The Fresh Air Fund

Last week, I received an e-mail from Sara Wilson of The Fresh Air Fund, regarding their Host Family Program for 2010. Since the main goal of this blog is precisely the welfare of our children, and The Fresh Air Fund is an organization that actively looks for the same goal, this week I am reproducing most of the message sent by Sara:

"In 2009, The Fresh Air Fund's Volunteer Host Family program, called Friendly Town, gave close to 5,000 New York City boys and girls, ages six to 18, free summer experiences in the country and the suburbs. Volunteer host families shared their friendship and homes up to two weeks or more in 13 Northeastern states from Virginia to Maine and Canada. (…)

The Fresh Air Fund needs hosts for the summer of 2010. More than 65% of all Fresh Air children are reinvited to stay with their host family, year after year. Thanks to host families who open up their homes for a few weeks each summer, children growing up in New York City’s toughest neighborhoods have experienced the joys of Fresh Air experiences.

Friendly Town host families are volunteers who live in the suburbs or small town communities. Host families range in size, ethnicity, and background, but share the desire to open their hearts and homes to give city children an experience they will never forget. Hosts say the Fresh Air experience is as enriching for their own families, as it is for the inner-city children. There are no financial requirements for hosting a child. Volunteers may request the age group and gender of the Fresh Air youngster they would like to host. Click here to learn more about becoming a host or call (800) 367-0003!

Fresh Air children are boys and girls, six to 18 years old, who live in New York City. Children on first-time visits are six to 12 years old and stay for either one or two weeks. Youngsters who are re-invited by the same family may continue with The Fund through age 18, and many enjoy longer summertime visits, year after year. A visit to the home of a warm and loving volunteer host family can make all the difference in the world to an inner-city child. All it takes to create lifelong memories is laughing in the sunshine and making new friends.

The majority of Fresh Air children are from low-income communities. These are often families without the resources to send their children on summer vacations. Most inner-city youngsters grow up in towering apartment buildings without large, open outdoor play spaces. Concrete playgrounds cannot replace the freedom of running barefoot through the grass or riding bikes down country lanes.

Fresh Air children are registered by more than 90 participating social service and community organizations located in disadvantaged neighborhoods in the five boroughs of New York City. These community-based agencies are in close contact with children in need of summer experiences in rural and suburban areas. Each agency is responsible for registering children for the program.
(…)
You can give a child the experience of a lifetime with your gift to The Fresh Air Fund! Every year, The Fresh Air Fund gives thousands of inner-city children the priceless gift of fun – and opens the door to a lifetime of opportunities. Whether it's a two-week trip to visit a volunteer host family, or a fun-filled and educational stay at one of our camps, our programs make for unforgettable memories – and open a world of new friendships and fresh possibilities. We are a not-for-profit agency and depend on tax-deductible donations from people like you to keep our vital programs flourishing. Donate online now."

To read the full text, please click here.

Grandparents and Joint Custody

Recently I received news from Spain (“Los abuelos por la custodia compartida piden a la UE poder ver a sus nietos”) that reminded me of one of the many faces of the tragedy lived by many families after divorce.

Representatives of the Grandfathers and Grandmothers pro Joint Custody Association (ASACCO) of Catalonia will meet in Brussels with members of the directive board of the European Commission of Civil Justice, to whom they will expose their impossibility of seeing their grandchildren on a regular basis after the divorce of their children.

The Association considers that their right to have a relationship with their grandchildren is not respected, and that the Spanish courts allow “a biased juridical practice that hinder the consecution of authentic justice" in these cases. The Association believes that the current Spanish law against gender violence "causes damage” in the life of these families, depriving children of divorced parents of a healthy relationship with their extended families.

We should never forget that current family laws affect not only divorced parents, but the totality of the involved families, uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins, who after divorce lose their loved ones too. It is for this reason, because we all have divorced couples in our families, that not only fathers, but also everyone should be committed with the fight for a reform of family courts and of the laws that rule them. Thank God for people like the member of ASACCO, who have realized that when a member of a family suffers, all the members of that family suffer too.

Cathy Young and the Gender War

Cathy Young (Moscow 1963), an author, a public speaker, and a regular columnist for The Boston Globe and Reason, her articles have also appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsday, The American Spectator, Salon.Com, National Review, and The New Republic. She published in 1999 the book Ceasefire! Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality.

In her book, Young states that there is no war against women, and rebuts a series of controversial issues, from the incidence of domestic violence (it is not as frequent as the feminist media wants us to believe), the nature of domestic violence (she states that domestic violence is a two-way street: University of New Hampshire researchers consistently report women as often as men initiate physical violence. Furthermore, recent studies reveal that lesbians have also high rates of violence toward their own partners) Mainstream media hides or misreports these facts, fomenting this way legislation constructed on false assumptions), that male violence is directed primarily against women, or that girls are ignored in classrooms.

She offers evidence that these and other basic feminist credos are mistaken, mainly due to a feminist propensity for exaggeration, stereotyping, and over-generalization based on little or no evidence.

Young argues that the battle for equal rights is not an excuse for portraying men as fundamentally malevolent. She explains that in the '80s, a radical sector of feminism became mainstream, and equality for women began to mean inequities for men; is at this moment when she and many others became part of a new brand of feminism that looks for true equality.

One good example of this attitude towards an unequal equality, and the one that for our cause matters the most, is these feminists’ attitude toward joint custody. While they condemn men for not contributing enough in raising the kids, at the same time they demand that women should automatically have child custody following a divorce, because they have an inherent capacity to nurture children, while men do not. Young make an interesting point here: as Victorian morality believed, these feminists believe that women are the fragile guardians of good who must be placed on pedestals and protected. Young cleverly points out this "strange convergence of radical feminism and patriarchal conservatism - and the alienation of both ideologies from real life." Weirdly enough, the arguments of the Christian fundamentalist Promise Keepers and the National Organization of Women are based on the same premises.

Young believes that women and men need to learn to get along. Women have sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers. Because we have families, we cannot battle each other, we have to work together, and we have to look for each other’s wellbeing. In the final chapter of Ceasefire, Young proposes a twelve steps program for de-escalating the gender wars. These steps include:

-Do not assume sexism is the root cause of all women's problems.

-Rewrite sexual harassment law.

-Demand that husbands and wives serve as equal parents.

-Take gender politics out of the war on domestic violence.

-Stop acting as if women’s claims were more legitimate than men’s were.

In summary, the book is well written, well argued, and carefully reasoned, a book that should be read by anyone interested in real gender equality.

The Biological Necessity of Having a Father

On the webpage of the British magazine New Scientist, Linda Geddes wrote an article ironically titled “Fathers aren't dispensable just yet”, on which comments on recent research done on the biological implications of fatherhood. This research shows biochemical evidence in mice and people that suggests that fathers may play a key role in the rearing of offspring.

Several studies have already indicated the sociological and psychological effects of fatherlessnes in girls and boys. Girls reach puberty younger, become sexually active earlier and are more likely to get pregnant in their teens if their father was absent (Mairi Macleod, “Why are girls growing up so fast?”). Other studies suggest that the sons of absent fathers display lower intimacy and self-esteem.

But recent studies are indicating that fatherlessness has also physiological implications. Gabriella Gobbi at McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, studied California mice, a species on which both parents rear their offspring together. Her colleague Francis Bambico presented their findings at the World Congress of Biological Psychiatry in Paris, France, in early July.

