Just received this notice:

My name is Khaaliq Thomas and I’m a professional photographer and custodial dad of 3 (recently divorced).
For the past year I’ve been working on a photo documentary concentrating on single / custodial fathers households.
I’m hoping to get your help in spreading the word about the project.

Purpose of The Project
The project will challenge the belief of fathers being incapable, unwilling, and or inadequate in performing responsibly,
productively and lovingly as a single / custodial parent. I currently have 3 participants and need another 3 to 4 for a
truly diverse look into these unconventional family structures. Attention will be given to the dedicated ability of these
dads and their commitment to raising productive children and supplying a stable home on their own. The finished project
will consist of a 110 page full color photo book. I’m using Kickstarter to raise the funds to search for more dads through
advertising, print and design of the book and setting up exhibitions of the final project.

How You Can Help
I need your help in spreading the word about the Kickstarter fundraiser in order to get the project to the public and
share in the experience of a single father household through this project. I’m asking for your help in support of the project
by spreading the word on your website, (or anyway you can), and allowing me to add you as a supporter on Kickstarter.
I plan on launching the Kickstarter fundraiser early March or whenever I have enough support, whichever comes first.
A link to a video introduction of the project is included.

Thx for your time -

http://vimeo.com/36229020

These types of bills have always foundered when the lawyers and special interest lawyers start weighing in.  Also, courts are loathe to give up any discretion, especially in cases of disputed custody.

 More than a quarter of our kids are being raised by just one parent. Some Heartland fathers feel like they don’t have the parenting rights they deserve. Two Nebraska state lawmakers are trying to change that.

Joe Trader thought he had all the evidence he needed in the custody hearing for his daughter Gracie; but the judge decided otherwise. “I wasn’t going to let a decision that has been given to fathers for years determine what kind of father i was going to be able to be to my child.”

Up before the unicameral this year are two bills focusing on father’s rights.

State Senator Galen Hadley’s bill wants to bring laws made years ago up to today’s times. “I think this bill is looking more at modern society and trying to come up with a parenting plan that tries to deal with the kind of conditions we find in modern divorce.”

Senator Russ Karpisek wants to go one step further; holding judges accountable for the decisions they make.

Trader says both bills show progress. “Any benefit, any increase in time or really any acknowledgment of the equal parenting an how important it is a huge stride,” he said.

Trader’s main goal is for more time with his little girl, Gracie. “Let Nebraska know we’re tired of being just child support, we want to be parents.”

One of the bill would also make it so each parent is entitled to at least 45% of the year spent with their child. That could be over-turned, but a judge would have to cite a reason why.

Father’s Rights Debate Taken Up By The State Legislature.

This type of commentary has been circulating since the 1990s, and even before.  Some embittered mom rants on the father for abandoning his family.  Most of the time, however, when you find the father and ask him, you get an entirely different story.  Why is it that these women are believed, and the fathers aren’t.  Without exception, many fathers I have known and dealt with, have been worn down by a system that looks to them for nothing more than money.  They are stripped of all rights to their children, they are denigrated in court and in the media, and they find no support anywhere.

I love how these types of women (so called mothers) who don’t see that she has managed to teach her children to either hate or disparage their own father.  Good mom.  She should be proud of herself.  Why can’t we criticize her for failing to do her part to keep the father in the lives of the children.  Obviously, she failed in this tiny duty, miserably.

We don’t celebrate Father’s Day at our house. My three sons dread the advertising-soaked holiday the way many singles loathe Valentine’s Day. It’s not that they have lost their father to death, disease, military service, an act of God or misfortune of any stripe. It is that their father has chosen to lose them.

As it is for many fatherless families across the globe, this Sunday is a reminder that fatherhood should be more than a biological feat; it is a primal moral responsibility and one that many men regrettably fail to fulfill. Still, there is a remedy.

via Father’s Day should be a reminder of paternal responsibility – Chicago Tribune.

Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination and the Duty of Child SupportMichael J. HigdonUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville – College of LawFebruary 14, 2011

Abstract:

Nathaniel, was a California teenager who became a father in 1995. The mother of Nathaniel’s child was named Ricci, and at the time of conception, she was thirty-four years old. Nathaniel, however, was merely fifteen. Although Nathaniel admitted to having sex with Ricci voluntarily about five times, the fact that he was under sixteen years of age at the time made it legally impossible for him to consent to sexual intercourse. In other words, under California law, Nathaniel was not only a new father, but was also a victim of statutory rape. Nonetheless, in a subsequent action for child support, the court held that Nathaniel was liable for the support of the child who was born as a result of his rape. According to the court, “Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.”

via SSRN-Fatherhood by Conscription: Nonconsensual Insemination and the Duty of Child Support by Michael Higdon.

Here is a comment that was posted some time ago on this blog.  I thought others would find this interesting.  It’s a letter from a young man that had been lied to by his mother about his father.  This is what happens when the state steps in where is shouldn’t.

Dead Broke Kid says:

July 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm

I am working to pay Child Support ON MYSELF!

