Category Archives: Family

Bring Evie Home. by Ashlie Beal-Ewen – GoFundMe

There are so many stories like this.  So much pain – carrying forward from one generation to the next.  We call ourselves a modern civilized society based on laws and concepts of universal justice, yet time and again we see the laws allow such obvious injustice.  We are not a civilized society, we are an insane society.

If anyone seeing this now is able to assist this father and family, it is a start in the battle against the forces that create this kind of world.

In January Christian walked in the door of the home he shared with his fiance to find her packing. She told him that she’d met someone else; they’d gotten married just a few days before and she was taking Christian’s daughter, Evie to live with her new husband in Virginia. At that moment, she and Christian were still living together; in fact the day she married another man Christian brought her flowers. He wasn’t able to file an injuction quickly enough to keep the mother of his child from leaving their home in the state of Colorado, so within days she was gone with his two year old daughter, leaving no forwarding address: just a stunned and heartbroken father. Christian and his daughter found themselves in a situation seemingly ripped from a daytime talk show.

I’m Christian’s sister. I worked with our family & friends to create this page for my brother and my niece, who I dearly love. Our family is providing all the financial and emotional support we can but the necessary legal fees are quickly surpassing our means. We’d like to offer thank-you’s for the financial help provided with “rewards”. Please let me know if you have ANY questions by emailing

via Bring Evie Home. by Ashlie Beal-Ewen – GoFundMe.

Join the Forum discussion on this post


Secret list: Having your name on this secret Michigan list of 275,000 people could cost you your job

Wow.  There are actually people in the world that think this is a good thing.  There are over 275,000 people on this list.  That means that about 1 out of 40 persons in Michigan are on this list.  It, quite frankly, surprises even me.  It is like there is some kind of evil in the world.  A grand-child complains of spanking, cps investigates, and finds no abuse, but the grandmother is on the list for life. Even though the report specifically said that it didn’t warrant going on the list, yet there she is.  This is a very serious revelation.  It should be interesting to see where this person’s suit ends up.

LANSING, Mich. (WXYZ) – It’s a secret list that can cost you your family or your job.  Once you’re on it, it can be very hard to get off.   While some changes are being made to the law, many experts say it doesn’t go far enough.

The state maintains something called the Michigan Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry and the sole power to label you an abuser lies not with a judge or a jury, but with child protective services workers.

And you may be surprised at how the state can define “abuse.”

Anita Belle says she’s never been convicted of a crime.  But Belle’s name has been put on the Central Registry as a child abuser.

“Where is the due process,” asked Belle.

The Central Registry is maintained by Child Protective Services workers inside Michigan’s Department of Human Services, or DHS.

Right now, there are about 275,000 people on that secret list and many of them don’t even realize they are on it.  You don’t have to be found guilty in court to be put on the registry.  All it takes is the word of CPS staffers to label you an abuser, which can prevent you from getting certain jobs or doing volunteer work.

“A sex offender gets to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and then they’re placed on the sex offender registry, but parents and grandparents and teachers — for goodness sake, a child could just make up something,” Belle told 7 Action News Investigator Heather Catallo.

It was Anita Belle’s granddaughter who accused her and other relatives of spanking.  And Belle’s case shows just how inconsistent the rules to get on the list can be:  her CPS investigative report recommends Belle NOT be labeled an abuser.

“In your CPS report they say you should not be put on the central registry,” asked Catallo
“That’s correct,” said Belle.
“So how did you get put on the registry,” asked Catallo.
“I don’t know,” said Belle.

As the law stands now, once you’re on the registry — you’re on for life.  You can ask for a hearing in front of an administrative law judge to be taken off the list, although that’s not easy to do.

But the law is changing in September.  The new law will limit your time on the registry to 10 years, unless you were put on the list for criminal sexual conduct, battery, life threatening injuries, abandonment, or exposing a child to methamphetamine production.

