You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'FRA' tag.
“Hey! My name’s Tony and I wanted to to let you in on a how you can make your child a mess and get back at the kids mother, all you got to do is accuse them of PAS…that’s right Parental Alienation Syndrome, a.k.a. “brainwashing”.
Don’t worry that it was invented by a total loon and pro-pedophile, Dr. Richard Gardner, who wound up offing himself by stabbing himself…a lot.
Don’t even fuss about the fact that PAS is not even accepted by any mental health care provider worth their salt anyways….hehehe If you think you might be a victim of PAS or your kids were or are a victim of PAS, or wait a minute, you’re the victim, but then the kids are the victim too, no, okay, you’re the victim but the child is the TRUE victim…yeah…that’s the ticket….fool me twice, shame on you…ah, you get it.
Please take the below quiz to find out if one of yous guys is a victim.
Question 1 Are you an Asshole?
Question 2 Does or did more than one person have a restraining order against you?
Question 3 Do/did you hit your wife/girlfriend?
Question 4 Do/did you hit your wife/girlfriend?
If you answered yes to any of these questions…then congratulations!
You have PAS or your kid does…doesn’t matter….somebody has it and your lawyer, the judge, the guardian ad litem and other court whores are going to profit from it and your kids are seriously going to hate you for accusing their mother of it, but they already do anyways don’t they?
BTW….if you can’t spell “brainwashing” or use the word “brainsmashing” instead of using the correct word…you probably shouldn’t use it at all.
We lost our green land, we lost our clean air ,
We lost our true wisdom and we live in despair.
O sisters, o sisters, lets stand up right now,
Its never too late to start from the start.
O wisdom, o wisdom, thats what we ask for,
And, yes, my dear sisters, we must learn to ask.
Wisdom, o wisdom, thats what we ask for,
Thats what we live for no-oo-ow.
Wisdom, o wisdom, thats what we ask for,
Thats what we live for no-oo-ow.
O sisters, o sisters, lets wake up right now,
Its never too late to shout from our hearts.
O freedom, o freedom, thats what we fight for,
And, yes, my dear sisters, we must learn to fight.
Freedom, o freedom, thats what we ask for,
Thats what we live for no-oo-ow.
O freedom, o freedom, thats what we ask for,
Thats what we live for no-oo-ow.
O sisters, o sisters, lets give up no more,
Its never too late to build a new world .
O new world, o new world, thats what we live for,
And, yes, my dear sisters, we must learn to live.
New world, O new world, thats what we live for,
Thats what we must now learn to build.
O new world , o new world, thats what we live for,
Thats what we must now learn to build.
New world, o new world, thats what we live for,
Thats what we must now learn to build.
O new world, o new world, thats what we live for,
Thats what we must now learn to build.
lyrics by Yoko Ono
Angels, Duncan & Jack
A Mothers worst nightmare came true the day her ex-husband didn’t return their two sons, Duncan & Jack, back to their Mother Amy Leichtenberg.
In fact this mother had tried tirelessly to protect them, as we all do from abusive men. This case is not rare, in fact the increasing court ordered abuse is causing children to placed in danger by their father makes the news on a daily basis.
The justice system failed this family and now two little boys are taken forever from their Mother because the abuser knew that was the one thing that would hurt the Mother the most…this is their modus operandi, it’s the ultimate act of control, which is what an abuser does best.
Today Susan Murphy-Milano talks with Amy Leichtenberg about her tragedy from March. Don’t miss this important show can help others see the warning signs and how to protect yourself against your abuser and Family Court. Most importantly we need to learn how we can hold accountable the Judge and any other person(s) affiliated with the court ordered murder. A law should be in place so that other children will never part from their Mother, for ANY reason.
Show Time: 4:00 PM EST 3:00 PM CST 1:00 PM PST Call-in Number:
(347) 326-9337
If you have a question for Amy… and are unable to call in please email Susan Murphy-Milano at: contact@movingoutmovingon.com and it will be read on air Wednesday, September 9, 2009
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/susanmurphymilano
http://duncanandjackconnolly.com/
Duncan
Jack
British scientists grow sperm in laboratory
GUESS SOMEONE JUST GOT DOWNSIZED
Women who say they don’t need a man may well be right – after human sperm was created in the lab.
I already know what is going to be said, I hate men and that is a lie, because there is one in particular I love very much. He is the man that I wished I could of made a father because he is the one that very much deserved to be one.
