Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Vol. 8, No. 1                                  The Fourteen Percenter                               April 2005
A publication for parents on the wrong side of the standard possession order.
– I see my child two days out of every fourteen; 14%.  That's not enough. –


For years, the San Antonio Express-News identified male friends of the mother as ‘husbands’ or, even worse, ‘fathers,’ in cases of child abuse. This gives the real dads a bad name. Finally the Express-News began identifying boyfriends as just that, boyfriends, and not the father or step-dad (see http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA022005.1B.paramour.c52f8734.html ). But the paper still wants to blame men for many of society’s ills. A recent letter set the editor straight:
Investigate mommy also
Thank you for publicizing the child abuse committed by mothers' boyfriends.

The article "Child abuse by boyfriends examined" reported that mommy's boyfriend was accused in the deaths of four of 11 children in 2004 in Bexar County and that "birth mothers and fathers still make up the lion's share of abusers — 77 percent in Texas last year."

But to put these statistics in perspective, you must list the number of mothers responsible for abusing their own children. According to recent national statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 58 percent compared to 42 percent"
(http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm ).

Please do examine mommy's boyfriend when investigating child abuse. But please examine mommy as well. More than boyfriends and natural fathers, mothers are the No. 1 perpetrators of violence against children.

Don Mathis  

The Fourteen Percenter is an international newsletter that seeks to promote equal parenting rights in the US, the UK, and worldwide. We welcome feedback, as well as any article, poem, or review relating to the child-parent bond.  Send your letters to FourteenPercenter@yahoo.com .       

The Fourteen Percenter thanks A-1 Product Distribution for donation of their printing services. Typesetting, binding, and laminating are other services available at 2015 McCullough in San Antonio, TX. Contact 210-734-9355, 800-652-8477, or http://www.a1laminating.com/index.cfm 
Remember these Quotes:

A child is not likely to find a father in God unless he finds something of God in his father. Glen Wheeler

In the Criminal Court you see bad people at their best, where in the Family Court you see good people at their worst. Anne Hollonds

In Hollywood, an equitable divorce settlement means each party getting 50 percent of the publicity. Lauren Bacall

Justice is like a train that is nearly always late.  Yevgeny Yevtushenko

One of the most obvious facts about grownups to a child is that they have forgotten what it is like to be a child. Randall Jarrell

Reconsider - Criminal Jury - 'sine qua non' of Family Law Reform, by John Murtari

Sorry for the Latin there. What does it mean, literally: 'without which - not.'  You want equal parenting?  You want to keep Child Protective Services from taking your kids on a hunch – and 'temporary' orders that last for years?

We can talk about equal parenting, or better 'procedures' for social workers, and laws that say 'clear and convincing' evidence is required before a Judge intervenes in your family life -- but are they the essential elements in real reform?   Maybe not.

How about this simple concept: If a former spouse, or social worker wants to interfere in your relationship with your children and get 'Family Court' to intervene -- there is just one hurdle they have to overcome.  They have to get a criminal prosecutor to indict you for a serious crime (with malintent being a 'demonstrated' serious threat to the safety of your kids).  You get the protection of a Jury of twelve and they need a unanimous verdict against you. How does that sound? Oh, and if the Jury finds you guilty – you are going to jail for a while (of course).

Now, you don't have to go through all this. You are free to negotiate, mediate, and arbitrate first with the other party (whether that is a former spouse or Child Protective Services).  But both sides know what the standard of proof is, and that twelve people are going to hear the facts.

Good parents, average parents, and poor parents – all equal parents.

A Jury – do you want that much protection? Shouldn't there be more factors. Custody is so complicated – what about all the subtle forms of mental abuse?  My spouse doesn't care about the kids – they just want to use the kids to control me.  The kids don't want to be with my spouse – they want to be with me! We 'know' the parents are abusing the kids, but we can't prove – we need to get the kids out of house! I want to move away to get a better job and make more money for my children – what do you mean I can't take the kids with me unless my spouse is a criminal?  Don't they have a right to something better?  What about all that?

A Jury – should 9 out of 10 murderers go free!? Maybe we should feel uncomfortable about our present jury system? How could O.J. Simpson go free after committing murder?  Probably many of you had heard of this old civic lesson, "better to let nine guilty people go free, than convict one innocent?"  Does that make sense – we 'know' they did it. Why would you let a murderer or child abuser go free to commit more crime?

I once had a 'junior' Senate Staffer for Senator Clinton tell me that it was better to separate 9 kids from parents, than let one live in an abusive environment?  Do we understand that when you separate a kid from parents – that is awful abuse also?  To save one you abuse nine?

What does all this flow from? What is the underlying assumption? Your right to Family is a great right – the ability to raise and nurture and be present to your own children (and they to you) – just as valued as our Freedom.

I have had the chance to spend a lot of time in jail holding cells waiting to be arraigned. You know what? About 90% of those people were exactly guilty of what the police arrested them for.  Why go through all the expense of procedures, protections, and also run the risk of letting these people go?  Just convict the whole bunch!  To be more specific, what if 90% of Black men under 25 are guilty of the crime they were charged with – just convict them all?

We do not do that, because freedom is a great right.  Hopefully our society is now recognizing family is a great right.  Please, let's not resort to scientific studies or the laws of averages for policy justification.  I don't care if 90% of bald-bearded-men over 45 (like me) are bad parents – I walk into Court an equal parent to my child.

What about that? A Jury - protector of our freedom. Maybe we need something better?  Family law is so complicated.  It is so hard to get enough evidence to get a jury conviction.  There are so many personal factors involved. We need to build a lot of flexibility into the law, get some impartial experts involved to do evaluations, and of course make a recommendation based on the 'best interest of the child.' Does that sound good?  It pretty much describes the system we have right now.