The researchers removed the fathers from some of the mouse pups, and looked at the activity of brain cells in the prefrontal cortex, an area related to social interaction and expression of personality. Cells in pups deprived of fathers had a lower response to the hormone oxytocin, which is normally released during social interactions and pair bonding. As a result of this, fatherless mice were less interested in engaging with other mice. "Usually if you put two animals in the same cage they investigate and touch each other, but when we put two animals deprived of a father together they ignored each other," says Gobbi.

These findings are not the only ones that point out to the previously denied biological nature of fatherhood. There is evidence that when men become fathers they undergo biochemical changes that affect their behavior. Ruth Feldman of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Israel, studied 80 couples, and found that the transition to parenthood was associated with increased oxytocin both in mothers and in fathers.

Feldman also found that oxytocin has different effects in each sex. In mothers, high levels of the hormone caused them to be more engaged in gazing at the infant, affectionate touching and speaking in a sing-song voice. Fathers with high oxytocin played more with their child, who in return displayed more attachment to them.

"Fathers and mothers contribute in a very specific and different way" to infants' social and emotional development, says Feldman.

A Personal Note on Child Custody and Violence

After I got a satisfactory parenting schedule a few months ago, the new arrangement had a surprising side effect: the dialogue between my daughter’s mother and me has improved, a lot. Having solved what was our most important divide has relieved our relationship from what was its biggest stress generator. After the anger and frustration faded away, we have started to talk about parents are supposed to talk: school performance, eating habits, etc.

I would like to know if there are statistics relating domestic violence and child custody battles. I would dare to say that most of the so-called domestic violence, specially the type that ends up in death, does not occur in married couples living together, but is in fact violence generated by divorce and custody court procedures, and therefore, it would be significantly reduced if the court system and family laws protected the rights of both parties.

What just happened to me could serve of evidence of what the future could be.

Receipt Acknowledgement: On domestic Violence

I have been writing lately about domestic violence, and how the way courts deal with this issue is strongly connected to the way courts deal with father’s custody rights. Recently one of my readers, Suzane Smith, sent me an article written by her titled “10 Myths about Domestic Violence”. I encourage my readers to read this article. In her post, Smith does a great job clarifying the main misconceptions regarding domestic violence.

The Neurological Consequences of Fatherlessness

Recent scientific studies could bring light on the harmful biological effects of fatherlessness (Shirley S. Wang, “This Is Your Brain Without Dad”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754804574491811861197926.html). German biologist Anna Katharina Braun, director of the Institute of Biology at Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg, is doing research on biparental animals (animals that are typically raised by two parents), trying to understand the impact that could have on them being raised by a single parent. Dr. Braun's work focuses on degus, rodents related to guinea pigs (Note: Although it’s true that only 10 percent of all species are biparental. about 40% of mammal species, including humans, are, and over 90% of birds are).

Dr. Braun has discovered that when deprived of their father, the degu pups exhibit short- and long-term changes in nerve-cell growth in different regions of the brain. Fatherless degu pups also exhibit more aggressive and impulsive behavior than pups raised by two parents.

Dr. Braun's group found that the fatherless animals had a lesser neuronal development compared to animals raised by both parents. The neuronal differences were observed in the amygdala, which is related to emotional responses, and the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), the brain's decision-making center. A preliminary analysis of the degus' behavior showed that fatherless animals seemed to have a lack of impulse control.

The basic wiring of the degus’ brain is the same as in humans, and the nerve cells functions are identical, so we can assume that what happens in the degus’ brain when it's raised without father should be very similar to what happens in our children's brain when they are under the same circumstances.

Another researcher, Xia Zhang, senior scientist at the University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research, has studied voles, rodents that also naturally co-parent, and found that voles deprived of their fathers exhibited more anxious behaviors and were less social than the ones raised by two parents.

The current tendency towards single-parent households has researchers looking at consequences for children (just 57% of children in the U.S. live with both parents, among the lowest percentages of the world's richest nations).

The research has found that children in single-parent households have an increased risk of delinquency, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and poorer scholastic performance. Robert Franklin, on his comments on Dr. Braun’s findings (“Fatherlessness in animals”, http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4335), writes:

“Do human children raised without fathers exhibit similar differences in neuronal growth? Certainly the sociology that deals with children of single-parent families clearly shows the behavioral damage fatherlessness can do. Would it be a surprise that physiological changes in the brain were at the root of those sets of behavior long recognized by sociologists?”

On “Divorced from Reality” by Baskerville (2 of 2)

This is the second and final article on Stephen Baskerville, “Divorced from Reality”.

Baskerville believes that the child abuse “epidemic” is almost entirely the creation of radical feminism and the welfare bureaucracies. He quotes evidence that proves that an intact family is the safest place for women and children, and that very little abuse takes place in married families. Child abuse and domestic violence overwhelmingly occurs in homes from which the father has been removed. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), children of single parents have a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse, an 87% greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect, and an 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents. And according to Britain ’s Family Education Trust, children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a single-parent home than in an intact family. Baskerville writes:

“The principal impediment to child abuse is thus precisely the figure whom the welfare and divorce bureaucracies are intent on removing: the father.”

It is not married fathers, but single mothers who are most likely to injure or kill their children. Research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household. Mothers accounted for 55 percent of all child murders. Women ages 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of child maltreatment: and since male perpetrators are not usually fathers but boyfriends or stepfathers, fathers emerge as by far the least likely child abusers.

In family courts, false allegations of child abuse and domestic violence are routine, and used almost always for purposes of breaking up families, securing child custody, and eliminating fathers. These false accusations are virtually never punished, and as a result of them, protective orders separating parents from their children are issued without any evidence during divorce proceedings.

There is a cruel political rationale behind all this government family-destruction machinery. Bureaucracies expand by creating the very problem they exist to address. By eliminating the father, government officials can present themselves as the solution to the problem they have created. The more child abuse there is, the more justification the government has to expand the child abuse bureaucracy.

Judges create the most dangerous environment for children when they remove fathers in custody proceedings, and they do it because they know they will never be held accountable for any harm that may come to the children. As Baskerville writes:

“On the contrary, if they do not remove the fathers, they may be punished by the bar associations and social work bureaucracies whose funding depends on a constant supply of abused children.”

The figure of the “deadbeat dad” is another result of hysteria manufactured by the divorce machinery. Fathers are less likely to abandon offspring than to be involuntarily divorced fathers who have been “forced to finance the filching of his own children.” Originally a method of recovering welfare costs, child support is now a “massive federal subsidy on middle-class divorce.” If no-fault divorce allowed a mother to divorce her husband for no reason and to take the children with her, child support allows the divorcing mother to use the now-fatherless children to claim her ex-husband’s money, money that she may spend however she wishes with no accounting requirement, and if he refuses to pay, he could be incarcerated without trial.

Child support finances family dissolution by paying mothers to divorce: it’s “an incentive for divorce by the custodial mother.” Evidence shows that only one-fifth to one-third of child-support payments is actually used for the children, the rest is profit for the custodial parent. Furthermore, mothers are not the only ones who profit from child support. State governments receive federal funds for every child-support dollar collected, what gives states a financial incentive to create as many single-parent households as possible by encouraging divorce. Baskerville writes:

“This is why state governments set child support at onerous levels. Not only does it immediately maximize their own revenues; by encouraging middle-class women to divorce, governments increase the number of fathers sending dollars through their systems, thus generating more revenue.”

