Fathers' rights movement in the USA
Fathers' rights activists work on providing education, support and advocacy with issues of custody, access, child support, domestic violence and child abuse, maintenance, and family court issues. Members of the fathers' rights movement protest what they see as evidence of gender bias against fathers and abuse of government authority in the branches and departments of the various state governments, including the family courts.
History
The fathers’ rights movement in the US emerged with the founding of Divorce Racket Busters in California in 1960 to protest Californian divorce laws which they stated discriminated against men in alimony, child support settlements and in a presumption of maternal custody. The group expanded into other states, changing its name to Divorce Reform in 1961. With the increase in divorce rates in the 1960s and 1970s, more local grassroots men’s organization grew up devoted to divorce reform, and by the 1980s, there were a total of more than 200 fathers’ rights groups active in almost every state. These groups focused their actions on what they viewed as sex discrimination in family law, by engaging in political activities such as lobbying state legislatures, filing class action suits, picketing courthouses, and monitoring judges’ decisions through “court watches”. The 1990s saw the emergence of new and larger organizations such as National Fatherhood Initiative and the American Fathers coalition. Several attempts have been made to found a national organization to which local fathers’ rights organizations could belong, however this has been difficult to achieve. As a result the movement remains mainly a loose coalition of local groups.
Federal and state laws
Two US Supreme Court have explicitly stated, in complete agreement with a federal court decision, custody of children cannot be decided in a court of equity and must be decided under Common Law jurisdiction.
However, states have removed decisions of divorce, child custody and child support from Common Law courts, which provided for punishments of Common Law breaches of duty, and assigned them to courts of equity.
A member of the fathers' rights movement contends that the best interest of the child standard as currently applied by family courts, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. At the state level, a member of the fathers' rights movement contended that a Massachusetts law, which required non-custodial parents to first go to court and obtain certification that they are not batterers before obtaining report cards and other school records concerning their children, did not comply with federal requirements. Members of the fathers' rights movement have campaigned to change Wisconsin law, which allowed custodial parents to move up to 150 miles away from their prior residence without informing the noncustodial parent, to create a rebuttable presumption that moves of greater than 20 miles are not in the best interest of the children.
A fathers' rights activist, advises fathers about the Massachusetts family courts and its use of what have been referred to as phantom clinical evaluations kept in hidden files, secret hearings without the presence of both parents, and the doctoring of court hearing tapes. A father's rights activist appealed to a Massachusetts state legislator who wrote an environmental law (named Anti-Slapp) intended to protect whistleblowers from punitive countersuits by corporations and which was rewritten by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to immunize mothers and social workers who file false allegations, noting that fathers have virtually no remedy for false allegations of abuse.
In 2004, some Massachusetts voters were offered a chance to vote on a non-binding ballot question about creating a legislative presumption for joint physical custody. One such question was "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the court shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children and the children's right to maximize their time with each parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing child support and abuse prevention laws?" Of those voters choosing to answer the above or similar non-binding ballot initiatives, 84.5% voted approval and 15.5% voted disapproval.
Protests, Rallies, and Symposia
Lansing to Washington DC Bike Trek For Equal Parenting
In August 2007, Robert Pedersen and Rob MacKenzie made a Capitol to Capitol Bike Trek for Equal Parenting. This was the third annual trip for Rob MacKenzie. [http://www.fightfoc.com/serendipity/archives/354-Lansing-to-Washington-D.C.-Bike-Trek-For-Equal-Parenting!.html] They appeared on Studio 1714. The videos are available on youtube. They are online at cycling4children.com, and have been awarded a State of Michigan Special Tribute for their efforts.
Fathers For Justice Protest At Lincoln Memorial
On Friday, 18, August 2007, [http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1063] Jolly Stanesby and Mike Downes of the United Kingdom climbed the statue of Lincoln at the Lincoln memorial, revealed Captain America and Batman costumes, and placed a banner across his chest reading "For the Fathers of the Nation; Fathers for Justice". Fathers for Justice indicated that they intended more protests in the near future. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Jc337XcEE]
Family Preservation Day Rally
A major national rally in Washington DC was held by Parents' and Family Rights Activists on Saturday August 18, 2007. [http://www.dcrally2007.com/] Advocates explicitly compare their movement to the civil rights movement, and point to long held US Supreme Court rulings that parents have a right to care for their children, the most recent being Troxel v. Granville.
Videos of some speeches are available:
Judge Willie Lipscomb Chief Judge 36th District Court Detroit, Michigan Part I [http://www.youtube.com/v/RpWQokcinLg] Part II [http://www.youtube.com/v/QAvNvMcUPlY] [http://www.36thdistrictcourt.org/judges-wlipscomb.html]
Tim McKyer - Three Time Super Bowl Winner [http://www.youtube.com/v/xbbeJnMMz-I]
Dr. O. J. Shabazz - Evangelist Harlem Church of Christ, New York, NY. Part I [http://www.youtube.com/v/0gYTDA8qxKA] Part II [http://youtube.com/watch?v=shWIAUPSORI] [http://churchofchristinharlem.org/ministers.htm]
Carol Rhodes - Former Michigan FOC (Friend of the Court) Enforcement Officer, Author Friend of the Court Enemy of the Family [http://youtube.com/watch?v=8M7cEi61W24] In her official capacity, she saw that "Families that were bleeding from the pain of divorce and separation were insulted, tricked, lied to, and deceived by persons without adequate training".