How. Well, my MOM COLLECTED child support. She wouldn’t let us See DAD. She hid us with Relatives and TOLD us he was DEAD. She swore he didn’t pay a DIME to anyone who would listen. Funny. AT 19 I discovered he not only Was alive…..he had been trying to have some contact since my Mother decided to Divorce him out of the blue. So I moved where He was and Wow a whole world opened up. Now I am 24. The state of Texas is STILL Making him pay my mother. I have called them! My Mother agreed to Pay Me some of the CHILD support to help with school. DAD has sent Big checks. So far I have recieved Nothing from my Mother. I have no RIGHT to a dollar taken from my Father. So he was not paying what he DOESNT OWE (remember i am an adult) Fast ENOUGH and he has lost his Drivers licence. Without it He can’t work. So if he does not make payments Now he goes to Jail. So You guys are Draining ME to keep my Father out of Jail So you can Steal money For my Mother to DRINK and Party on. Nice system.

Oh and Dad did not ABANDON us. Mom decided she was Gay. Dumped us off with Grandma and has played the victim every since. DONT EVER SAY CHILD SUPPORT TO ME……………..CHILD ROBBERY is what you could call it. Not only did it take my childhood and my Future….now it is trying to steal my Dad from me AGAIN!

by Phyllis Schlafly November 5, 2010

When the liberals and the feminists, including Hillary Clinton, began saying the “village” should raise the child, most people recognized village as a metaphor for government. We’re now seeing how intrusive Big Government Nannyism really is.

State agencies operating under various names such as Child Protective Services (CPS) have been assigned the task of protecting kids from abuse or neglect by any adults, especially by their own parents. A new study casts doubt on the value of CPS.

Child Protective Services, which rushes into action based on anonymous tips, investigated more than three million cases of suspected child abuse in 2007. Researchers examined the records of 595 children nationwide alleged to be at similar high risk for abuse, and tracked them from ages 4 to 8.

The researchers concluded that CPS’s intervention did little or nothing to improve the lives of the children, and there was no difference between children in the families CPS investigated or did not investigate. The social scientists looked at all the factors known to increase the risk for abuse or neglect: social support, family functioning, poverty, caregiver education and depressive symptoms, plus child anxiety, depression and aggressive behavior.

Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act was passed by Congress in 1974, and about 45 states passed complementary state laws. Taxpayers’ money began to flow big time to the bureaucrats.

The research results were reported in the October issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The report was accompanied by an editorial entitled “Child Protective Services Has Outlived its Usefulness.”

It argued that CPS should not be engaged in law enforcement. If it’s a crime, call the police; if it’s neglect, call a public health nurse; if it’s an unsuitable living situation, call the appropriate social services.

Unfortunately, the researchers did not look at the harm caused by CPS bureaucrats who arrive unannounced with the police, interfere with a functioning family, and often take the children away from their parents and turn them over to foster care. When taxpayer appropriations are voted next year by Congress and state legislatures, CPS bureaucrats should be required to demonstrate whether any good outweighs the harm.

Two cases involving Child Protective Services are now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The High Court has just agreed to take a case involving the interrogation of an elementary schoolchild at school by a CPS caseworker and a deputy sheriff about possible sexual abuse at home.

This is a Fourth Amendment case: Camreta and Alford v. Greene. Oregon investigators are appealing a lower court ruling that they violated a nine-year-old girl’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when they interviewed her for two hours at school without a warrant, court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances.

This case could have a significant impact nationwide. Unfortunately, some government agencies are more solicitous in guaranteeing constitutional due process to vicious criminals than to parents.

The other CPS case now before the Supreme Court, Los Angeles County v. Humphries, has already been briefed and argued. This case involves the constitutionality of the child abuse index, or list, maintained by Child Protective Services in California.

More than 800,000 people are now listed on California’s child abuse index. These listings are very hurtful to individuals since employers consult the list before hiring employees to work with children.

CPS puts people on this list from agency reports that are based on anonymous tips and suspicion, not proof. It’s mighty easy for a malicious wife or ex-wife to allege child abuse as part of her game plan to get child custody or increased child support.

The issue in this case is the fact that there are no procedures, no standards, and no criteria for a wrongly accused person to get his name off the child abusers index. The Supreme Court is reviewing the Ninth Circuit ruling that Craig Humphries (whom a court pronounced innocent of all charges) had a “nightmarish encounter” with the California system, and “There is no effective procedure for Humphries to challenge this listing.”

In 2006, Congress toyed with a plan to create a national child abuse registry. The plan was abandoned because of the unreliability of state lists and lack of due process. (blog.eagleforum.org)

The child abuse registry should not be confused with the sex offender registry, which lists only those who have been convicted of sex crimes. The child abuse registry puts men on the list who have never been proven guilty of anything or even charged with a crime, a punishment that is entirely contrary to our legal assumption of being innocent until proven guilty.