The logical conclusion of this draws a terrible picture of how the power structure works:

“All this marks a new stage in the evolution of the welfare state: from distributing largesse to raising revenue and, from there, to law enforcement. The result is a self-financing machine, generating profits and expanding the size and scope of government—all by generating single-parent homes and fatherless children. Government has created a perpetual growth machine for destroying families, seizing children from legally blameless parents, and incarcerating parents without trial.”

Finally, Baskerville, an Anglican, accuses the church of refusing to protect the marriages it has consecrated, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the state. He believes that family structure will be restored when the church takes families out of the hands of the state, does what is supposed to do by helping them to survive, and protects them from government intervention.

Again, I insist the the readers should read the full article. Every father who has been a victim of the family court system should.

On Baskerville’s “Divorced from Reality” (1 of 2)

In the January/February of 2009 issue of the Christian magazine Touchstone, Stephen Baskerville published the article “Divorced from Reality” (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-01-019-f), on the family crisis in the US. I would like to summarize its content, but strongly recommend my readers to read the full text, due to to the extension and depth of Baskersville’s analysis on the issues discussed.

According to the author, the decline of the family structure has reached dangerous proportions, and it is the major source of social instability in the Western world, and a major threat to civic freedom and constitutional government. Quoting G. K. Chesterton, he sustains that the family structure serves as the principal check on government power, and that today family and state confront one another as the primary social organizing factor. He believes that today’s divorce laws are used by the state to erode family primacy, and to enhance its own power as social control. He writes:

“Indeed, many are devastated to discover that they can be forced into divorce by procedures entirely beyond their control. Divorce authorizes unprecedented government intrusion into family life, including the power to sunder families, seize children, loot family wealth, and incarcerate parents without trial. Comprised of family courts and vast, federally funded social services bureaucracies that wield what amount to police powers, the divorce machinery has become the most predatory and repressive sector of government ever created in the United States and is today’s greatest threat to constitutional freedom.”

Baskerville’s main concern are the laws regulating “no fault divorce”. When four decades ago laws were passed to legalize “no fault” divorces, these laws enabled the government, at the request of one spouse, to dissolve a marriage over the objection of the other. Divorce today, he states, seldom involves two people mutually deciding to part ways, but are unilateral in nature, prevailing over the objection of one spouse. He writes:

“Under “no-fault,” or what some call “unilateral,” divorce—a legal regime that expunged all considerations of justice from the procedure—divorce becomes a sudden power grab by one spouse, assisted by an army of judicial hangers-on who reward belligerence and profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, counselors, mediators, custody evaluators, social workers, and more.”

Unilateral divorce generates political and costitutional problems because by its nature, it requires constant government supervision over family life. Divorce expands government power because it involves state functionaries to enforce the divorce and the post-divorce order.

The implications of unilateral divorce are terrible: it allows the government to remove innocent people (usually fathers) from their homes, to seize their property, and to separate them from their children, even if they are innocent of any legal wrongdoing. The state seizes control of his children with no burden of proof to justify why; the burden of proof (and the financial burden demanded by it) falls on him. Baskerville writes:

“By far the most serious consequences involve children, who have become the principal weapons of the divorce machinery. Invariably the first action of a divorce court, once a divorce is filed, is to separate the children from one of their parents, usually the father. Until this happens, no one in the machinery acquires any power or earnings. The first principle and first action of divorce court therefore: Remove the father.”

The divorce machinery can take an respectable parent, block him for seeing his own children without government authorization, arrest him for failure to conform to a variety of additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him; arrest him for domestic violence or child abuse, even if no evidence is presented that he has committed any; arrest him for not paying child support, even if the amount exceeds his means; he can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or a psychotherapist he has not hired.

The growth of the divorce machinery has generated a series of hysterias against fathers so hideous that no one dares to defend those accused: child abuse and molestation, wife-beating, and nonpayment of child support. The accused of these offenses, even in the absence of any formal charge, evidence, or conviction, loses his children and is isolated from everyone, since no one wants to be associated with a “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.”

An while all these happens, there is no evidence that the family crisis is caused significantly by fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children, but there is irrefutable evidence indicating that this crisis “is driven almost entirely by divorce courts forcibly separating parents from their children and using these false accusations as a rationalization.”

Thanksgiving 2009

This week we celebrate Thanksgiving Day, the day which we believers dedicate to remember and give thanks God’s gifts. This year I have many things to be grateful for.

I thank God for my family, my brother Carlos, my sister-in-law Nydia, and my nephews Carlitos and Luisito, because they haven been my support during this long and difficult odyssey.

I thank God for the important advancements of the father’s rights movement throughout the whole world.

I thank God because, after such a long wait and so much struggle, He moved all the pieces on the chess table so I could have parenting schedule with my daughter that, although is not perfect, is far more fair than the former one.

I thank God because my daughter Sofía Isabel already knows that she is adopted, and has received the new with surprise and joy.

And above all, I thank God for having the daughter that I have, the reason and engine of all my struggles.

Thanks God.

False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome

Written by David Heleniak

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child, through manipulation and access blocking, to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent. PAS is more than brainwashing, in that the child comes to actively participate in the degradation of the target parent, coming up with original (often ludicrous) reasons to fear/hate him or her.

Domestic violence (DV) restraining orders are a perfect weapon for an alienating parent. Typically, in addition to removing an accused abuser from the marital home, a DV restraining order also “temporarily” bars the accused abuser from seeing his or her children, and “temporarily” gives the accusing parent exclusive physical custody. And temporary, in the Family Court, has a funny way of becoming permanent.

Obtaining a restraining order based on a false allegation of domestic violence gets the target parent out of the house and out of the picture. A father who can’t see his kids, for example, is unable to rebut the lie “Daddy doesn’t love you anymore. That’s why he left you.” Nor can he rebut the alternate lie, “Daddy is dangerous. The wise judge said so. That’s why he can’t see you.”

Often, if an accused abuser is allowed to see his or her children, it is in a supervised visitation center. As Stan Rains observed in “Supervised Visitation Center Dracula,” “The demeaning of the ‘visiting’ parent is readily visible from the minute that a person enters the ‘secured facility’ with armed guards, officious case workers with their clipboards and arrogant, domineering managers.... The child's impression is that all of these authority figures see Daddy as a serious and dangerous threat. The only time a child sees this type of security is on TV showing prisons filled with bad people.” Not only does visitation in a visitation center send the clear message to the child that the “visiting” parent is a bad person, if children decline to see their parents under such a setting, they are generally not forced to do so. More perversely, if a child is encouraged by the custodial parent to refuse to see the target parent, there will be no significant repercussion to the targeting parent, and, generally, the child will not be forced to see the target parent.