Your feedback is welcome. John Murtari, jmurtari@AKidsRight.org

Report from Robert Schoolcraft

Here is an interview by Robert Schoolcraft (ajc@tampabay.rr.com) with A.J. Comparetto (author of "The Ultimate Stop Dirty Divorce Success System," http://www.divorceproblems.com/).

Rob: To me you are Mr. Comparetto; can I call you AJ here?

Mr. Comparetto: You know you can. Look, just because I am a lawyer, I put my clothes on the same way you do.

Rob: You mean that I and everyone else maintain this false vision of an attorney?

AJ: Absolutely! That is one reason that so many people who are going through a divorce get into trouble. For some reason they think lawyers are different or above them or are going to magically solve all of their divorce problems.

Rob: I am not sure I understand.

AJ: Well, one of the reasons that lawyers don't want you to get my course is that they don't want you to know the truth behind dirty divorce. Lawyers want to give you that warm fuzzy feeling that they can make everything better. But they also want to prolong the money supply chain.

Rob: Are you referring to the Dr. Phil show last year?

AJ: Exactly. You had a man and women getting divorced and each of them had their attorney with them. Dr. Phil was trying to mediate to help stop ‘the dirty divorce.’ He would say something to one person whose attorney would interrupt that person's answer. The attorney's objective was to ‘stoke the fire.’ Then the other attorney would make a retort and stoke the fire some more. The bottom line was that neither attorney was going to allow their client any flexibility. The fire got hotter and hotter.

Rob: If I remember correctly, didn't Dr. Phil give up in disgust?

AJ: Yeah, he could not get to the real issues because he couldn't separate the attorneys from the clients.

Rob: A friend of yours is going through that right now, correct?

AJ: Well he became a friend after he purchased my course. That’s how I got to know him. He called one day to tell me how much it had helped him.

Rob: Isn't he the one that got thrown in jail a couple times and lost tens of thousands of dollars in his battle so far? What helped him so much?

AJ: He did not realize that both the attorneys for him and his ex were really the ones stoking the fire. Like everyone else he thought ‘my attorney knows what he is doing, I'll just let him handle it.’

Rob: And what happened?

AJ: Well they would all go to court, the attorneys would start stoking the fires and my friend would get so angry that he would jump up and say, “That’s not true,” and argue with the judge. Next thing you know he is in jail.

Rob: Well how did the course help him?

AJ: In the course I give a lot of guidelines. One of the things I talk about is getting your emotions under control.

Rob: Well you talk about so many in your course. Is that why everyone is after you trying to shut down your course?

AJ: Well, I am an attorney, but I am not a divorce attorney. I've been there and done that.

Rob: So they don't want you to get this knowledge out.

AJ: Well the bottom line is this, divorce is big business.  Divorce has become an industry with thousands of people who make money off of people’s divorce. Also imagine you are a divorce attorney and your client has taken my course. No matter what you or the opposing attorney does, you can't stoke the fire. At $250.00 an hour or a lot more – how much money will you lose if you can't keep both sides fighting?

Rob: I am starting to get it, so I am going to end here. I just can't believe that with so much good stuff in your course that attorneys who say they want to ‘help’ their clients would be so against it.

AJ: It doesn't fit into their bottom line.

(The Fourteen Percenter makes no endorsement for the above products or services.)

Read the Washington Times


On March 28, a second American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC) newspaper advertisement - https://www.acfc.org/advertisingcampaign.htm - ran in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition. This ad is endorsed by some of the most eminent and respected leaders in America.

In addition to the national officers of ACFC, the following names appear on the ad: Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum; Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation; William J. Murray, President, Religious Freedom Coalition; Dr. Don Wildmon, President, American Family Association; Concerned Women for America; Michael J. McManus, President, Marriage Savers; Dr. Allan Carlson, author, "Fractured Generations;" William Greene, President, RightMarch; Pacific Justice Institute; Urban League of Northern Virginia; Heather Higgins, Chairman, The Independent Women's Forum; Dr. Mark I. Klein, MD, board certified psychiatrist; Bryce Christensen, Associate Professor, Southern Utah University; David M. Wagner, Associate Professor, Regent University School of Law; John Eisendrath, Executive Producer, ABC's "Alias;" Dr. Warren Farrell, author, "Father and Child Reunion;" Glenn Sacks, columnist and nationally-syndicated radio talk show host; David Buchanan, author, "Gendercide and Human Rights"

These names cannot be ignored. These are eminent leaders who speak to the President and members of Congress on a regular basis. They head organizations with hundreds of thousands of members and followers.

These leaders are sticking their necks out for us. They sympathize with our plight, support our efforts, and are willing to back us further. It is now up to us to act. These people cannot fight our battle for us. We are now on the national stage, and what we do will be seen by the world.
This ad presents an inescapable choice to elected officials: Either our charges are without merit, in which case why are they being endorsed by leaders of this stature? Or our charges are true, in which case a major national scandal is being ignored by our elected officials.

Either way, it demands attention, and that is all we are demanding: An investigation into allegations of government wrongdoing alleged by millions of American citizens and a full report to the American people.

Here is what you can do:
 Copy this ad and circulate it to your elected officials and to the media.
 Solicit local endorsements, and run the ad in your own local newspapers.
 Some of the organizations listed above have local affiliates. Contact them and offer to create a coalition for mutual support.
Go to www.acfc.org and make a contribution in support of these efforts.
Stephen Baskerville, President; Michael McCormick, Executive Director; ACFC