Still….I can’t help but wonder what it would be like if you took out the factor of the one thing allegedly women only want men for and the one thing that they are good at (impregnating their sperm). This could be an end of child support! This could be the start of something beautiful…..
CONFUSION
CONFUSION
NEXT THING YOU KNOW MEN WILL WANT YEARLY PAP SMEARS AND MAMMOGRAMS……….yeah right.
I try not to get into the habit of giving any of the father rights idiots anymore attention, but then I think about all the people that need to be educated on the blatant misogyny that Glenn Sacks and his minions bathe in.
In a recent post on Glenn Sacks rag “Mens Daily News” he confesses that,
“I posed as a male victim of domestic violence and called every domestic violence shelter in all of Los Angeles and San Diego counties.”
Isn’t it illegal to prank call?
According to Sacks,
“Not a single one would accept me or offer assistance, with the exception of Valley Oasis. Most flatly refused any assistance at all, but a couple did offer me space in a homeless shelter.” Apparently Sacks cares not for the women that may be stalked there and an ex may pretend he’s abused to gain entrance? All those calls must have put all residents and staff on high alert, how awful to be stressed more.
Mr. Sacks must be confused about a lot of things, mainly his gender. Sacks goes on to say when he asks them “Am I supposed to take my children to a homeless shelter?”
If you TRULY are a abused man allegedly with children and you are escaping an abuser a homeless shelter seems like the safest place to be.
But this is the typical trash from a man that makes you wonder how he treats other women in his life, wife, mother, sister or child?
The world according to these father rights activists is that feminism destroyed their lives.
They want you to believe that men are abused equally if not MORE than women but yet they do NOTHING to get their OWN shelters for the throngs of men who get their ass whipped by their women. Women and men saw a need and they built shelters for women with their children a safe haven from abusers.
The intention was clear, if your men group needs to have some place to go after they get raped by their wives after a night of boozing it up….build a male sexual abuse shelter!
If one of your brethren gets his face shoved into the carpet because he didn’t do ALL the dishes…by all means build that man a place to live.
IF he gets a baby bottle “tossed” at his face (while he’s holding a baby) then I say build a SHELTER! Instead of blaming shelters and everyone else for your problems do something about it!
END YOUR CONFUSION
DEAD BEAT DAD, DEAD BAT...ANY SIMILIARITY?
The militant “father’s rights” group F4J is at it again. Although this blog doesn’t like spreading their hateful propaganda it is too good to pass up a chance to show their insanity.
Geoff Hibbert, an activist with the group has put his “life and freedom on the line” as he enters day 21 of his hunger strike.
What do you say to that? This is how a MAN acts in everyday life because he dresses and thinks he’s a superhero. Mr. Hibbert a.k.a. “THE M25 Batman” has been convicted by a jury after police had to halt traffic for several hours on the M25 highway in August 2008 and faces a 7 YEAR sentence.
So….you become a public nuisance, justice is SERVED to you and then you starve yourself over a 7 year stint in prison? Well, at least this is one father that won’t be able to murder his children…..for 7 years…..or less.
This one is somewhat shocking to me…but not totally.
We reposted a post from a mom’s group in Indiana which was pretty shocking….an Indiana ”shared parenting” advocate by the name of Stuart Showalter blamed a mother (Angie Warnock) for her own death when her violent husband stabbed her to death on Father’s Day in front of their children. She had gotten a Protective Order against him three days prior because she feared him. Stuart claimed she was practicing “parental alienation” because she went to get the Protective Order, and blamed her for her own death because she enflamed the situation by getting it. Stuart’s view in his comment on the above post suggests any father, violent or not, deserves shared parenting. While I have no problem with sharing parenting, I do have a problem with abusive, violent parents of either gender sharing parenting of children.
“Shared Parenting” Advocate Stuart Showalter of IndianaStuart is “Executive Director” of the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates and runs a “law blog.” This is also a front for “Boone County Fathers.” Stuart claims he has the ear of many politicians in the State of Indiana. I wonder if they really know who they are talking to and that he is accusing dead mothers of so-called “parental alienation.” If Indiana politicians are listening to this nutcase, God help them all.