The more time a child spends away from the alienated parent, the worse the alienation will become. As psychologist Glenn F. Cartwright remarked in his article “Expanding the Parameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome,” “the old adage that time heals all wounds, such is not the case with PAS, where the passage of time worsens rather than heals the affliction. This is not to say that time is unimportant: on the contrary, time remains a vital variable for all the players. To heal the relationship, the child requires quality time with the lost parent to continue and repair the meaningful association that may have existed since birth. This continued communication also serves as a reality check for the child to counter the effects of ongoing alienation at home. Likewise, the lost parent needs time with the child to ensure that contact is not completely lost and to prevent the alienation from completely destroying what may be left of a normal, loving relationship.... The alienating parent, on the other hand, requires time to complete the brainwashing of the child without interference. The manipulation of time becomes the prime weapon in the hands of the alienator who uses it to structure, occupy, and usurp the child's time to prevent ‘contaminating’ contact with the lost parent, depriving both of their right to spend time together and furthering the goal of total alienation. Unlike cases of child abuse where time away from the abuser sometimes helps in repairing a damaged relationship, in PAS time away from the lost parent furthers the goal of alienation. The usual healing properties of time are lost when it is used as the primary weapon to inflict injury on the lost parent by alienating the child.” Along these lines, Dr. Richard A. Gardner, who coined the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in 1985, maintained: “If there is to be any hope of their reestablishing a relationship with the targeted parent, PAS children must spend significant time with him (her). They must have living experiences that will demonstrate that the PAS parent is not noxious and/or dangerous.”

A parent willing to falsely accuse the other parent of domestic violence would probably be willing to poison a child against him or her. Add to this the problem that a judge willing to “err on the side of caution” by entering a DV restraining order based on a dubious false allegation would probably not be willing to do what was necessary to prevent the development of PAS.

PAS is heart-wrenching and, tragically, common. If the DV restraining order system could be reformed so that only real victims obtained restraining orders and only real abusers were thrown out of their houses, I predict that the number of PAS cases would be greatly reduced. Let’s try to get there.

Connecticut Takes a Step to Protect Men’s Rights

The basic principle of due process is that a defendant whose rights the state wants to limit is entitled to notice of the charge against him/her and a hearing before an impartial arbiter. But in the area of domestic violence law, those two basic rights are usually ignored. The mere allegation of domestic violence can be enough to deprive a person of constitutional rights (refer to my two previous posts).

Connecticut resident Fernando A., whose full name is not released in court records, was divorcing when his wife fabricated the attack story to gain leverage in family court proceedings. He never got a chance to object to the order of protection issued against him that removed him from his house and prevented him from seeing his children. His lawyer, Steven D. Ecker, of Hartford’s Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy, asked for an evidentiary hearing, but Superior Court Judge James Bingham denied the request. Ecker then challenged the denial up to the state Supreme Court.

The Connecticut Supreme Court then ruled an opinion in which states that, in order to award a restriction order, a defendant must be granted an evidentiary hearing at which the state must consider both sides of the story and must prove, by the civil standard of a preponderance of evidence, that the order is necessary. The defendant may testify or present witnesses, and may cross-examine any witnesses against him. The order may be issued initially on little evidence and with no notice to the defendant, leaving the defendant with no opportunity to defend himself, but that order can now remain in force only for a "reasonable" period of time (what constitutes a reasonable time remains gray area).

This is small but very important step towards a fair treatment of those who are accused of domestic violence, which in turn is a step towards a fair custody awarding system, because, as we all know, domestic violence accusations are one of the instruments most commonly used to block fathers from having custody and visitation rights.

This court opinion has its setbacks. Judges have an extremely broad discretion and can emit restriction orders based on little evidence, relying only on the written materials and hearsay to continue their restriction order. How long a defendant may be deprived of his home, his belongings, access to his children, bank accounts, etc., is not specified. The standard of proof required is, instead of the more restrictive criminal standard, the civil one of "preponderance of the evidence," which means that if the prosecution produces barely more than half of the evidence submitted to court, it wins and the defendant's children may face an indefinite time apart from him.

Again: this is a small step, but a small step in the right direction. Hopefully, this Connecticut court opinion will serve as a deterrent against false accusations and as a shield to protect men’s basic constitutional rights. Hopefully this court opinion will save many men from living in constant fear and intimidation.

Review of “The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act” by David N. Heleniak. Part 2 of 2

Last week I started a discussion on David N. Heleniak’s text on the terrible legal implications of New Jersey’s “Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.” Today I will focus on his concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. At a 1995 seminar for municipal judges, Judge Richard Russell of Ocean City, N.J., was caught on tape giving the following advice:

“Our job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order, (…) They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don't have to worry about the rights."

Judge Russell’s attitude reflects the general attitude that many family courts judges have towards men. This blatant disregard of constitutional rights has a clear expression in the Act under discussion. Among the deficiencies that make the Act unconstitutional are:

1 - The lack of notice: The Act requires that a summary hearing has to be held within ten days of the filing of the complaint, to determine whether the allegations in the complaint occurred. Ten days is not enough time to prepare a defense. A wife willing to commit perjury can spend years with her lawyer planning to file a domestic violence complaint at an opportune moment in order to gain the upper hand in a divorce proceeding, while the accused husband has only ten days to get ready.

2 - The denial of the right to free counsel: The Act does not provide for the free assistance of counsel for poor defendants, which added to the fact that they have only ten days to prepare their defense, reduces dramatically their chances of a fair trial.

3 - The denial of the right to take depositions: The deposition is usually the most important discovery tool during a trial. During deposition, a defendant's attorney can corroborate the veracity of the plaintiff’s assertions. In a restriction order hearing, a defendant is deprived of this discovery tool because, according to the Chancery Division, allowing the “…alleged perpetrator to depose a victim, (…) perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” Defendant is therefore unable to anticipate all of the things the plaintiff says at the hearing, is unable to analyze her version of the events alleged in the complaint prior to the hearing, and is unable to test the veracity of her testimony.

4 - An improper standard of proof: The Penal Code treats domestic violence complaints as something other than a criminal offense. The result is that family courts can circumvent the protections normally accorded for an accused in a criminal case, including the right to due process of law, and to a trial by jury.

5 - The denial of the right to a trial by jury: The trial by jury is necessary for preventing the abuse of judiciary power. The fathers of the constitution, reluctant to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges, insisted that the truth of every accusation should be confirmed by the suffrage of his equals. In our constitutional framework, the jury is expected to serve the people by checking the judge, by protecting us against arbitrary actions by courts. By denying the defendant of his right of a jury trial, the Act denies him of one of the most basic constitutional rights.

In summary, the Act is unconstitutional because it denies defendants due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But as we have seen, the Act does precisely that.

And as Heleniak writes, the protection of women does not justify the surrender of civil rights.

Review of "The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act" by David N. Heleniak. Part 1 of 2

David N. Heleniak is an attorney in New Jersey. Holding a MA degree in Theological and Religious Studies from Drew University, he is the vice president of RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), a non-profit organization that works to improve the effectiveness of the approach to domestic violence (http://www.mediaradar.org) and the senior legal analyst for True Equality Network, a group dedicated to educating on how the failures of numerous federal programs and the abuses of federal funding systems affect the sovereignty of the American family (http://www.true-equality.org).

He is the author of several works, one of which is titled The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, published in the Spring of 2005 issue of Rutgers Law Review, adaptations of which were published in the New Jersey Law Journal, New Jersey Lawyer, and The Liberator, America's Shared Parenting Quarterly (PDF: http://www.njccr.org/Articles/Heleniak2006NewStarChamber.pdf) (Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwsgT_Yu008). It is this text that I want to summarize on this and next week posts.

The text starts with a disturbing quote by Dean Roscoe Pound: "The powers of the star chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile courts and courts of domestic relations." From there, Heleniak develops an exposé on how the family court system, particularly in New Jersey, violates basic constitutional rights.

