Marginalized fathers capitalize on unofficial Fatherless Day
June 17, 9:09 PM
California protesters for equal parental rights
A special group of California dads will be gathering at the state capital in Sacramento Friday to honor and bring attention to their missing and exploited children. Left behind and marginalized fathers and their supporters will be gathering at state capitals across the country on June 19th, unofficial Fatherless Day, to communicate the necessity of equal parenting rights.Acknowledging that some mothers lose contact with their children by way of the same corruption, equal parenting advocates say this week is for the dads. National representative Donald Tenn said he can't keep up with the calls and emails coming into Fathers 4 Justice, especially now. "This week is one of the hardest for most of the dads I know," said Tenn, whose daughter Madison was abducted to Illinois by her mother Shannon Phillips three years ago.
Madison's daddy Donald Tenn
These men say they've been robbed of their right and duty to be fathers by a corrupt legal system. Claiming the current family court system not only ignores, but rewards deceit, they point to this video of Nancy Schaefer speaking of how corruption in family courts devastates parents and children, including families of divorce. Tenn told the story of a local father who missed his children so much he became overcome with grief. On a website describing his plight, the father had included plans to commit suicide. After being contacted by fathers advocates the man changed his mind and took down the website. "He now has hope," Tenn explained, "it's all I can give him, but at least I can give him that."
Fatherless rally in Sacramento '08
Northern California father Nate posted to the California Fathers 4 Justice forum, "For the past five years I have felt I was alone. No one could understand what I was up against, not even my parents or siblings." "There is unity when you align yourself with like-minded individuals," responded Fathers 4 Justice member Robert Saunders, "I see empowerment as one of the most important things a wronged parent can do to gain and maintain the strength to fight the oppressive, immoral and corrupt anti-family court system. Those interested in family law reform are encouraged to meet Friday at the north steps of the capital at 9:00 am. Participants will lobby with legislators, then return to the north steps at noon to rally until 3:00 pm. Last year's speeches, like Tenn's story of his daughter's abduction drew tears, indignation and applause. (Tenn's speech here)Nate spoke for many marginalized parents who I've spoken with when he wrote, "They can take our freedom, our money, our rights, but they can not take our love for our children."
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Bad mom really needed jail time
Bad mom really needed jail time
By MINDELLE JACOBS
Last Updated: 12th June 2009, 2:12am
Email Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Share with:
Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Newsvine Reddit Technorati Feed Me Yahoo Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blogmarks Netvouz Scuttle Sitejot + What are these? Most fathers who've been denied access to their kids by demented ex-wives give up the fight rather than bankrupting themselves in lengthy court battles.
A Toronto surgeon had the money -- and the persistence -- to keep going. He won sole custody of his three daughters because his ex-wife spent more than a decade brainwashing the children to hate him.
She was subsequently fined $35,000 for contempt for ignoring repeated orders to get counselling. And on Tuesday, an Ontario judge imposed an even harsher punishment, ordering her to pay more than $250,000 of her ex-husband's court costs.
The father's expenses were "a litigant's worst nightmare," declared Ontario Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt. "She has acted deceitfully and in bad faith throughout the litigation."
If the mother in this case had been jailed the first time she ignored court-ordered access, everyone would have been better off.
The mother would have learned the courts don't take kindly to breaches of court orders, the father would have been able to bond with his children much earlier and court resources could have been used for more worthwhile purposes.
It's a pleasant surprise that the mother was actually punished; better late than never. Still, the father likely faces a huge challenge winning over his kids. Reversing the damage done by a parent who spends years alienating the children from the other spouse is a long-term process.
These girls, now aged 14, 11 and 10, may forever be damaged by their mother's sick, selfish actions -- behaviour McWatt bluntly described as "emotional abuse."
The couple split up in 1999 but K.D., as the mother is known, denied A.L., her ex, virtually any access. At the same time, she was over-protective of the kids to the point of infantilizing them. The oldest child wasn't even toilet-trained at the age of five. The middle girl was still using a bottle at night when she was three.