As I always had thought and feared, many father’s rights organizations are run by violent men like this. They are accusatory…blaming mothers for any and everything. They are huge supporters of using the so-called “parental alienation” claim. Their very drivel is abusive. Unfortunately, good fathers hurting from a break in their relationship are lured into these groups, a goal of these nutcase leaders to make themselves look legitimate. One of the commenter’s on our repost noted he was probably a neonazi…and they were right! Yesterday, the mom’s group posted a story about it…and I thought it was just too good to let go…
Wanna see a little of Stuart’s history:
933 F.2d 573
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Stuart W. SHOWALTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-1361.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Argued Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided May 30, 1991.
Robert M. Barnes, Susan E. Heckard, Asst. U.S. Attys., Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee.
Daniel J. Coffey, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant-appellant.
Before CUDAHY, RIPPLE, and MANION, Circuit Judges.
MANION, Circuit Judge.
1 Stuart Showalter pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(d). He appeals the length and conditions of his supervised release. We remand for resentencing because the length of supervised release exceeds the amount authorized by statute, but affirm the conditions of Showalter’s supervised release imposed by the district court.I.
2 Showalter headed an Indianapolis organization called the “Pure American Freedom Party,” which was loosely associated with other white supremacist “skinhead” and “neo-Nazi” groups in Indiana and around the United States. Showalter, then 20 years old, was prominently featured in a July 1989 article in the Indianapolis Monthly magazine called “Skinhead Society: Should a Local Group of Neo-Nazis be Feared, Tolerated or Ignored?” The article described the weaponry in Showalter’s apartment, and discussed the group’s potential for committing acts of violence. This publicity apparently brought him to the attention of his landlords, who sought to evict him from his apartment (in a predominantly black neighborhood) for late payment of rent and violation of the lease by having too many occupants. Showalter failed to leave on time, and was seen outside the apartment brandishing a weapon, so the police were called in to assist in his departure. When he failed to respond to their request to drop his gun and come out, the police broke in and arrested him and another occupant.
II.
3 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Showalter pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm–a “Remington Wingmaster .12 gauge sawed-off shotgun with an obliterated serial number”–in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(d). He was sentenced within the guidelines to 14 months imprisonment, followed by five years supervised release. The terms of supervised release included the condition that Showalter “shall not participate in, or associate with those who do participate in, the organization known as ’skinheads,’ or in any neo-Nazi organization.” Showalter appealed both the length and conditions of his supervised release.
III.
4 The government concedes the district court erred in imposing a five-year period of supervised release. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(b)(2) provides that the maximum length of supervised release for a “Class C” felony–where the maximum term of imprisonment is between 10 and 25 years, pursuant to Sec. 3559(a)(3)–is three years. The maximum term for violating 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(d) is 10 years. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5871. Thus, under guidelines Sec. 5D3.2(b)(2) (renumbered November 1, 1989 to Sec. 5D1.2(b)(2)), Showalter must receive a term of supervised release of “at least two years but not more than three years.” We remand to the district court for the purpose of adjusting the length of supervised release.
5 Showalter does not challenge the condition of supervised release that he not participate in white supremacist organizations, but does raise three related objections to the requirement that he avoid associating with other skinheads and neo-Nazis. We review the district court’s imposition of conditions of supervised release under the deferential “abuse of discretion” standard. United States v. Alexander, 743 F.2d 472, 479-80 (7th Cir.1984) (citations omitted).
6 He first contends that the condition lacks the “certainty” required by the new Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 “because skinheads and neo-nazis are not readily identifiable groups.” No case law is cited to support the contention that the Sentencing Reform Act was intended to limit the broad discretion given district courts to determine conditions of supervised release (formerly conditions of probation). See Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 220, 53 S.Ct. 154, 155, 77 L.Ed. 266 (1932); United States v. Williams, 787 F.2d 1182, 1185 (7th Cir.1986).
7 The district court placed similar conditions on Showalter during the time between the guilty plea and sentencing, and Showalter had no difficulty understanding them then. At the sentencing hearing, the district court reprimanded Showalter for writing a letter espousing his white supremacist views to a newspaper in Washington state.1 Showalter responded:As regards to this happening after my plea agreement, I was under the understanding I was not to hang out with the skinheads out on the street up in Broad Ripple, so forth, have them over at my house, things like that. I wasn’t aware that it covered giving my opinion to a newspaper.
8 We hold that the condition is sufficiently clear to put Showalter on notice regarding the parameters of the court’s restriction on his associational activities.