The title of the text refers to the Star Chamber, so named because of the star pattern painted on the ceiling of the room in Westminster Palace, where the king of England's council met, that was intended to be a more efficient alternative to the common-law courts, but that in fact, it became the embodiment of unfair judicial proceedings. Heleniak argues that through The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, the New Jersey Legislature has been allowed to create, in the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, a modern day Star Chamber.

The Act permits a self-proclaimed victim to file a complaint alleging the commission of an act of domestic violence, and to request a temporary restraining order. If the court determines that an act of domestic violence has occurred, it can authorize any of the following reliefs:

- An order giving the plaintiff exclusive possession of the marital home.

- An order requiring the defendant to make mortgage or rent payments.

- An order restraining the defendant from making contact with the plaintiff.

- Temporary custody of a minor child.

- The suspension of parenting time for the defendant or limitation of visitation to supervised visitations.

- Monetary compensation for losses suffered by the plaintiff to be paid for by the defendant.

- An order requiring the defendant to receive professional domestic violence help.

- An order requiring the defendant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

- The award of temporary custody of personal property, such as an automobile, checkbook, and other personal effects of the defendant.

The Act also provides for imprisonment for any person convicted of a second or subsequent nonindictable domestic violence contempt. As it is easy to see, the potential for abuse of the Act is immense. The advantages of a restraining order to the complainant are a temptation hard to resist: exclusive possession of the home, temporary and probably permanent sole custody of the children, and the opportunity to make the other person’s life miserable.

The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act authorizes a chancery judge to bar a defendant from ever setting foot in his house again, yet make him pay the mortgage payments; make him pay large sums of money to the plaintiff; bar him from seeing his children; force him to see a psychologist and/or psychiatrist against his will; temporarily give the plaintiff exclusive possession of the defendant's car, checkbook, and other personal effects; bar the defendant from ever speaking to any individual that the plaintiff does not want him to speak to; force him to turn any firearms he has and bar him from ever possessing another firearm in his life; and make the defendant pay a "civil penalty" of $500.00, and if the defendant refuses to comply with any aspect of the judge's order, he can be tried for contempt and imprisoned. Lastly, he is labeled an abuser and his name is put on a list of domestic abusers known as the New Jersey Judiciary's Domestic Violence Central Registry, a societal stigma that will follow him the rest of his life.

Knowing all this, it should not be a surprise that in many divorce cases, allegations of abuse are used for tactical advantage.

British Conservatives and Joint Custody

Robert Franklin published in the online men’s journal Men’s News Daily (http://mensnewsdaily.com) an article titled “British Tories Favor Shared Parenting After Breakup” (http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2009/10/13/british-tories-favor-shared-parenting-after-breakup/), on the support of British conservatives of public policies that favor joint custody.

Tim Loughton, UK Shadow Children's Minister, said at a meeting hosted by the charity consortium Kids in the Middle, that his party (the Conservative and Unionist Party, “Tories”) preferred a system that presumed shared parenting following divorce, even if the couples could not reach an agreement and needed mediation to do so. Loughton said:

"At the moment we have got an incredibly adversarial system when parents split up. It is crazy we have so many acrimonious cases. (…) From the start of the process there should be a default mechanism for shared responsibility unless there is a welfare reason not to."

His comments come as a reaction to the growing concerns in British society over the adverse impact of conflict between parents on children. Several issues compound these concerns:

-The generalized rejection to the current adversarial nature of divorce processes.

- The growing acceptance of a presumption of equally shared parenting for custody awards.

- The understanding of the importance of mediation in divorce processes.

-The generalized idea that both parents should be involved in their children’s education.

Even though there is no concrete law project in favor of joint custody in the United Kingdom, the fact that the powerful Tory Party favors joint custody should be considered a milestone in the attainment of one. This should be read as a sign of the profound transformations that family relations and gender roles are undergoing in many countries around the world, transformations that in the end will bring healthier families, happier children, and stronger communities.

I would like to finish this post quoting the last paragraph of the article, on which, after mentioning all the possible barriers against the concretion of a pro-joint custody law in the United Kingdom, says:

“But those are all things to be dealt with, to be fought over when the time comes. Final victory never comes; movement toward greater father-child bonds is always a work in progress. It is now and always will be a process of becoming.”

Colombia: A Law in Favor of Joint Custody and Against False Accusations

The webpage of the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo, published last October 15th of 2009 an article by Andrea Linares Gómez titled “Pérdida de custodia por falsa denuncia o si un padre daña imagen del otro, plantea proyecto de ley” (“Law Project Proposes Loss of Custody for False Accusations or If a Parent Damages Image of the Other). (http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/justicia/perdida-de-custodia-por-falsa-denuncia-o-si-un-padre-dana-la-imagen-de-otro-plantea-proyecto-de-ley_6335647-1). The article discusses the law project that wants to establish joint custody in Colombia. This project responds to a tendency in Colombian society. According to family judge Ana Lucía Suárez, although in the majority of cases is the mother who wants the children’s custody, more fathers ask for it with more frequency.

It is always good news knowing that another country joins the world trend in favor of joint custody, especially if that country is as important and has such an influence as Colombia. However, what catches my attention is that the project establishes that if one of the parents damages his/her children’s image of the other parent or makes malicious sexual abuse accusations against the noncustodial parent, that parent will lose custody of the children. The project also provides for taking custody rights from any parent who physically abuse his/her children.

Federico Cardona, president of the Colombian organization Fundación Primero la Infancia (Infants First Foundation), that gathers noncustodial fathers and mothers, states that false accusations are the most common problem among separated couples. These false accusations are used as an instrument to alienate the other parent from his/her children and to create in them a negative image of the noncustodial parent. This dynamic, as we all already know, is typical in Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) cases.

The problem of false accusations during custody disputes is a very serious one. In countries like Puerto Rico and Chile, the phenomenon reaches epidemical proportions. The main reason of this proliferation of false accusations is precisely its impunity: in family courts, anyone can accuse another of any atrocity, knowing that courts, with the excuse of protecting minors, will ban any contact between the accused and his/her children, knowing also that when accusations are proved false, the bond between children and the absent parent would have been weakened, and the accuser will not be liable for his/her malicious accusations. The achievement of this piece of legislation is that, as many pro joint custody groups have been asking for a long time, at last would exist a juridical figure through which the malicious accuser could be brought to court and be judged.

I hope that this pro joint custody law will be approved in Colombia, and that other Latin-American countries follow this example.

Signe Wilkinson, Fatherlessness, and Schools

Signe Wilkinson (born in 1959 in Texas) is an editorial cartoonist best known for her work at The Washington Post and the Philadelphia Daily News. She was the first female cartoonist to win the Pulitzer Prize in 1992. She was served as president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists from 1994-1995.

In one of her cartoons, published last September 29th (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4273), on which she depicts a classroom where every student chair has been labeled with one of the causes of American school system failure, and the most prominent has been labeled with the word “Dadless”. The fact that such a mainstream voice points out fatherlessness as one of the factors of the current school system debacle (right now, the US schools’ performance compares to those of third world countries) is an achievement in itself, but that that voice points in as the most relevant, is a true accomplishment.

We teachers know (I was an elementary school teacher for nineteen years) that schools are microcosms of the communities and societies where they stand. It is true that fatherlessness is one of the main social sources of student failure at schools, it is also true that fatherlessness is one of the sources of failure in life for so many children who have been risen without their fathers.