One psychologist warned as early as 2000 that the children were at "significant risk" of being alienated from the father.
A.L. gave up fighting for access for about six years because his ex warned that if he pressured her, he wouldn't get anything. But it didn't matter what he did. He still didn't get to see his daughters.
He only saw them for two weekends between 2000 and 2006. Then K.D. wouldn't even allow him to speak to them.
For a while, there was still a bond between father and daughters. Early on, one daughter would hug him and warn: "Don't tell mommy I did this."
By 2006, though, the bond seemed broken. The oldest showed no affection, the middle daughter stopped looking at him and the youngest only spoke to him in a monotone.
It's been 11 years since the release of the parliamentary report on child custody and access, with its dozens of recommendations, including the proposal that the terms "custody and access" be replaced with "shared parenting" in the Divorce Act.
A NUTBAR
But that assumes both parents are reasonable. In this case, the mother is clearly a nutbar who used her kids as weapons against her ex. Jail might have taught her a lesson a lot sooner.
A.L. is "exhausted but very, very happy. He has his children," says his lawyer, Harold Niman.
"This kind of case will hopefully send a message to those people who think it's OK to undermine a relationship between the children and the other parent."
MINDY.JACOBS@SUNMEDIA.CA
By MINDELLE JACOBS
Last Updated: 12th June 2009, 2:12am
Email Story Print Size A A A Report Typo Share with:
Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Google Stumble Upon Newsvine Reddit Technorati Feed Me Yahoo Simpy Squidoo Spurl Blogmarks Netvouz Scuttle Sitejot + What are these? Most fathers who've been denied access to their kids by demented ex-wives give up the fight rather than bankrupting themselves in lengthy court battles.
A Toronto surgeon had the money -- and the persistence -- to keep going. He won sole custody of his three daughters because his ex-wife spent more than a decade brainwashing the children to hate him.
She was subsequently fined $35,000 for contempt for ignoring repeated orders to get counselling. And on Tuesday, an Ontario judge imposed an even harsher punishment, ordering her to pay more than $250,000 of her ex-husband's court costs.
The father's expenses were "a litigant's worst nightmare," declared Ontario Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt. "She has acted deceitfully and in bad faith throughout the litigation."
If the mother in this case had been jailed the first time she ignored court-ordered access, everyone would have been better off.
The mother would have learned the courts don't take kindly to breaches of court orders, the father would have been able to bond with his children much earlier and court resources could have been used for more worthwhile purposes.
It's a pleasant surprise that the mother was actually punished; better late than never. Still, the father likely faces a huge challenge winning over his kids. Reversing the damage done by a parent who spends years alienating the children from the other spouse is a long-term process.
These girls, now aged 14, 11 and 10, may forever be damaged by their mother's sick, selfish actions -- behaviour McWatt bluntly described as "emotional abuse."
The couple split up in 1999 but K.D., as the mother is known, denied A.L., her ex, virtually any access. At the same time, she was over-protective of the kids to the point of infantilizing them. The oldest child wasn't even toilet-trained at the age of five. The middle girl was still using a bottle at night when she was three.
One psychologist warned as early as 2000 that the children were at "significant risk" of being alienated from the father.
A.L. gave up fighting for access for about six years because his ex warned that if he pressured her, he wouldn't get anything. But it didn't matter what he did. He still didn't get to see his daughters.
He only saw them for two weekends between 2000 and 2006. Then K.D. wouldn't even allow him to speak to them.
For a while, there was still a bond between father and daughters. Early on, one daughter would hug him and warn: "Don't tell mommy I did this."
By 2006, though, the bond seemed broken. The oldest showed no affection, the middle daughter stopped looking at him and the youngest only spoke to him in a monotone.
It's been 11 years since the release of the parliamentary report on child custody and access, with its dozens of recommendations, including the proposal that the terms "custody and access" be replaced with "shared parenting" in the Divorce Act.