9 Next Showalter argues that the condition of probation is not specific enough to comply with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3563(b)(7), which allows the district court to order the defendant to “refrain from frequenting specified kinds of places or from associating unnecessarily with specified persons; …”. Pressed at oral argument, Showalter’s counsel did not say that these “specified persons” must be listed by name, but he did contend they must be specified to some greater, but unexplained, degree.
10 We first point out that the district court is empowered, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d), to impose “any other condition it considers to be appropriate.” That would seem to provide an independent authority for the district court’s decision here. Even so, we think the condition imposed by the district court is authorized by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3563(b)(7).
11 In Malone v. United States, 502 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir.1974), the Ninth Circuit upheld similar conditions of probation on a defendant who was convicted of unlawful exportation of firearms from the United States to the United Kingdom. These conditions prevented him from participating in any American Irish Republican movement, from belonging to any Irish organization, from participating in any Irish Catholic organization, from visiting any Irish pubs, and from accepting employment that would directly or indirectly associate him with any Irish organization. The court found that the conditions of probation … are not too vague and are reasonably related to the goals of probation and the accomplishment of public order and safety and … do not constitute an abuse of the Court’s discretion in the circumstances.
13Id., 502 F.2d at 557.
14 We cited Malone with approval in Alexander, 743 F.2d at 480-81, where we noted that district courts frequently were allowed to prevent defendants from being involved in different types of “gainful activity” as a condition of probation. While the restriction on Showalter’s associational activity is significant, it is no more significant than that approved in Malone, and it is justified by the court’s concern that Showalter not involve himself with those who might fuel his proclivity for lawbreaking.
15 Finally, Showalter suggests that this condition does not comport with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d)(2)’s requirement that it involve “no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to deter future criminal conduct and protect the public from further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a)(2)(B), (C) and (D). However, the district court’s explanation of the condition adequately supports depriving Showalter of the liberty to associate with skinheads and neo-Nazis:
16 Because those groups embrace violence and the threat of violence as a method of advancing their views, I find that your association with them would create a high likelihood that you would be drawn into that same behavior, and that’s the reason for the restriction.
The court also reminded Showalter that (17) supervised release is intended to be a period of time when you’re under close supervision by the court to make sure that after you get out of prison you can abide by the terms and conditions that hopefully will keep you within a lawful groove and keep you from slipping back into your criminal behavior.
18 After reviewing the entire record, including the magazine article about Showalter and his organization, we conclude the district court was correct that Showalter needs to be separated from other members of white supremacist groups to have a chance of staying out of trouble. This condition of supervised release therefore meets the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d)(2).
19 The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering special conditions of supervised release, and that portion of the sentence is affirmed. We remand to the district court to resentence on the length of supervised release in a manner consistent with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(b)(2), and guidelines Sec. 5D3.2(b)(2), now Sec. 5D1.2(b)(2).
20AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
1 Although the district court seemed to think the conditions placed on Showalter prior to sentencing should have at least discouraged him from writing controversial letters to newspapers, there is nothing to that effect in the conditions imposed at sentencing. This incident illustrates the importance of specificity in formulating conditions of supervised release.
Geez….I hope some people start waking up to the fact that dangerous individuals run groups like these…
http://www.madhunt.com/paulette-macdonal-20090629.html
Bradford fire wants Alliston’s ‘Bat Girl’ to pay for broken truck
Posted June 29, 2009
An Alliston woman charged with mischief for climbing the Cookstown Outlet Mall’s water tower in April is facing about $50,000 in potential restitution costs, including a $36,921 bill by the Bradford fire department because the truck that responded to the call, broke down on the way back to the station.
Paulette MacDonald, dressed as Bat Girl, climbed the tower to draw attention to Parental Alienation Awareness Day, made a second court appearance last week, and learned from the Crown’s disclosure the total cost being sought by South Simcoe Police, Innisfil Fire, and Bradford Fire, is $48,944.
Ms. MacDonald had scaled the tower before sunrise, unfurled a banner supporting her cause, then spent several hours unnoticed before “I finally yelled down to a group of young ladies coming out of the mall and requested that she notify the mall security for me.”
Police were called, as were firefighters, first from Innisfil, but then Bradford for its aerial truck.
“When the fireman asked me to come down the ladder of the firetruck, I didn’t want to,” said Ms. MacDonald in a press release from the group Fathers 4 Justice (F4J). “I felt much safer getting back down the way I came up.”
