How To Get Custody
How To Lower Child Support! Download it now
There Are Answers
If you have any Family Law questions,
you need to download the ANCPR Family Law Winning
Strategies Handbooknow. Child Support, Fathers'
Rights, Non-Custodial Parent Rights, Custody, Enforcing Visitation, Modifying Child
Support or Custody, Custody Evaluation.... You Name It, It's Covered. DOWNLOAD NOW.
Contribute to ANCPR
If you feel the work of ANCPR is important, please consider contributing whatever you can
to the continued existence of this voice for the rights of noncustodial parents and their
children.
All contributors, in any amount, will receive a all the benefits of ANCPR
Membership, including a username and password to download the ANCPR Winning Strategies
Handbook.
Do you have questions that need
answers, but don't know who to ask?
Now
you can ask your questions at the Members Only Forum, which is a
popular option for our ANCPR Members. LEARN MORE
We now offer the
ANCPR
Members Only Forum, where members can ask
questions about their situation and get them answered by an experience
advisor.
LEARN MORE
We’ve been seeing this coming. It’s really a tragedy that so many families and children’s hearts are completely torn to pieces by the lack of commitment to marriage vows.
THE Rudd government is planning to roll back the controversial shared parenting law passed in the final term of the Howard government, enraging men’s groups, which say the laws have finally given them access to their children after separation.
The council says some men are approaching the court, asking for years-old parenting agreements to be modified so they can pay less child support. Under the Howard government reforms, men can pay less, in exchange for seeing their children more.
The submission says: “Parents are saying they don’t want money. They would be happy to forgo maintenance payments if it saves their child from having to spend half the week with a parent who does not really want to parent them, but whose main objective is to avoid child support.”
Who are these people to be judging the motivation of these men to file for more time with their children, saying that they only want to reduce their child support?
This is a real insult to all fathers. There are plenty of examples of good dads, as well as bad dads. The exact same thing can be said of moms. We all are aware of both good moms and bad moms out there. So what! If a dad wants to spend time with his children, who is anyone to get in the way? The whole idea is preposterous, and it is high time that fathers stopped putting up with this nonsense, and stand up to these really evil people who denigrate men and fathers.
In my opinion, a mother who tries to diminish the relationship of a child and his or her father in any way is a bad mom. An unfit mom.
In my opinion, if a mother is afraid to stand up to a man, then she is mentally imbalanced or incapacitated, or both, and so is an unfit mother.
The case is among a growing number of custody disputes in Japan that involve one foreign parent. Japanese law allows only one parent to be a custodian — almost always the mother — leaving many divorced fathers without access to their children until they are grown.
While prosecutors have not pressed charges against Christopher Savoie, they haven’t yet dropped the case either, and an investigation is continuing, said police official Kiyonori Tanaka in the southern Japanese city of Yanagawa. They decided to release him on grounds that he was not a flight risk, he said.
As was reported earlier, Mr. Savoie had paid, as part of a divorce settlement, $800,000 to the mother of his children for her agreement not to move the children to Japan, yet, that is exactly what she did. He was then granted custody by the U.S. courts, and an arrest warrant was issued for the mother.
THE High Court will today consider whether to hear an appeal by a mother who has been forced by the Family Court to stay with her daughter in a remote mining town in western Queensland because her ex-husband does not want to move.
Notice that the way in which this issue is presented subtly implies victimhood for the mother, and that the father is restricting the freedom of the mother.
This is how the issue has generally shaken out everywhere the issue comes up. It illustrates, in my opinion, how very few really get the true issue, and that is that talking about best interest of children outside the context of parental rights leads to difficulties, almost every time.
Shared parenting is under attack wherever it has been instituted. I believe it’s fair to say that the entire effort has been a waste of time. The issue should have been from the very start that this is my child, and the state can butt out. As to divorce, one of the issues that the commentator Stephen Baskerville has pointed out repeatedly is that if someone leaves the relationship, that should be it. they leave the family.
“Japan is an important partner and friend of the U.S., but on this issue, our points of view differ,” the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo said Tuesday. “Our two nations approach divorce and child-rearing differently. Parental child abduction is not considered a crime in Japan.”
This is a subject that really tears things up. I am personally and philosophically against the government getting involved any further than simply providing a reasonable method by which honest, fairly created civil contracts between adults relative to family matters can be enforced. But when you support the government making parental abduction a crime, then you, in a very real sense, give over ownership of your children to the government. Who ever has been granted physical custody, is really just a custodian of the government’s property.
