abused children under her care. In fact, a Tulare County Juvenile Court concluded in August of 1998 that Sadia Loeliger had committed multiple acts of abuse, and adjudged both her daughters as dependents of the Juvenile Court. To learn more, click here.

Parker concludes:

"The biggest losers in such cases, of course, are neither the mothers nor the fathers, but the children, who deserve to have unfettered access to both parents, assuming there's no abuse, without having to tote the adults' emotional baggage.

"Whether parental alienation meets the scientific standards of a 'syndrome' is a battle researchers can wage among themselves. The underlying message, meanwhile, is that there needs to be a presumption of shared custody following divorce, again, assuming no abuse.

"Life is alienating enough without the help of one's own parents."

Agreed.

ACFC Issues New Report: Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children has just issued a new report, Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse, which explains the many ways the war on domestic violence has separated children from the fathers they love and need, and has led to "by far the most severe and alarming violation of constitutional freedoms in the United States today."

The report, penned by ACFC President Stephen Baskerville, PhD., concludes that family dissolution is creating child abuse, and that child custody disputes are a large factor both in fabricated accusations of domestic violence and actual incidents. According to the report:

"The public and policymakers have been seriously misled [about domestic violence]. Gaping inconsistencies separate what the scientific data demonstrate about family violence from current public policy. When the scientific knowledge of these problems is understood, it becomes clear that current policy is not likely to alleviate these problems. More disturbingly, by destabilizing families it is likely to be contributing to them...

"To break this circle, we call for a radical departure from existing programs and offer the following recommendations:

"Government must adhere to the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections.

"Reform constitutionally questionable programs, such as the Violence Against Women Act, that politicize and distort law enforcement and target individuals because of their membership in groups or their political beliefs rather than their deeds.

"Statutory protection for parental rights to ensure that law enforcement programs are not commandeered to create unaccountable police actions against innocent parents, depriving them of their children without due process of law.

"A legal presumption of equal and shared legal and physical custody of children in cases of divorce, separation, and unmarried parents. By strengthening families and the bonds between parents and their children, we will be addressing the roots of family violence, including child abuse."

To read the 72 page report, click here. To contact the ACFC about the report, write to info@acfc.org or call 800-978-DADS (3237).

Dr. Phil Trashes Dads--Again

Popular daytime TV host Dr. Phil is father-bashing again. In the past I've criticized Dr. Phil for supporting and whitewashing abusive mother Bridget Marks, who was found by five separate judges to have coached her little girls to believe that they had been sexually molested by their father. 

Marks became a cause celebre after (briefly) losing custody of her twin girls to their father, against whom she had waged a vicious parental alienation campaign. Marks had appeared on Dr. Phil during the custody battle, and Dr. Phil held a joyous reunion with her on the air in May of last year to celebrate her victory in the custody battle.

The father's side spoke for the first time publicly on His Side with Glenn Sacks--to listen or to read a transcript of the that show, go to Father's Side in Bridget Marks Custody Case Speaks Publicly for First Time, 4/5/05.  Several New York newspapers quoted from our show in their news articles.

To learn more about the Marks case, including Marks' legal team taunting me over their court victory, Marks' unkind comments for me, and my newspaper columns on the Marks case, see Bridget Marks Ruling: It's OK to Coach Little Girls Into Saying They'd Been Molested (4/7/05)

Now Dr. Phil is again on the warpath against dads, pushing the discredited "lazy husband" myth. The promo for one of his shows this week is called The Divorce Experiment and reads:

"Are you married to a man who doesn't know how good he has it? You do the cooking, the cleaning, take care of the kids, and he still takes you for granted? After seven years, Amy finds herself in a marriage where she is expected to wait on her husband hand and foot, and never voice her opinion. Her husband, Greg, is a self-proclaimed male chauvinist pig and says his wife's job is to take care of the family without questioning his role as 'king' of the house. Amy says if Greg doesn't learn to treat her like his equal and not his servant, she's going to divorce him. Dr. Phil sends in a Relationship Rescue team of strong women to teach Greg a lesson! While Amy is sent off on a special trip to build her self-esteem, Greg gets three new 'wives' who give him a dose of his own medicine as they put him through all that he demands of his wife on a daily basis. Will he finally see Amy as his equal and become a better spouse in the process?"

"Feminist critics compare the work men and women do at home but fail to properly account for their disparate obligations outside the home. Census data shows that only 40% of married women with children under 18 work full-time, and over a quarter do not hold a job outside the home.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2004 Time Use Survey, men spend one and a half times as many hours working as women do, and full-time employed men still work significantly more hours than full-time employed women.

"When both work outside the home and inside the home are properly considered, it is clear that men do at least as much as women. A 2002 University of Michigan Institute for Social Research survey found that women do 11 more hours of housework a week than men but men work 14 hours a week more than women. According to the BLS, men's total time at leisure, sleeping, doing personal care activities, or socializing is a statistically meaningless 1% higher than women's. The Families and Work Institute in New York City found that fathers now provide three-fourths as much child care as mothers do--50% more than 30 years ago."