A NUTBAR
But that assumes both parents are reasonable. In this case, the mother is clearly a nutbar who used her kids as weapons against her ex. Jail might have taught her a lesson a lot sooner.
A.L. is "exhausted but very, very happy. He has his children," says his lawyer, Harold Niman.
"This kind of case will hopefully send a message to those people who think it's OK to undermine a relationship between the children and the other parent."
MINDY.JACOBS@SUNMEDIA.CA
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Truth About Deadbeat Dads BY GLADYS POLLACK
For decades, they have been pictured as living the high life -- driving their Porsches, vacationing in exotic places -- while their former wives and their children haunt food banks and live off welfare. Branded as "deadbeat dads," they are viewed as heartless men who have simply walked away from their family responsibilities. The fact is, sure, there are some dads who fall into this category -- men who have fathered children but don't want to honour their obligations to them -- but a closer examination reveals another story.
In general, statistics indicate that between 85 to 91 percent of Canadian children covered either by private or court-ordered child-support agreements actually receive payments, the vast majority receiving regular support payments. And statistics also reveal the close association between the regularity of payment and the frequency of contact between fathers and their children.
Studies also show that many noncustodial fathers who do not pay child support simply can't afford to. Some are unemployed or on sick leave. In fact, one of the best predictors of nonpayment is the unemployment rate. Higher incomes are associated with higher compliance rates, and lower incomes with lower rates. One study suggests that a father's ability to pay, in addition to his willingness to pay, determines the extent to which he fulfills his child-support obligations.
Burdened by unrealistic court- imposed support payments, continuing legal fees, increased taxes due to changes imposed by Bill C-41 and estrangement from their children, some men find themselves caught in a downward spiral of depression and have resorted to the ultimate escape: suicide. With a divorce, funds that were unable to support one household are now expected to support two. Add to this the cost of expensive litigation, the fact that one party may be trying to use money as a means of obtaining concessions such as access or custody, and we have a recipe for disaster -- with children often caught in the maelstrom
What happens after the break-up of the family? Eighty-seven percent of children end up living solely with their mothers after a parental separation (only 7 percent live with their fathers). Only 30 percent of children report visiting their fathers every week. One quarter of children visit their fathers irregularly -- once a month or on holidays. A whopping 15 percent never see their fathers.
And what has Bill C-41 done for fathers? Under the changes to the tax treatment of child support, which came into effect on May 1, 1997, it is no longer taxable in the hands of the receiving parent and no longer deductible in the hands of the paying parent. It is worthy of note that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada rose in Parliament to speak in favour of Bill C-41, he stated that the revenue derived from ending the deduction of child-support payments would yield the federal government more than an additional $1 billion dollars over a five-year period.
Finding solutions that are in the best interests of the children was the aim of the 1998 Senate-Commons Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. Understanding that children of divorce are entitled to a close and continuing relationship with both parents, the committee recommended that the terms "custody" and "access" be stricken from the Divorce Act and a new term, "shared parenting," be incorporated. Both parents would have access to information and records regarding the child's development and social activities, such as school and medical records and other relevant information. The federal government has apparently shelved the committee's recommendations, however, in the interests of further study.
Yes, there are some deadbeats who don't care about their kids. But it's unfair and unproductive to label every father who falls behind in his support payments a "deadbeat."
In general, statistics indicate that between 85 to 91 percent of Canadian children covered either by private or court-ordered child-support agreements actually receive payments, the vast majority receiving regular support payments. And statistics also reveal the close association between the regularity of payment and the frequency of contact between fathers and their children.
Studies also show that many noncustodial fathers who do not pay child support simply can't afford to. Some are unemployed or on sick leave. In fact, one of the best predictors of nonpayment is the unemployment rate. Higher incomes are associated with higher compliance rates, and lower incomes with lower rates. One study suggests that a father's ability to pay, in addition to his willingness to pay, determines the extent to which he fulfills his child-support obligations.