In 1947, with the baby boom in its infancy and few disposed to hearing of family crisis, Harvard sociologist Carle Zimmerman saw the long-term reality: the family had been deteriorating since the Renaissance and was nearing the point of no return. Whenever the family shows signs of dysfunction, Zimmerman observed, “the state helps to break it up.” During the 19th century, “law piled on law, and government agency upon government agency” until by 1900 “the state had become master of the family.” The result, he wrote in Family and Civilization, was that “the family is now truly the agent, the slave, the handmaiden of the state.”
Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Associate Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College
1 Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, Virginia 20132
From Turner Publishing:
Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family
Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family
STEPHEN BASKERVILLE, PhD
“This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children.” — Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
Order today at Amazon’s special price of $16.47 (regular price $24.95).
For more than 80 articles and studies in mainstream publications on the abuses of the divorce industry, see www.stephenbaskerville.net.
Baskerville has been writing and speaking on the subject of family law, and it’s discrimination against fathers for many years. It is always interesting to see how many prescient researchers and writers over the years have foreseen the destruction of the family, yet the destruction continues apace.
One of the biggest issues that I’ve ever noticed is that most fathers, when ending up in a divorce hearing, simply don’t understand that they are no longer the head of a family, if they ever were. Now,all the talk about children’s rights takes it further. When you talk children’s rights outside the context of parental or family rights, then you are talking about the state supplanting the parent, period.
The initiative is run by Advocacy for La Plata, a Women’s Resource Center program headquartered above United Blood Services in Bodo Industrial Park. If sometimes these men feel like the blood is being squeezed out of them, at this meeting they know they’re not alone. Not all estranged fathers, after all, are deadbeat dads.
The words are there… but the fact that such a program is run out of a Women’s Resource Center says all you need to hear. These people just want conformity. Maintaining a relationship with children is only important in so far as it promotes prompt child support payments. That is also the only context in which the idea of “rights” comes up. There is a problem in all of this, and that problem is that family law, especially with regard to custody and child support, doesn’t take into account basic human realities about men and fathers. Women will never get this.
ONE in six mothers who fight their ex-husbands in court for custody of the children end up spending less than half the week with them.
Despite a presumption of shared parenting introduced by the Howard government in 2006, figures from the Family Court of Australia show mental health issues are most often to blame for women losing time with their children to their fathers.
In 1 per cent of litigated cases, the mother was ordered to have no contact with the children, mostly because of mental illness but also due to abuse and family violence, relocation, and distance, transport or financial barriers.
When fathers are denied time with their children, it is most often due to abuse and family violence, and entrenched conflict.
There is an old saying in Family Courts, and this pretty much the same no matter what country you are talking about, “Custody is the mother’s to lose, and the father’s to gain.” In other words, mom gets custody unless she manages to lose it… there is a presumption in her favor, as opposed to dad, who must work to maintain his contact and must really work hard, and be lucky, in order to win custody.
IMAGINE IT being argued that citizens be denied the right to go where they please because the freedom to travel also benefits hijackers and terrorists! Would anyone give a moment’s thought to abolishing the liberties of the vast majority on the basis that a few wicked people will inevitably benefit from these freedoms? Anyone stupid enough to make such a proposal would be laughed into oblivion, writes JOHN WATERS
I always hate that people have to add such phrases as “except in cases of severe abuse…” or whatever, in order to qualify the demands for equal access. This is nonsense, but it shows how effective the campaign to label all fathers as potential batterers. This has happened because there has been, and continues to grow, a flourishing industry of professionals in the domestic violence cabal. These same people have managed to pretty much make a mockery of any notion of justice in family courts, pretty much world wide.
Richard Thomas had sole custody of his two teenage sons for two years until the day in 2007 when they visited their mother and never returned.
Today, Thomas’ sons are in foster care while he fights to regain custody. His battle began when his boys were visiting their mother and she decided to drop them off at a police station with instructions to say they had run away from home. The police believed their story and contacted the Department of Children and Family Services, Thomas said.
What is wrong in all this business, is that a father has to prove his worth to meddling bureaucrats. There should be an assumption of fitness. The burden of proof should always lie with the person making an accusation of unfitness. But investigating parents, just to be sure, is wrong. This suspiciousness leads to a very unfriendly atmosphere and eventually will lead to the destruction of the nuclear family. I believe there is a growing body of people in the U.S. who think that this is a good thing.