The F4J has also weighed into the situation, suggesting that Bradford should thank “Bat Girl.”
“In my eyes, Ms. MacDonald should receive thanks for highlighting flaws in the fire department’s equipment before it was actually needed in an emergency,” said Kris Titus, F4J National Coordinator. “This might have more to do with the competence of their maintenance system than our featherweight superhero. We’re obviously glad that she was safe during the rescue, considering the circumstances.”
Ms. MacDonald is due back in Bradford court July 23.
Not too Responsible Fatherhood: Blaming, Shaming, and Gaming
This is in direct response to When Divorce Kills: How Gender Bias Pushes Some Men Over the Edge. You must [find it and] read it first.
In the past two weeks…? Why limit the time period. There have been more than a dozen murders since the new year began.
Ending in the deaths of “innocent children”?…There goes that catch phrase that I spoke about yesterday. Also, see how framing the “innocent children” conveniently leaves out any other victims who are adults…and also dead. I wonder how their families feel about that.
A father in distress? Many Americans are in distress right now, and always and are not killing; but notice how the author frames it as “losing all that he held dear.”..as if loss=the right to murder.
There is nothing “high profile” about these cases. There is an epidemic of men committing familicides and only SOME happened to make it to the main news section. Some. Within days, all is forgotten and the next murder occurs with the same sensationalism and shock. It has become a perfunctory reaction.
This doesn’t stereotype fathers. What it does it make us cautious of divorcing men, men who cannot take control of their emotions so they seek control by violent means. A “malicious stereotype” would be one that specifically intends to do harm. These men are intending to do harm. These murders are premeditated. Stop playing the stereotype card and call it what it is, reality.
Good fathers are good fathers. We can recognize them. Or, hell, maybe we can’t…because it seems like every time a White man commits a murder, the community wants to talk about what an upstanding, church-going, philanthropist, volunteer-coach, music-instructor, role-model he was.
We are not talking about “most fathers” when these stories hit the media. We are talking about men who use violence as a solutions to their problems and a society that is content with accept it as is. But we must point out the common denominator in these murders: the men are killing women and children who were often times family members or [former] lovers.
Domestic violence doesn’t have to be “gender specific” in order for us to notice that FACT that men are committing these types of murders. Don’t try to rule out gender when it is convenient. No one doubts that women commit violence however forcing it as an issue is an attempt to neutralize the problem. Shifting the focus.
Divorce is stressful for men because they lose the control that they “held dear.” The gender bias affects women because of the patriarchal structure of our society that puts women at the bottom of the totem pole with structures in place that benefit men.
Most men do not lose of their children, they give it up freely to the one who has been doing the primary caretaking–mom. A loss of custody would mean that custody was taken from someone who originally had it. A father that was a primary caretaker, that had his child “taken” away from him, would be a father who lost custody. Therefore 85% of mothers do not “win” custody, they get it. Stop framing this as a game.
Myth — Family courts are biased against fathers in custody disputes.
Myth — Family courts are biased against fathers in custody disputes.
Fact: “Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases.”
Fact: “Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases.”
Schafran, Lynn Hecht, “Gender Bias in Family Courts,” American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 26
Schafran, Lynn Hecht, “Gender Bias in Family Courts,” American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 26
Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts] 62-63 (1983), also citing similar finding from California and other parts of the nation.
Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts] 62-63 (1983), also citing similar finding from California and other parts of the nation.
Fact: “The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time. This is especially significant in light of the fact that not only do fathers win more often in court when they take these cases to trial, but also that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of fathers gain primary custody — by any means — than were ever the primary caregiver of their children during marriage. Statistically, this dashes the argument that ‘only the strongest cases are taken to trial,’ and in fact indicates an extraordinary bias against mothers and the value of mothering and mothers’ work.”
Fact: “The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time. This is especially significant in light of the fact that not only do fathers win more often in court when they take these cases to trial, but also that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of fathers gain primary custody — by any means — than were ever the primary caregiver of their children during marriage. Statistically, this dashes the argument that ‘only the strongest cases are taken to trial,’ and in fact indicates an extraordinary bias against mothers and the value of mothering and mothers’ work.”
liznote re the more than 40 state gender bias task force reports. Available from the National Judicial Education Program, 9 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013.
liznote re the more than 40 state gender bias task force reports. Available from the National Judicial Education Program, 9 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013.