Very recently, the Sundance Channel aired a five episodes series titled “Brick City,” on the current struggle to revitalize the once extremely vital, now extremely violent city of Newark. In one of the most telling scenes, a teacher, in a classroom full of high school boys, asked them to raise their hand if they had little or no contact with their fathers; the vast majority raised their hands.

There is an admonition in this: If we want our societies to fail, the only thing that we have to do is to remove fathers from the lives of their children. But if what we want is give our world a chance to succeed and survive, let us allow that fathers to be an integral part of the lives of their children.

We, the believers in joint custody, have already chosen what we want.

What Would Happen If The Fathers Sue?

I recently read the article “Dad Gets Custody; Sues Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services and DV Shelter” (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4209) by Robert Franklin, Esq. This article is worth reading, due to its particular approach to the problem of domestic violence and to what Franklin calls the “domestic violence industry.”

Domestic violence is an extremely delicate matter. On one hand, domestic violence is a real problem that is suffered by both genders and that causes numerous deaths every year. On the other hand, during child custody disputes, domestic violence accusations (along with sexual misconduct) are often used as means to exclude one of the parents from their children’s lives and to eradicate from the process any chance of fair treatment. Because many divorcing parents know that courts follow the official policy of “shoot now, ask later,” they accuse the other parent of domestic violence to isolate them from their children. And since making false accusations is a crime everywhere except in family courts, the accuser knows that even when the accusations are proven false and malicious, even when in many times the other parent has done time in jail, nothing will happen to them and they would have achieved their goal of planting a physical and temporal barrier between the other parent and his/her children.

It is from the acknowledgement of this complexity that Franklin’s article should be read. The article starts stating Franklin’s concerns regarding the way battered women shelters deal with the problem of domestic violence. Quoting a study done in Germany, he sustains that many shelters work as centers of radical feminism indoctrination, where they teach women that only men are perpetrators and only women are victims. That view assumes that domestic violence is a political act of power and oppression, not the result of a psychological disorder. These shelters, more than making an effort to actually help victims, their goal is often the separation, whether by divorce or otherwise, of the woman and her husband/partner.

Is in this context that the case of Crystal Hall should be understood. Mrs. Hall, who suffers from a form of mental/emotional/psychological impairment, contacted Safenet Services, a shelter for victims of domestic violence in Oklahoma, claiming that she and her five children had been abused by her husband, James Hall. Safenet, through its executive director, Donna Grabow, suggested her divorce as the only solution to her situation, telling her that the court would be sympathetic to a woman claiming abuse.

Over the course of 28 months, Mr. Hall underwent seven evaluations by various state agencies, all of which found him to be a fit and loving father with no evidence of abuse of either his wife or his children. The court ordered the children placed in his custody and further ordered his wife to pay child support, given that she is mentally capable of, and is in fact, working.

Since this ordeal started, there has been no discernible improvement in Mrs. Hall's psychological health, and she has become seriously co-dependent on Grabow and Safenet, who come to her house three times each day, seven days each week to make sure she takes her medication. Furthermore, although the court granted her visitation rights, Mrs. Hall has made no effort to visit her children for over a year. Even more worrying is the fact that the Oklahoma family court judge has forbidden Safenet staff from contacting the Hall children, who feel harassed by the organization.

Franklin assess Hall case as the case of “a mentally unstable woman who fell into the hands of a more or less typical DV shelter.” Because the shelter religiously followed the ideology of men are abusers and women are victims, they accepted unquestioningly Mrs. Hall’s claims, and urged her to divorce with the promise of the custody of her children. And from then, the mess that followed.

Now Mr. Hall has filed a civil suit for damages against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Safenet Services, Inc. and Donna Grabow. I have always wondered what would happen to the family courts system if the fathers who suffered their abuse counterattack with legal actions, not against their spouses as they usually do, but against the court system itself. Mr. Hall is probably one of the firsts, if not the first, of a new breed of fathers that should propagate fast.

Tom and Rita’s Story

I have written before about the evils of parental kidnapping, and how it is used as a weapon against parents who have won joint or full custody of their children. The gloomy procession of heart-breaking stories is never-ending: parents who have their lives destroyed because one day their children just disappeared, taken away in an act of vengeance and hate; children taken from their homes, taken to other states, other countries even, many times with their names and identities changed, children who lost one of their parents forever, unnatural orphans of living parents.

Because most of these stories have a sad ending, finding one with a happy conclusion is an uplifting experience. Recently I found one of those stories (Cabbie Hailed for Donating Kidney).

Tom Chappell, a Phoenix, Arizona cab driver, had to drive for the same always bad-humored client for a period of two months. Every time this client, named Rita, called the agency for a taxi, it was Tom who was dispatched. But when he realized that he was always driving Rita to a medical office to receive dialysis, he understood that her constant bad humor was the result of a severe kidney condition and the therapy she had to undertake in order to survive.

When he learned that Rita needed a kidney transplant, and that none of her friends or family was a suitable donor, Tom offered himself as a donor. Although Rita believed that Tom probably would not be a match, the required tests were run, and when the results came back, as Tom quotes, the doctors told them that “…if it was any closer we’d be siblings”.

Two important things resulted from this experience. First, that the surgery is planned for later this year and Rita will have the kidney that she so desperately needs. Second and most important, through the tests that were done for the transplant they discovered that the closeness between Tom and Rita was not accidental: they are father and daughter. Thirty years ago, after an ugly divorce, Tom’s ex wife took their daughter and disappeared. Now, thirty years after, and thanks to Tom’s act of generosity, father and daughter found each other precisely in a moment when, in Tom’s words, part of the reason he offered Rita his kidney in the first place is because he figured he did not have a whole lot more to live for anyway. But as he told Rita, “This has not just given you a new life. It’s given me another life.”

Never give up. Never lose hope.

The Poisoned Well

These days, life has reminded me, in a violent way as it always does to me, that struggles like mine never end, that every overcome test is nothing more that the preparation for a bigger test, that every battle won is nothing more that the preamble for a greater battle, more brutal, bloodier.

Life is a hard and unending training.

I say this, because as many that have been or are now in my situation have already discovered, solving in court the problem of the custody of our children is not the end of the war, but the beginning of an incessant sequence of big and small skirmishes, which only purpose is to sabotage the initial victory, to prove that joint custody does not work by making sure that it will not work (and so think the evil ones: if we suspect that our prophecy will not be fulfilled, we will force its fulfillment).

I say this, because in the same fashion of the wars of antiquity, on which and army poisoned the water that would be drunk by the other one, so many people, when they lose the sole custody of their children and see themselves forced to share it with their ex-spouse, from that moment on they commit themselves to provoke, to defy, to make the other parent’s life as miserable as possible.

I say this, because we cannot give up.

Always Dad, by Paul Mandelstein

The book Always Dad: Being a Great Father During & After Divorce, by Paul Mandelstein, is a very useful book for divorced fathers. Finalist for The Publishers Marketing Associations Benjamin Franklin Award, this book aspires to be a guide for those fathers who want to remain being fathers during and after divorce.

Mandelstein, a divorced father of three, founded in 1999 the nonprofit organization Father Resource Network (www.father.com), where he serves as chairman and executive director. This network helps divorced fathers, facilitating workshops and lectures focused on fatherhood in the 21st century.