But those labels are not always what they seem:  the 7 Investigators have documented many cases of parents being accused of abandonment or neglect when they were simply trying to get help for the children from the state.

“The current reforms don’t go far enough,” said attorney Elizabeth Warner, who is suing the Governor, DHS and other state officials because she says the secret list is unconstitutional.

“You should be given an opportunity before the harm happens, to get a fair hearing,” said Warner.


Legal battle over Native American girl comes to a poignant end –

The courts won on this one, as to their power to dictate law as an ideology.  This case really highlights just about everything that can go wrong when bureaucrats and judges lose site of wisdom.

Was justice served Monday when a little girl called Veronica was taken from her biological father, a Cherokee, and returned to the white South Carolina couple who had begun to adopt her at birth four years ago?

This is one of those heartbreaking stories that periodically makes headlines, sending a shiver down the spines of adoptive parents and enraging Native Americans whose children had been ripped away from them so often that a federal law was passed in 1978 to put safeguards in place.

The facts of this case seem so unfair to the biological father that it’s hard to understand why the adoptive parents have ended up with custody.

Legal battle over Native American girl comes to a poignant end –


Supreme Court Rules Against Indian Father in Daughter’s Custody Case – Andrew Cohen – The Atlantic

This case illustrates what an unfriendly place the courts are to fathers.  The guy wasn’t perfect, but who, really, is?  Additionally everyone seems to have completely ignored the fact that the mother concealed the adoption from the father.  The plain and simple fact is that the mother wanted to give up the child, and apparently vindictively wanted to eliminate the father from this little girl’s life.  In my opinion, there should have been no question.  The child should have gone to the father, and the mother as well as all involved in the adoption, should be reprimanded for systematically trying to deprive the little girl of her own father.

Virtually overlooked Tuesday in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s vital decision to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act case was a gut-wrenching ruling from the justices that ultimately could separate a father from his daughter. In the case styled Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, the Court ruled that a Native American man named Dusten Brown could not rely upon the language of a federal statute, the Indian Child Welfare Act, to protect himself against the termination of his parental rights over his daughter, Veronica, after another couple sought to adopt her. 

The back story, to say the least, is complicated but you can identify the contours of the ruling, and at the same time understand what happened to this little girl, simply by reading the many descriptions of the case offered by the various justices as they sorted through the debris. For example, to start, there is Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority decision. He barely concealed his contempt for Brown and his cause by framing the story this way:

This case is about a little girl (Baby Girl) who is classified as an Indian because she is 1.2% (3/256) Cherokee. Because Baby Girl is classified in this way, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 required her to be taken, at the age of 27 months, from the only parents she had ever known and handed over to her biological father, who had attempted to relinquish his parental rights and who had no prior contact with the child. The provisions of the federal statute at issue here do not demand this result.

I agree with this:

And, finally, came Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She wrote about the ways in which the federal statute was designed to try to help troubled Native American families, like Brown’s family:

Moreover, the majority’s focus on “intact” families begs the question of what Congress set out to ac­complish with ICWA. In an ideal world, perhaps all parents would be perfect. They would live up to their parental responsibilities by providing the fullest possible financial and emotional support to their children.

They would never suffer mental health problems, lose their jobs, struggle with substance dependency, or encounter any of the other multitudinous personal crises that can make it difficult to meet these responsibilities. In an ideal world parents would never become estranged and leave their children caught in the middle.

But we do not live in such a world. Even happy families do not always fit the custodial-parent mold for which the majority would reserve IWCA’s substantive protections; unhappy families all too often do not. They are families nonetheless. Congress understood as much.

In the end, we have a decision here that says, contrary to both the text and the spirit of the law, that the Native American father of this little girl cannot rely upon a federal law designed to aid the parents of Native American children because he did not initially have custody of the child. The ruling makes mention of Browns’ failure to initially support his child but makes little mention of the ways in which the mother of the little girl sought to hide the adoption from him. This was always a case of Solomon-like ramifications–with a group of judges literally having to choose where a baby should life. For such a weighty decision it’s a terribly airy ruling.