Burdened by unrealistic court- imposed support payments, continuing legal fees, increased taxes due to changes imposed by Bill C-41 and estrangement from their children, some men find themselves caught in a downward spiral of depression and have resorted to the ultimate escape: suicide. With a divorce, funds that were unable to support one household are now expected to support two. Add to this the cost of expensive litigation, the fact that one party may be trying to use money as a means of obtaining concessions such as access or custody, and we have a recipe for disaster -- with children often caught in the maelstrom
What happens after the break-up of the family? Eighty-seven percent of children end up living solely with their mothers after a parental separation (only 7 percent live with their fathers). Only 30 percent of children report visiting their fathers every week. One quarter of children visit their fathers irregularly -- once a month or on holidays. A whopping 15 percent never see their fathers.
And what has Bill C-41 done for fathers? Under the changes to the tax treatment of child support, which came into effect on May 1, 1997, it is no longer taxable in the hands of the receiving parent and no longer deductible in the hands of the paying parent. It is worthy of note that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada rose in Parliament to speak in favour of Bill C-41, he stated that the revenue derived from ending the deduction of child-support payments would yield the federal government more than an additional $1 billion dollars over a five-year period.
Finding solutions that are in the best interests of the children was the aim of the 1998 Senate-Commons Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. Understanding that children of divorce are entitled to a close and continuing relationship with both parents, the committee recommended that the terms "custody" and "access" be stricken from the Divorce Act and a new term, "shared parenting," be incorporated. Both parents would have access to information and records regarding the child's development and social activities, such as school and medical records and other relevant information. The federal government has apparently shelved the committee's recommendations, however, in the interests of further study.
Yes, there are some deadbeats who don't care about their kids. But it's unfair and unproductive to label every father who falls behind in his support payments a "deadbeat."
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Fatherless America: America No Longer Viable
Fatherless America: America No Longer Viable
THE NEW ADVOCATES FOR MARRIAGE
Maggie Gallagher
Copyright 2004
This Father's Day, some 24 million American children will sleep in fatherless homes. So this Sunday, if you were lucky enough to know the love of a father, thank him. Oh, and if your kids wake up Sunday morning in the home of a loving father, thank your husband.
The marriage crisis that is producing fatherless homes is becoming so intense that anyone who cares about children or communities can't ignore it. Hear, for example, the extraordinary remarks by Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., at a recent Brookings Institution conference on marriage and the black church. Calling attention to the low rates of marriage among African Americans, Norton warned:
"My friends, we are seeing a sea change in African-American life. It cannot continue or we will not continue as a viable people. I just want to put it as starkly as I can. We've got to get the attention of our community and our country. It is impossible to overestimate what has happened to our community in only a single generation or two and what might then happen in my son's generation if it continues at this pace."
She said it. I didn't. When the marriage idea becomes weak enough, the very idea of perpetuating ourselves as a people is called into question.
The problem, according to Norton, is a catastrophic lack of marriageable men. Men with jobs. Faithful men. Family men. The problem is how do we produce such men?
Policy analysts will and should weigh proposals about how to boost the earning power of poor husbands and fathers. But in his new book, "Soft Patriarchs, New Men" (University of Chicago Press), Brad Wilcox, a rising star in the sociology of religion, lays out a different part of the answer. Religion makes men better husbands and fathers.
He finds that "churchgoing family men -- especially conservative Protestant family men -- are more progressive than their peers: They spend more time with their children; they are more likely to hug and praise their children; their wives report higher levels of satisfaction with the appreciation, affection and understanding they receive from their husbands, and they spend more time socializing with their wives." They also have the lowest rates of domestic violence toward their wives than any other group.
Why? One reason is that, in its fight with modernity, conservative Protestantism has invested the roles of husband and father with unusual moral and religious importance: Men are supposed to model for their children the love of God, for their wives, the love of Jesus Christ. Men who recognize a critical "masculine" role in family life are probably freer to enter into stereotypically "feminine" realms, such as emotionally expressive family life. If you want to turn men into good family men, you have to tell them that men matter to women and children.