In his book Always Dad, Mandelstein distills his years of experience working with divorced fathers into down-to-earth ideas and strategies to guide fathers to continue playing a crucial role in their children's lives.

Following is a summary of the chapters of the book:

Introduction - Lemons into Lemonade: Divorce as a chance for growth as a persona and as a father.

Chapter One - Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: On keeping healthy bonds with our children after divorce.

Chapter Two - Creating Your New Home: On how to make a new home and how to make room in it for your kids.

Chapter Three - Daily Life as a Single Dad: A typical day in the life of a single dad.

Chapter Four - The Non-custodial Dance: Establishing the grounds for raising children in two different homes. Earning the trust of your children in the new situation.

Chapter Five - Ex-Communications: 10 Ways to Make Talking to Your Ex Easier: Advice on how to communicate with your ex.

Chapter Six - Settling Up: Legal and Custody Issues.

Chapter Seven - Let's Get Real About the Kids: On becoming the parent you want to be for your kids.

Chapter Eight - Keeping Yourself Together: On recognizing and managing stress and depression.

Chapter Nine - Birthdays and Holidays: Tips for sharing birthdays and holidays with your ex.

Chapter Ten - Kids, Friends, Dating, and Lovers: On how to start dating again, and how doing this relates to your kids and your ex.

Chapter Eleven - Taking a Chance on Love Again: On remarriage and blending the new families.

Shared Parenting, by Burrett and Green

Jill Burrett, a psychologist who helps divorced parents as a counselor and mediator, and Michael Green, a lawyer who runs a private mediation practice, have published the book Shared Parenting: Raising Your Child Cooperatively After Separation.

These two experts, each one with over 30 years of experience, wrote this book as an handbook for separated or divorced parents who want to develop a a successful shared parenting strategy. The authors emphasize the importance of children having significant time with both parents so they can maintain meaningful relationships.

They cite supporting research, which indicates how important it is for children to continue healthy relationships with their parents after family breakdown. They sustain that once a good shared parenting arrangement is working, all the parties involved receive emotional benefits: mothers becoming more comfortable with sharing the children, fathers learn to be truly involved in their children lives, and children are happy for being able to be with both parents. The authors write:

“We don’t think fortnightly weekend parenting is meaningful shared parenting. We think that shared parenting means having real chunks of time engaged with your children for a flexible 35–50 percent or more of their available time.

Sole-mother ‘custody’, with mother doing all the parenting and father merely paying the bills and popping into the kids’ lives from time to time, isn’t really good enough for children – and often not for mothers – in either separated or ‘intact’ family situations”.

Some of the most interesting chapters of the book are:

Chapter 1 Parenting after separation: Shared parenting can produce happier children and more satisfied parents; a few guidelines for making it work.

Chapter 5 Sorting out your motives: How parent’s feelings can interfere with their parenting, and how they can get past their hurt and anger and focus on approaches that will benefit their children.

Chapter 8 Designing a parenting plan: How to design your own parenting plan.

Chapter 9 Sample parenting plans.

Chapter 10 Communicating between households: Tips for communication between divorced parents.

This book than can help all of us who have shared parenting schedules and want them to be successful.

The Absence of Agreement between Parents Is Not a Valid Reason to Deny Joint Custody

Many divorced parents reject the concept of joint custody, and there are many of them who not only reject joint custody, but who also reject arrangements that are usual in sole custody cases. In Pascale v. Pascale (140 N.J. 583, 1995), the case that led to a revision of the child support guidelines in New Jersey, established that:

…many traditional custody arrangements… will include more than one night of parenting a week for the secondary caretaker of the children. 140 N.J. 611 (1995)

These parents reject even what would be considered a small variation of the traditional arrangement. Having said this, it should be said that in Beck v. Beck, the landmark joint custody case in New Jersey, the mother also rejected the idea of a joint custody arrangement, but that fact was not an obstacle to grant joint custody. To the objections to a court ordered joint custody, Dr. Clark, one of the experts used as consultants, replied that:

…the ideal joint custody arrangement would be one arrived at by agreement between parties. Nevertheless, in the absence of such an agreement, joint custody could successfully be carried out by Court decree, provided the parents put the best interest of the children first and were provided with certain “ground rules” governing the custody arrangement. 86 N.J. 492 (1981)

If both parents are responsible parents, joint custody will work, no matter if this arrangement has been ordered by court. Beck v. Beck dissipates any doubt that a court ordered joint custody could arise:

Although joint custody may be less likely to succeed if ordered by the Court than if achieved by the parent’s agreement, court-ordered joint custody is likely to be no more prone to failure than court-ordered sole custody following a divorce custody proceeding. 86 N.J. 498 (1981)

What the child will gain from a joint custody arrangement is so much, and what this child would lose in a sole custody arrangement is so much, that the Court should put all its effort to lead the divorcing parents to a joint custody arrangement, even if one of them disagrees.

Rhonda Gale

I recently read the blog post titled “Dads Are Winning Custody of their Children” by Rhonda Gale (http://mother-2-mother.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html), on which, with admirable motherly spirit and solidarity, celebrates the recent advancements of fathers on the matter of the custody of their children, and points out in a brief but accurate way the factors that have allowed this achievements to happen.

Two things called my attention in a special manner. First, that the author of the text is a woman that writes in a blog for women. Many times, we the men who fight for the cause of joint custody, tend to forget that there are many women who are also fighting for the cause, women who are wives, grandmothers, aunts, friends, in summary, women who although are not fathers, see and suffer the harmful effects that the current family laws have in their children and their families.

Second, it surprised me the simplicity and the clarity with which Gale enumerates those causes of the advancements of fathers and children rights. I now summarize those that I consider more important:

• Fathers are becoming more involved in their children's upbringing.

• Fathers are educating themselves on how to win the custody of their children, convincing the judge that they are just as fit as mothers are.

• Fathers are using their intelligence and emotional stability to win their cases.

• More men are willing to invest the money on attorney fees preparing for the legal battle.

• Men are forming support groups and learning from other fathers who have won custody of their children.

Take note.

Rejoice with me!

My friends:

God has visited me, again.

You all know how much I have fought for the joint custody of my daughter Sofía.
Last July 17 of 2009 I went court again, and although the judge did not grant me joint custody, he added another overnight a week to the one that I already have, what makes the current parenting schedule a de facto joint custody arrangement. From next week on, Sofía will have dinner with me on Tuesdays and go to her mom’s house afterward, and on Thursdays, I will pick her up at school and will bring her to her mom’s house on Saturday night.

The judge also awarded me vacation time, which I did not had until today (now I can visit my family in Puerto Rico), and at my request, the judge set a schedule to start disclosing to Sofía the fact that she is adopted, an issue that really worried me.

I want to point out two things that should be remarked. First, that during the hearing, both my attorney and the judge acknowledged the major advancements of fathers’ rights in recent years. Although it is true that these changes have not come at the speed that we would like them to come, they are coming, and in sustained and clear pace.

Second, that persistence and faith pay. If I had given up, as many people, including friends, had told me to do, this victory would never have happened. It was my faith in God and my will to fight what gave me the strength an the vision to keep on insisting on the rights of my child and my rights as a father.

So, God has smiled at me and life is good.