Supreme Court Rules Against Indian Father in Daughter’s Custody Case – Andrew Cohen – The Atlantic.


Documentary project on single father households

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 –


Kansas wants sperm donor pay child support –

The moral here is to be extremely cautious if there is any possibility of a child support issue arising.

The state of Kansas is trying to force a man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple to pay child support, arguing that the agreement he and the women signed releasing him from all parental duties was invalid because they didn’t go through a doctor.

Under Kansas law, a doctor’s involvement shields a man from being held responsible for a child conceived through artificial insemination. At least 10 other states have similar laws, including California, Illinois and Missouri, according to the Kansas Department for Children and Families.

William Marotta and the couple he helped have a daughter didn’t go through a doctor, so the department is asking a state court to hold him responsible for about $6,000 that the child’s biological mother received through public assistance – as well as future child support.

The department also asked the court to appoint an attorney to represent the now 3-year-old girl, independently of her mother.

Marotta is asking that the case be dismissed, arguing that he is not the child’s legal father. A hearing is set for Tuesday.

Department spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said Wednesday that when a single mother seeks benefits for a child, the department routinely tries to determine the child’s paternity and require the father to make support payments to lessen the potential cost to taxpayers.

She argued that the law regarding artificial insemination is an incentive for donors and prospective mothers to work with a doctor

Read more here:

Kansas wants sperm donor pay child support –


Dad stands up for his parental rights | Life | Toronto Sun

Glad to see Dear Amy sticking up for fathers.  Unfortunately, what this father is experiencing happens everyday, in the entire western world.  The political forces that are invested in the “mothers first” movement are simply too powerful for any progress to be made.  All a father can do is to know his rights, hire a good lawyer, and spend lots of money making sure his child doesn’t grow up forgetting who he is, due to the perfidious behavior of a truly selfish, self-absorbed mommy.

By Amy Dickinson ,QMI Agency

DEAR AMY: My longtime fiancee and I split up three months ago. It was her choice to split. We have a 20-month-old baby, and we are having a major disagreement about “visitation.”

The fact that a parent has “visitation” at all should be a thing of the past.

I am a father who took parental leave for three months to help raise our baby, and I have been a very involved father since her birth.

My ex and I work shift work on opposite shifts. My ex would rather send our baby to day care than have me take care of her. The day care shift my ex wants for our daughter would be from late afternoon to 10:30 p.m.

What do you think of the prospect of a 20-month-old being in day care, versus being with a parent?

My ex thinks our baby won’t fit in at school if she doesn’t attend day care. I understand the importance of her social development but not between the hours of dinner, bath and bedtime.

I grew up in a split family where I only saw my father every other weekend, and I don’t want that for my child. I truly believe that setup is outdated and fathers should have more rights! What say you? — Frustrated Father

DEAR FATHER: I agree with you on every front.

It is in the best interest of the child to spend as much time as possible with both parents, when both parents are committed, loving and involved — as you obviously are.

Parental care is preferable to day care, especially given the scenario you present in which a toddler would be away from home during dinner, evening, bath and bedtime.

Your child’s pro-social development can be encouraged through playgroups with other parents and toddlers and, later, a nursery school.

Your ex is using this as an excuse to deny your parental rights — and it’s absurd. You need to mediate a common-sense solution — one that is firmly focused on the child’s needs.

You could achieve this working with a mediator if your ex were being reasonable, but you should see a lawyer all the same.

I agree with you that the assumption that the child belongs with the mother with paternal “visitation” is an outmoded model, and I think the courts are moving slowly to recognize this.

via Dad stands up for his parental rights | Life | Toronto Sun.


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

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.


My take on the Thomas Ball case | Dr. Helen Smith

Here is some commentary on the Thomas Ball case.