As Arlie Hochschild pointed out in "The Second Shift": "When couples struggle, it is seldom over who does what. Far more often, it is over the giving and receiving of gratitude." The struggle for marriage in the contemporary context is the struggle to cultivate gratitude between men and women.
Wilcox's data suggest the black church may have a unique role to play in creating and transmitting a marriage culture to the next generation, and that part of this task is sustaining an image of manliness that supports rather than undercuts women's desires and children's needs.
"There is no marriage movement yet," Eleanor Holmes Norton said, speaking of the black church. "But we've got to make a movement.... Somebody has to speak up for marriage. ... We must do it in the name of the black family, but we must do it, first and foremost, for our own children." For all our children.
(Readers may reach Maggie Gallagher at MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2004 MAGGIE GALLAGHER
THE NEW ADVOCATES FOR MARRIAGE
Maggie Gallagher
Copyright 2004
This Father's Day, some 24 million American children will sleep in fatherless homes. So this Sunday, if you were lucky enough to know the love of a father, thank him. Oh, and if your kids wake up Sunday morning in the home of a loving father, thank your husband.
The marriage crisis that is producing fatherless homes is becoming so intense that anyone who cares about children or communities can't ignore it. Hear, for example, the extraordinary remarks by Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., at a recent Brookings Institution conference on marriage and the black church. Calling attention to the low rates of marriage among African Americans, Norton warned:
"My friends, we are seeing a sea change in African-American life. It cannot continue or we will not continue as a viable people. I just want to put it as starkly as I can. We've got to get the attention of our community and our country. It is impossible to overestimate what has happened to our community in only a single generation or two and what might then happen in my son's generation if it continues at this pace."
She said it. I didn't. When the marriage idea becomes weak enough, the very idea of perpetuating ourselves as a people is called into question.
The problem, according to Norton, is a catastrophic lack of marriageable men. Men with jobs. Faithful men. Family men. The problem is how do we produce such men?
Policy analysts will and should weigh proposals about how to boost the earning power of poor husbands and fathers. But in his new book, "Soft Patriarchs, New Men" (University of Chicago Press), Brad Wilcox, a rising star in the sociology of religion, lays out a different part of the answer. Religion makes men better husbands and fathers.
He finds that "churchgoing family men -- especially conservative Protestant family men -- are more progressive than their peers: They spend more time with their children; they are more likely to hug and praise their children; their wives report higher levels of satisfaction with the appreciation, affection and understanding they receive from their husbands, and they spend more time socializing with their wives." They also have the lowest rates of domestic violence toward their wives than any other group.
Why? One reason is that, in its fight with modernity, conservative Protestantism has invested the roles of husband and father with unusual moral and religious importance: Men are supposed to model for their children the love of God, for their wives, the love of Jesus Christ. Men who recognize a critical "masculine" role in family life are probably freer to enter into stereotypically "feminine" realms, such as emotionally expressive family life. If you want to turn men into good family men, you have to tell them that men matter to women and children.
As Arlie Hochschild pointed out in "The Second Shift": "When couples struggle, it is seldom over who does what. Far more often, it is over the giving and receiving of gratitude." The struggle for marriage in the contemporary context is the struggle to cultivate gratitude between men and women.
Wilcox's data suggest the black church may have a unique role to play in creating and transmitting a marriage culture to the next generation, and that part of this task is sustaining an image of manliness that supports rather than undercuts women's desires and children's needs.
"There is no marriage movement yet," Eleanor Holmes Norton said, speaking of the black church. "But we've got to make a movement.... Somebody has to speak up for marriage. ... We must do it in the name of the black family, but we must do it, first and foremost, for our own children." For all our children.
(Readers may reach Maggie Gallagher at MaggieBox2004@yahoo.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2004 MAGGIE GALLAGHER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