Humphries has been trying to clear his name for nine years. Congress should defund these abusive registries and we hope the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional.

via Government Trampling on Constitutional Rights of Parents.

These two cases were news because the fathers won custody.  At the end of the article there is a reference to statistics that show how few fathers are awarded sole custody, and astoundingly how many are not awarded even a minimum of access to their children.

The Nebraska Court of Appeals recently affirmed two Lincoln County divorce cases where judges gave primary custody of the couple’s children to the father after removing custody from the mothers.

In both cases Lincoln County District Judge Donald Rowlands found that permanent custody should be placed with the fathers in the best interests of the children.

Family law statistics show that sole custody for fathers is awarded less than ten percent of the time. The latest statistics indicate that forty percent of all child custody cases allowed no custody for fathers, barring them from both visitation and access rights.

via North Platte Nebraska’s favorite newspaper – The North Platte Bulletin.

The war on fathers’ rights in adoption proceedings continues and fathers are starting to win a few battles, like the one described in this article (Toledo Blade, 9/24/10) and this Ohio Supreme Court opinion (Leagle, 7/22/10).

Benjamin Wyrembek had a brief affair with a married woman. She became pregnant in 2007 and, along with her husband, decided to place the child for adoption. Wyrembek had no way of knowing if the child was his or not and possibly neither did the woman, although neither the article nor the opinion says. But he timely filed his claim of paternity with the Ohio Putative Father Registry and brought suit in juvenile court in December, 2007 to establish paternity. In January, 2008, the adoptive parents, Jason and Christy Vaughn, filed their suit to adopt the child.

Genetic testing determined that the child is Wyrembek’s and every court has since ruled in his favor. Basically, he’s the biological father who’s done every legal thing in his power to get custody of his son and every court has ruled that the adoption can’t go forward. It seems that biological fathers have a few rights after all; it seems that the many United States Supreme Court cases so ruling actually mean something.

But, you may ask, “it’s been almost three years since genetic testing determined Wyrembek’s paternity; why does he still not have possession of his son?” Well, the answer is that adoption attorneys for many years have understood that when they’re caught trying to force adoption on a child who doesn’t need to be adopted because it has a fit father who wants it, the best thing to do is to stall.

via » Ohio SC Decision a Clear Win for Dads in Adoption Cases – Blogger News Network.

This is up in Canada.  The only problem is the proviso that is always present “absent abuse”.  There is no question that abuse is intolerable. However it is unfortunate that allegations of abuse sky rocket when it becomes evident that child support received will be affected by a shared parenting order. This has become a real problem everywhere.

The people for whom this issue matters most — people whose lives have been negatively impacted by the current iniquitous system — are united and organized. The Equal Parenting Coalition (EPC) is now an international social movement focused on averting the tragedies that result for children when a parent is legally disenfranchised from his or her children’s lives.

I say “his or her,” but in reality, the iniquities of the system overwhelmingly target fathers. What are most fathers asking for? According to the EPC, the clearly stated primary goal would appear to be equal physical parenting. Advocacy in the equal parenting movement has moved well beyond fathers’ rights groups, and is now a broad-based coalition of both mothers and fathers. More and more women realize that excluding fathers from their children’s lives is unethical and psychologically counter-productive for everyone involved. Fathers want more input than just offering suggestions that their ex-wives can ignore. They want to truly share in parenting, including all its responsibilities

Indeed, the current president of the Canadian Equal Parenting Council is a woman. Kris Titus took up the EP cause when she saw how much her children suffered from the absence of their father after their divorce. She became an activist in the family law reform movement when she actually had to fight with a judge to change his award of sole custody to shared parenting, a move that benefited everyone in her family.

via Give fathers their rights back.

Received the following from ACFC concerning attempts to research how divorces resulted in custody and child support.  Very interesting how cagey judges are about this kind of research.

Out of Tennessee comes this interesting information forwarded by William Fain as a preliminary look at the work product of one family court judge.  As many of you are aware we spent a good deal of the first part of this year supporting our allies in colleagues in Tennessee as they worked diligently to get a parental equality in divorce law passed.  For the historical record on these battles, including testimony and news coverage click here.

The report is an analysis of 105 cases pulled at random from a Bradley county judge’s case load.  Read the report.

As an aside, ACFC spent three days in Charleston, West Virginia this past summer with three law school interns attempting to conduct similar analysis.  The information needed was not available via the court’s computer system.  The records supervisor suggested we ask the chief judge to grant us permission to review the full records.  We met with all the judges of the local family court during the lunch hour, explained to them what we were researching and requested their consent to review the files in depth.

Four times during the meeting consent to review was granted.  We indicated we were not interested in any personal litigant identifier information and would supply the court with a copy of our report.  The chief judge indicated he would send a written note up to the clerk instructing her to provide full case files.  On returning to the records office after lunch we provided the list of files we wished to examine.  The records supervisor told us the judges had changed their minds and permission to research the records was denied.   At this point, the interns have returned to school, we’ll see if access will be granted via a freedom of information act request.