If you don’t know the story by now, Thomas Ball is the New Hampshire man who set himself on fire on the courthouse steps and left a 15-page note outlining the abusive family court system and his reasons for killing himself. Many of you have emailed or commented about this case (thanks very much) here and I think his story is an important one in understanding the psychological and physical damage that the law is inflicting on men in this country. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Ball’s statement that I think makes some very salient points:

I am due in court the end of the month. The ex-wife lawyer wants me jailed for back child support. The amount ranges from $2,200. to $3,000. depending on who you ask. Not big money after being separated over ten years and unemployed for the last two. But I do owe it. If I show up for court without the money and the lawyer say jail, then the judge will have the bailiff take me into custody. There really are no surprises on how the system works once you know how it actually works. And it does not work anything like they taught you in high school history or civics class.

I could have made a phone call or two and borrowed the money. But I am done being bullied for being a man. I cannot believe these people in Washington are so stupid to think they can govern Americans with an iron fist. Twenty-five years ago, the federal government declared war on men. It is time now to see how committed they are to their cause. It is time, boys, to give them a taste of war.

I saw over at Antifeminist tech blog that some are trying to cover up this story, while others, such as man-hater Amanda Marcotte said that Bell’s goal was to use his fiery death to “make his ex-wife’s life a living hell.” This twisted “analysis” is hardly worthy of a response, but I will say that if Ball wanted to make his ex’s life a living hell, killing himself was not the answer. The ex may not have even given a damn.

To read the entire article:

via My take on the Thomas Ball case | Dr. Helen Smith.


The conversation: Was David Cameron wrong to attack ‘runaway dads’? | Comment is free | The Guardian

In both the US and in Britain, mainstream politicians have been almost criminal in the way they have demonized fathers merely as a way of cultivating the support of rabid female feminist type politicians and advocates.  Essentially, people like Al Gore, David Cameron and the like are nothing by whores and pussies.  It is disgusting that we still see politicians dissing fathers.


Fathers’ rights campaigner Matt O’Connor thinks the government is waging a war on fathers; Tory MP Bill Cash defends his party’s stance. Emine Saner hosts

    Conservative MP Bill Cash and fathers' rights campaigner Matt O'Connor

    Conservative MP Bill Cash and fathers’ rights campaigner Matt O’Connor discuss the goverment’s record on families. Photograph: Graeme Robertson

    Earlier this week David Cameron criticised “runaway dads”, saying they should be “stigmatised” in the same way as drink-drivers. Emine Saner brings together the founder of Fathers 4 Justice Matt O’Connor (pictured far right) and Tory MP Bill Cash – fathers of three each – to discuss the government’s record on families.

    Matt O’Connor: Last year, the Conservative party made a series of explicit commitments with regard to family law reform. Those commitments have been reneged on. That’s bad enough, but then for Cameron, who is fighting a war in Afghanistan, is fighting a war in Libya, but at home seems to be waging a war on fathers … I’m outraged. He didn’t seek to separate out the fathers who struggle to see their children, who have court orders allowing them to see them but are denied access. He didn’t say he recognised that was a problem, he just besmirched fathers and played to the stereotype of the deadbeat dad.

    Bill Cash: The responsibility for making sure children are given a fair chance in life is equally dependent on the behaviour of fathers and mothers. Focusing on the fathers is not getting the argument straight, because there are faults on both sides. There is also enormous fault with what used to be the CSA [now the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission]. There is a controversial provision in the bill that wasn’t debated– the idea of a contribution towards the cost [of pursuing the other parent: under plans, single parents – mostly mothers – will be asked to pay £100 upfront towards that cost, and the CMEC will take “commission” from future payments]. I’m waiting to see what the House of Lords does with it. But fundamentally, I’ll never be able to stand up and support fathers who deliberately shy away from their responsibilities. I believe in families, and I know David Cameron does, too.