And why add the piece about “divorced and separated men are 2 1/2 times more likely to commit suicide than married men”? Oh, because the part that would typically follow a statement like that is, “So let’s support the natural/biological family,” or “You see, the court system is killing fathers.”
And why add the piece about “divorced and separated men are 2 1/2 times more likely to commit suicide than married men”? Oh, because the part that would typically follow a statement like that is, “So let’s support the natural/biological family,” or “You see, the court system is killing fathers.”Yeah, whatever. How about this one?
Men with a [perceived] loss of control are 2 1/2 times more likely to commit suicide, murder-suicide, and familicide than men who feel that they are in control.
There is no “notion” that divorced/estranged fathers don’t want/need continuing contact with their children. The notion is that if you renege on your familial responsibilities (to be with your friends, or new girlfriend, leaving your children behind) you have shown that your children are not a priority. This is not meant to imply that in order to have a relationship with your children, you must be exclusive with the mother. What it means is that you establish your priorities by your actions.
Men with a [perceived] loss of control are 2 1/2 times more likely to commit suicide, murder-suicide, and familicide than men who feel that they are in control.
A father is “estranged” because of his own behavior. A father decides when being a father is important to him and he decides this on his own time. Mothers are generally [considered] mothers 24/7. If the loss of the children is so painful, it is the father’s responsibility to compensate for this–killing the children does not do so. (Also, asking the mother to patch your relationship with your children by speaking well of you, or telling lies in your favor, is not you taking responsibility.)
Good book plug.
If all these fathers need is “someone who understand,” why don’t father’s groups promote counseling for them? Why force litigation? Who wins?
What many a father’s groups provide for these men, is a pep rally to talk about what a bitch his ex was and how unfair the family court system is (often time, before he even gets into the court to know for himself). Perhaps they actually rev these men up…
And now let’s get to the heavy political controversy that is being swept under the rug:
Illinois, like the rest of the states, receives grants from the U.S. government, via the Administration of Children and Families (ACF), under the name of Responsible Fatherhood. This money is supposed to be used to help low-income fathers break economic barriers so that they can make financial contributions to their children’s upbringing via a relationship with the child. The grant money is also used for incarcerated fathers for re-entry into the workforce for the same reasons.
Myth — Increasing fathers’ visitation time and custody rights makes them more amenable to paying child support.
Myth — Increasing fathers’ visitation time and custody rights makes them more amenable to paying child support.
Fact: “As researchers began to stop collecting their data mainly from fathers and began to explore the relationship between visiting and paying child support in longitudinal studies, the theory that increased visitation would result in increased child support compliance began to wane. In 1993, the Office of Economic Research, U.S. Bureau of Labor undertook a study based on the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). The NLSY is a survey of more than 12,000 men and women who are interviewed annually since 1979. The authors of this study found contrary to previous studies, increases in visitation have no effect on changes in child support.”
Fact: “As researchers began to stop collecting their data mainly from fathers and began to explore the relationship between visiting and paying child support in longitudinal studies, the theory that increased visitation would result in increased child support compliance began to wane. In 1993, the Office of Economic Research, U.S. Bureau of Labor undertook a study based on the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY). The NLSY is a survey of more than 12,000 men and women who are interviewed annually since 1979. The authors of this study found contrary to previous studies, increases in visitation have no effect on changes in child support.”
THE LINK BETWEEN VISITATION AND SUPPORT COMPLIANCE, Laura Wish Morgan with Chuck Shively of the Department of Social & Health Services, Washington State. http://childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art200012.html
In reality, some of this Responsible Fatherhood money is being used to target fathers for a custody changing scheme under the guise of access and visitation. Attorneys are provided to fathers so that they can seek custody of their children. The division of Child Support states that MORE money has been collected under this system when in fact child support arrears are being waived, and child support awards are being reduced, or eliminated.
THE LINK BETWEEN VISITATION AND SUPPORT COMPLIANCE, Laura Wish Morgan with Chuck Shively of the Department of Social & Health Services, Washington State. http://childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art200012.html
You don’t have to do a lot of digging, as the article I am calling into question, gives enough information for you to get started. Remember Blagoveich. Think about the President’s agenda:
Strengthen Fatherhood and Families: Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts. President Obama will sign this bill into law and continue to implement innovative measures to strengthen families.
Yeah right.
Strengthen Fatherhood and Families: Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts. President Obama will sign this bill into law and continue to implement innovative measures to strengthen families.