We also noted that men do the most dangerous and demanding jobs, and that men are vastly more likely than women to be killed or injured on the job. We wrote of  the "sacrifices made by men like Terry Helms, one of the 12 miners killed in the Sago Mine disaster [in January]...Terry's son Nick told the Associated Press that his father 'had endured numerous injuries in a 30-year career and hated mining because of the dangers'..'[My father] is very selfless,' Nick said. '[He] refused to quit because the job put food on the table...He gave his life in there so I could go to the movies.'"

From the Akron Beacon Journal article Dad who escaped procreation ban jailed on child support charges (make sure to check out the next to last paragraph):

"A judge who was forced to lift his probation condition that a deadbeat dad not father more children has sentenced the man to six months in jail for continuing to fail to pay child support.

"Sean Talty, 34, of Akron, pleaded guilty on Friday to violating terms of his five-year probation by failing to stay current on the payments.

"Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler, who sentenced Talty to probation in 2002 and modified the terms under Ohio Supreme Court order in 2004, said Talty can reduce the sentence through community service.

"Talty has fathered seven children by five women and also owes support in Butler, Summit and Wayne Counties. The Medina County case involves $30,000 he owes for three of the children by two of the women, including a former wife.

"Court records show the probation violations involve $3,600 owed for 2005 and this year and failure to get a high school equivalency degree.

"In 2004, Kimbler lifted one of his probation conditions imposed in 2002, that Talty not father any more children while on probation. The Ohio Supreme Court had ruled the sentence was overbroad because it didn't include a method for lifting the ban if Talty caught up with his payments."

A few thoughts:

1) Obviously Talty's no model citizen. However, you're not supposed to be imprisoned for debt in this country--debtors prisons were abolished a long time ago. Talty is being jailed because of failure to pay child support, but nobody questions whether his child support was commensurate with his income. This is a guy who can't even get a high school GED--it's doubtful he earns or could earn enough to pay the obligation he's being imprisoned for.

2) Why are the five women who bore Talty's children held blameless? All of these women did exactly what Talty did‑‑they had children whom they could not financially support. In fact, given the much wider range of birth control and reproductive choices that women have, these women had a much larger say in the decision to have children than Oakley did. Low income mothers get sympathy and assistance--fathers get blame and jail.

3) I've checked the top 10 most wanted deadbeat parents lists put out by the states on many different occasions, usually in preparation for an article on the war against so-called "deadbeat dads." In my co-authored column Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/17/05, Riverside Press-Enterprise, 12/16/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"In the past few months, 'deadbeat parents' have been the targets of highly-publicized law enforcement actions in Virginia, Texas, Kentucky, and Arizona. Yet Virginia's 'Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents' list is topped by a laborer, a carnival hired hand, and a construction worker, who collectively somehow owe over a quarter million dollars in child support. Of all the parents on Texas' and Kentucky's lists, only one appears to have an education, and the most common designation for occupation is 'laborer.' Near the top of Arizona's list is a maintenance man who owes $90,223, an unemployed man of no known occupation who owes $54,298, and, best of all, a roofer who owes $240,581.

"This week Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott boasted that he had arrested one of the 'deadbeats' on his 'Most Wanted' list--Charles Silva, who owes almost $40,000 in child support. Yet it's doubtful that Silva will be writing a five figure check any time soon--Silva's occupation is 'general laborer.'  Far from being lists of well-heeled businessmen, lawyers, and accountants, the vast majority of the men on these lists do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which they could never hope to pay off. 

"Child support enforcement agencies are notorious for their abusive tactics towards such men..."

Speaking of the Boy Crisis in Education...

Just after the publication of my co-authored column Resolving the Boy Crisis in Schools (Chicago Sun-Times, 5/7/06) I was given another reminder of it in my son's life. My son's Boy Scout troop had planned to participate in a big, week long Boy Scout campout in August. The trip sounded fantastic--a week up in the mountains in Northern California with all sorts of fun activities--hiking, archery, boating, etc. Except it turns out that the troop won't be going. The reason? Most of the boys couldn't sign up, because they were all in danger of having to go to summer school. Somehow I doubt that many Girl Scout summer trips are being cancelled for that reason...

My daughter's school recently instituted a new after school policy. Now instead of the kids going out to the yard to play, all students who don't go home immediately after school are corralled into the lunch area to do homework under supervision for 30 minutes.

This is a perfect example of the problems inherent in our almost all-female elementary school system. The school means well, but any group of male teachers would know that after being cooped up for almost eight hours those boys need to go out and run around. Instead, after being forced to sit all day--quite unnatural for little boys--when the bell rings they must be forced marched over to yet another half hour of sitting.

It also turns into a chore for the supervising teachers, who must stand guard over the boys for a half hour. No doubt many boys get punished because they can't sit still and do their homework after school--as if they don't already get punished enough during the day for being unable to sit still. I prefer the school National Review Washington Editor Kate O'Beirne describes in her latest book, where the students work hard and achieve, but also "have recess twice a day, play in the rain, wreck their good shoes, and...they like school."