    MO: He’s not showing it. Look at scrapping child benefit [for higher earners]. You’ve still got a prime minister masquerading under the cover of saying he is pro-marriage and pro-family, while demonising fathers. Doesn’t the Conservative party recognise the damage these comments make?

    BC: To me, fathers walking away from their children is as bad as it gets.

    MO: We never hear you or your party say anything about feckless mothers having children with multiple partners. One in three children in this country are growing up without a father. We’ve got the highest rate of young offending, we’ve got a teenage abortion epidemic. We’ve got boys growing up without a father, who are going to repeat the same behavioural pattern, saying ‘dads aren’t important’. Cameron’s message, demonising fathers, is so profoundly damaging. The Conservatives came in saying you’re pro-family, you’ll sort out the family courts, and you’ve done nothing, it’s a betrayal.

    BC: This is an issue about children. The CMEC actually has a responsibility to get it right, and it’s not. That needs reform.

    MO: The CMEC can’t work because what Cameron is doing, which is what Brown and Blair did, is to give fathers the status of sperm banks and cashpoints. You can abandon your children tomorrow, provided you pay. Child support should be emotional and financial, and until that enlightened approach becomes currency it is never going to change. There is a simple way of recognising the authority of parents and putting fathers back into the family, and that’s for this government to give children the right, in law, to see both parents. And grandparents. Explain how it can be in the child’s interests to deny access. We have a regime in this country – secret family courts – that is as brutal and barbaric, in my opinion, as any around the world.

    BC: It’s a moral issue, it’s about the most fundamental human rights. I have a problem accepting the idea children should not be allowed to see both parents, except in circumstances where there are safety issues and there is violence within the family. I really do not think it’s a fathers-only issue.

    MO: What we’ve been campaigning for is to take the conflict out of the court system. We want a court system that is based on transparency and scrutiny. We have an unelected, unaccountable judiciary operating in complete secrecy. If you put fathers back into the lives of their children, you also make them responsible for the financial and emotional upbringing of their children.

    BC: But there are statistics that demonstrate that there are a significant number of fathers who are, as David Cameron put it, going awol.

    MO: I do not accept that. A lot of fathers walk away because they know the misery and suffering and living bereavement of not being able to see their children. Why does your leader continue to demonise dads? I have had thousands of emails in the last few days since David Cameron’s comments, saying: ‘We would love to be responsible for our children, as long as we were given the chance.’

    Emine Saner: Bill, do you think Matt is overstating the case of fathers? Only 40% of single parents receive maintenance from the other parent. That suggests there are quite a few feckless fathers …

    MO: It suggests there are a lot of children growing up without a father.

    ES: It suggests there are a lot of men who aren’t paying maintenance.

    MO: You have to look at the circumstances. Are those men who have walked away, the stereotype deadbeats? Are they men who have tried to see their children and been denied access? There are a lot of women out there who say a man is superfluous to their requirements, they do not want a father.

    BC: Anyone who says that is not looking at the interests of the child.

    MO: The state is already the surrogate father. It comes in and provides the benefits. What I want are children to have the love, emotional and financial support from both parents, and until we change the mentality of war on fathers that won’t change. Family breakdown is an issue, and we need to find a solution based on reconciliation. David Cameron wasn’t attacking single mothers, he was attacking fathers.

    BC: I wouldn’t call it attacking. You and I agree that there is a recognition that in certain circumstances fathers should rightly be criticised.

    MO: So should mothers. Can we stop talking about fathers?

    BC: I do agree that this is largely a problem of family law. I think it’s a tragedy that we’re still having this discussion and it’s not a problem that has been resolved.

    MO: What we need is justice, to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. I’ll tell you how serious I am. I want you to pass a message on to David Cameron. On 10 July, I will be outside his house starting a hunger strike about this issue. That’s how strongly I feel.

    BC: I’ll certainly be under an obligation to make sure that message gets to him.

The conversation: Was David Cameron wrong to attack ‘runaway dads’? | Comment is free | The Guardian.