Barry County Equal Parenting Symposium
This symposium took place in June 2007.
Carol Rhodes, Author of "Friend of the Court Enemy of the Family", explains that as a Friend of the Court worker, she was instructed to violate the law and lie to fathers and mothers. [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7850198836388249853].
Jay Fedewa, Executive Director of Family Rights Coalition, discusses the status of family law in Michigan [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2125328669291708941].
Lary Holland [http://www.laryholland.com/] Explains Federal Title IV-D Funding Obstructs Equal Parenting [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2832312333763008657]. He explained the view that Title IV-D funding is creating a financial incentive for the Michigan Friend of the Court and other state child support enforcement agencies to create problems between parents to cause enforcement actions for which they can collect federal incentive dollars. He created nationwideblueprint.com [http://nationwideblueprint.com/] advocating Title IV-D reform, advocating for income eligibility requirements to focus child support collections on the low income children who he states are being "drowned out" by a focus on collections for middle-income and high-income families. He argues that funding issues are a significant factor in preventing state legislatures from passing equal parenting bills.
Michigan Rep. Glen Steil Supports Equal Parenting [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4156511133053559439].
Michigan Rep. Rick Jones Supports Equal Parenting [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836292419255330741].
Michigan Representative Fulton Sheen Supports Equal Parenting [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6427656882460688426].
Robert Pedersen on Equal Parenting and Bike Trek for Equal Parenting [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5754965651480761906].
John Murtari
John Murtari has been arrested frequently for caulking "I love Dom. Sen Clinton Please Help Us" and similar messages on the sidewalk of the Hanley Federal Building in Syracuse, NY. John Murtari has tried unsuccessfully for years to meet with Senator Hillary Clinton, who maintains offices in the Hanley Federal Building. He previously held a 6-month long hunger strike in jail.
Barb Johnson
Barb Johnson, a litigator and member of the fathers' right movement, unsuccessfully ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 on a platform of court reform, the need for judicial accountability - particularly in the family-law courts, and the abolishment of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. She was later disbarred for what she describes as political reasons and for educating fathers about the improper assessment of guardian ad litem fees by Massachusetts family court judges. She attempted (or is currently attempting) to create judicial accountability and abolish judicial immunity through her lawsuit against the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers et al. for acts of defamation and intentional interference with prospective advantageous business relationships associated with her disbarment.
Internet Videos
Dan Diebolt created "Straight Up" in honor of Rob MacKenzie's bike trek.
Child Support
Because the amount of federal funding to states increases based on the amount of child support collected by the state, members of the fathers' rights movement point out that federal law (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) provides financial incentives to the states for collecting child support, thereby discouraging the enactment of laws creating a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
Parental Rights
Parental rights activists state that employees of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) take children away from their parents without cause. They add that these employees, who they assert have improperly received immunity from the Massachusetts Supreme Court, threaten mothers with the loss of their children to coerce them into divorcing their husbands and attending support groups. They state that these support groups serve the dual purpose of allowing the associates of the DSS employees to receive additional government funding for running the support groups, and allowing the DSS employees to gain information used to take children away from their parents. Parental rights advocates state that abuse of power has occurred and that vested interest has played a role.
Fathers' rights and the media
Members of the fathers' rights movement have commented about a 2005 New York Times Sunday Magazine article that began with the words, “…custody determinations are traditionally based on what’s in ‘the child’s best interest.’ But some fathers are now arguing – and agitating – for rights and interests of their own.” Members of the fathers' rights movement criticized the article for creating a false dichotomy between children's best interest and fathers' rights. Members of the fathers' rights movement commented on a Public Broadcasting Services (PBS) documentary about Children and Divorce. They stated that unlike a previous PBS documentary, the show was balanced, but portrayed the fathers' rights movement as promoting conflict, adding that the average viewer does not discriminate between conflict in the public sphere, remote from children, and conflict in the home, which hurts them. Members of the fathers' rights movement protested a Boston Globe article about a case in which a father successfully prevented a mother from moving the children to her newly purchased home 70 miles away in another state. According to the fathers' rights campaigners, the article inappropriately linked the mixed feelings of the children to their inability to relocate with their mother and to the shared parenting arrangement of their parents rather than to their parent's divorce adding that the reporter and her editor were biased to the extent that the reporter willingly questioned the children about their living situation and thus exacerbated the conflict in parental loyalty felt by the children.
Criticism
Women opponents at legislative hearings have alleged harassment and threats of physical harm by fathers' rights campaigners, and members of the fathers' rights movement stated that it would not surprise them if the National Organization for Women and others fabricated the claims to get attention as part of a plan to paint non-custodial parents as extremists.
|