Hero Dad Tells Story in Parents Magazine

Heroic father Joe Seldner tells of his long, hard and ultimately successful for his children in his Parents Magazine article "My Fight to Keep My Kids" (April, 2000). Joe's trial by ordeal will sound familiar to many of you:

"The nightmare began with a knock on the door. On that hot August afternoon in 1993, my wife was out shopping, and the kids, Dan, 9, and Laura, 6, were at swimming lessons with my parents, who had flown in from New Jersey. The visitor identified herself as a caseworker for Child Protective Services and told me that I had been accused of physically abusing my son. I laughed. She didn't. When I asked who would make such a ridiculous charge, she said the information was confidential. 'I'd like you to leave,' I said, barely containing my anger and incredulity. Having dropped her bombshell, she complied.

"When my wife got home, she refused to discuss the matter and referred me to her lawyer. It was clear that my accuser was the woman I had been married to for ten years. I had known our relationship was in trouble, but I'd never imagined she would do anything like this. It felt as if someone had hit me in the hack of the head with a sledgehammer.

"Two days later the sheriff's office served me with divorce papers. The following week, the caseworker came back to interview both of the kids. When she came downstairs afterward, looking a little annoyed, she declared there was nothing to the allegations. I was momentarily relieved -- but the war had just begun."

Read the full article here. To contact Joe, click here.

Canadian Court Nails Jell-O to a Wall

In my co-authored column PBS Declares War on Dads (World Net Daily, 10/20/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I discussed the hard struggle so many noncustodial parents face to get courts to properly address Parental Alienation Syndrome in their cases. We wrote:

"As a society we pretend that broken families are all men's fault, pay lip service to the importance of fathers, and close our eyes while millions of children are separated from the fathers they love and need. Because that's what mom wants. Because it's easier to blame everything on dad than it is to confront mom on her destructive behavior. Because trying to hold a divorcing mother accountable for her behavior is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Because there's a high political cost to be paid for crossing mothers and none to be paid for crossing fathers."  (emphasis added)

Well, last week a Canadian court nailed Jell-O to a wall. According to the story Mother loses kids after hindering father's access:

"'We recognize, as did the trial judge, that the remedy of granting custody to the father is a dramatic one. However, that remedy was supported by the expert evidence and by the mother's persistent, ingrained and deep-rooted inability to support the children's relationship with the father,' said three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal in a unanimous decision this week.

"The court dismissed the appeal of the Jarvis, Ontario mother against a lower court decision last year which ordered that the primary residence of her five-year-old twin boys be switched from the mother -- who had sole physical custody of them since their birth -- to her ex-husband who resides in Hamilton.

"Calling that decision 'amply supported by the evidence,' the Appeal Court said that although the mother was 'otherwise a good parent,' her persistent 'troublesome conduct' against the children's best interests included unilaterally restricting the father to daytime visits and failing to inform him about the children's medications, or to give him their prescription drugs, so that they would return home from visits with him sicker than when they left.

"Obstructed access affects thousands of divorced parents and their children across Canada, according to a 1998 parliamentary report which urged the federal government and the provinces and territories to devise a nationwide co-coordinated response to failed parenting orders...

"The appeal court was also critical of the mother's unilateral decision -- without warning, just before the custody case went to trial -- to uproot the boys from their school and community to move to another town further away from their father. 'Moreover, the mother said that if the father moved to her new town, she would move again,' the Court of Appeal noted.

"'This conduct, in addition to many other instances of alienating conduct, was properly viewed by the trial judge as evidence of the mother's inability to support the father's relationship with the children and to consider the best interests of the children.'

"By court order, the boys now reside with their father, but live with their mother most weekends and see her for mid-week evening visits."

The case is also another example of how move-aways are used by alienating custodial parents to destroy the relationships between children and their noncustodial parents. This is one of the reasons our two defeats of move-away legislation in the California legislature (click here and here) are so important.

Dr. Charles Corry, the leader of the Equal Justice Foundation, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children affiliate in Colorado, discusses the recent murder of Clifford Evans, a Denver, Colorado male victim of domestic violence. According to Corry:

"What isn't mentioned is that Debra Evans, aka Debrah  Wellington, had two prior domestic violence convictions, one in 2001 and another as far back as 1990. Presumably the 2001 conviction required her to take the standard 36-week DV treatment program. But perhaps she was one of the 50% of convicted offenders who never complete the program because it certainly didn't change her behavior.

"According to a Fox News reporter, the neighbors in the apartment building had become inured to the couple fighting, and that Clifford was always the victim. By any definition, Debra Evans is a 'batterer' but you'll never find that out from the press. It hasn't gone to trial yet but my guess is she will be the 'battered woman' then.

"But imagine if Clifford had a couple of prior DV convictions and then killed Debra? Front page, above the fold coverage would be the norm. But since Debra is the killer the case can be buried by the press."

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com

Subscribe to this E-Newsletter

Email this E-Newsletter to a Friend

Missed an E-Newsletter? Find all of Glenn's E-Newsletters here

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

To be removed from our list, send an email to remove@glennsacks.com with the subject line "Remove."