Vidal

One Step Forward, One Step Backward: Canada and Australia (2 of 2)

During the past decade, the Australian court system, by means of the Family Law Act of 2006, has supported joint custody as an important way of maintaining family life after divorce. The Act, which surveys in Australia have shown has high levels of support among Australians, presumes that joint custody is the arrangement that works best for both children and parents, and establishes shared parenting as the norm for post-separation custody arrangements.

Recently, an organized movement, formed mainly by government bureaucrats, feminist extremist and the family law industry itself, has opposed these advancements and has requested changes to family law, changes that in practice would bring Australian family law to the previous anti shared parenting policies. This movement argues that the current shared parenting laws put children in harms way, using as example several recent cases on which children have been murdered during visitation time with their fathers.

Several issues have to be discussed here. First, as recent horrendous cases have tragically proved, violence and filicide are not the exclusive realm of fathers. There are violent fathers, but there are many violent mothers too. Second, if the current law has loopholes through which inadequate parents have contact with their children, those loopholes should be corrected without removing the shared parenting concept, as the anti joint custody movement is requesting right now. Being the proved best option for children of divorced parents, shared parenting should be protected always. If we follow the logic of the anti joint custody movement, we would abolish marriage because many married women have been killed by their husbands. Of course, we should not, because marriage, as joint custody, has proved that its benefits for the whole society are far more numerous and important than its setbacks.

This type of step backwards is not new in history. In New Jersey, women were granted the right to vote in 1776, bust they lost it again in 1807, when the right was restricted to white males only, with the excuse of avoiding electoral fraud and simplifying the electoral process. As long as a right is not accepted as right but as a concession, there will be always a chance the forces against it would find a way to take it away.

The case of the Australian Family Law Act proves something important for the shared parenting movement. Having a pro joint custody legislation approved is not, I repeat, is not end of the road. It is just the beginning. Once a country has a good family law, we should stay vigilant, knowing that a law that is not enforced is dead, and that many retrograde forces will try to move back to the previous regime.

Sadly, many people like to live in the past.

One Step Forward, One Step Backward: Canada and Australia (1 of 2)

On June 16 of 2009, Maurice Vellacott, member of House of Commons of Canada, submitted Bill C-422, for a presumption of equal parenting. This bill, if passed, will direct courts to make equal shared parenting the presumptive arrangement in the best interests of the child. On its Preamble, the bill states that among its purposes are to:

(b) encourage divorcing spouses to assume more responsibility for their affairs, with less reliance on adversarial processes,

(c) promote joint responsibility and joint decision-making by spouses in respect of ongoing childcare, nurturing, and development,

(d) establish that the interests of the child are best served through maximal ongoing pa- rental involvement with the child, and that the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting is the starting point for judicial deliberations…

This historic bill is the result of the efforts of many pro joint custody organizations in Canada, especially of The Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC, www.canadianepc.com). The Council is a coalition of 38 pro joint custody organizations encompassing a range of issues related to family and social justice in Canada. In its mission statement they write:

The primary mission of this organization, and the movement it represents, is to secure every child’s right to be equally parented when the relationship between the father and the mother breaks down.

Last week we rejoiced for the triumphs of Amor de Papá in Chile. Now we have to rejoice for the triumphs of our Canadian brothers and sisters. If Bill C-422 is passed, the fight for the right of our children to have two parents would haven achieved a historic milestone.

A Victory in Chile

Amor de Papá (Father’s Love, www.amordepapa.org), a pro joint custody organization that fights to reform family laws in Chile and to avoid Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), has achieved an important victory in court (www.amordepapa.org/declaracion_20090708_David_Abuhadba.php).

Last June 30th of 2009, a Chilean court declared admissible a Motion of Inapplicability for its Unconstitutionality of Article 225 of the Civil Code, submitted by the President of Amor de Papá. This motion requested the court to declare unconstitutional this article, that states on its 1st and 3rd sections that: “If the parents live separated, the personal care of the children will be awarded to the mother", since that precept is considered is contrary to Article 19 No. 2 of the Chilean Constitution, that states that: “Equality before the law. In Chile, there is no privileged person or group. In Chile, there are no slaves and anyone who steps on its territory is free. Men and women are equal before the law. No law or authority could establish arbitrary differences.”

The motion affirms that "the imperative of l article 225 section 1A of the Civil Code results discriminatory regarding men, since for the processes and activities of ‘personal care of the children’, in other words, those processes by which the parent or parents should adopt decisions that allow to secure the best spiritual and material fulfillment possible of the minor, as to secure that children can exercise the essential rights that emanate of human nature (…) it has not been proven, nor determined that women are necessarily in a better position than men or that they have an expertise, abilities, capacities or aptitudes different from other gender to do so.”

David Abuhadba, president of Amor de Papá (see picture), affirmed that “this resolution is historic in Chile. It is the first big step to end the daily violation of the human rights of children and fathers at the family courts of our country.”

The fight for the rights of our children is one that is built day by day, step by step, battle by battle. Victories like these are the ones that will give us the final victory, and the ones that encourage us to keep on fighting.

To the brothers and sisters of Amor de Papá, congratulations for their achievements, that are many already, and a hug in solidarity. Keep on fighting.

Kidnap As an Instrument of Punishment

Recently it has become notorious the case on which a Brazilian woman, Bruna Bianchi Carneiro Ribeiro, who lived and was married in New Jersey, kidnaps her child and takes him to Brazil (http://www.redbank.com/blog/sean-goldman-usa-parental-abduction-brazil), forcing the father to engage in an intense international legal fight to recover his child. Thanks to this sad case, there is now a public discussion of the great problem of parental kidnapping.

Although there are international laws against parental kidnapping, these are poorly enforced and frequently manipulated for the convenience of the kidnapping parent, who usually takes the child to his/her country of origin. Ironically, in the above quoted case, Bruna remarried in Brazil, this time with an attorney specialized in family law, who has even spoken at The Hague on the issue of parental kidnapping. Bruna dies and is this attorney who has stopped the child of being reunited with his father. Human nature never ceases to be perverse.

I also say that we should use this opportunity to discuss the negative effect that the physical distance between separated parents has on the children and on the bond between them and their parents, specially with their fathers. I say this, because in very few states (I only know the case of Pennsylvania) there are laws that stop that a parent with joint custody could leave the state where he/she lives, putting this way distance between the children and the other parent.

Kidnapping their children is a tactic that many women use once they loose the custody of their children to their father. And moving out, sometimes thousands of miles away, is a strategy frequently used by mothers once joint custody is awarded to the father of their children. What is the difference between kidnapping children and taking them to where it will be impossible for them to stay in contact with their fathers?

In the movie Jarhead, there is a scene on which the soldiers, already in a camp in the desert, put something like a wall of shame, on which they put pictures of the women that that have betrayed them. One of the pictures show a women with a child, with the words: “I loved her and she took my kid and disappeared.”

Next time your ex-spouse tells you the she will take your children where you cannot see them, do not ignore her. Maybe it is not a threat. Maybe it is a plan.

Joint Custody and Adopted Children

Let me start with clear and unquestionable truth: Sole custody endangers the bond between adoptive parents and adopted children.

For us, parents of adoptive children, divorce after adoption brings a special kind of tragedy that adds to the already tragic condition of living without our children. I have referred to Beck v. Beck case before in this blog for several reasons. This case set a precedent for joint custody cases, stated the primacy of physical custody as the factor that defines parent-child relationships, and stated that a children have equal need of their fathers and mothers. However, I have another reason far more personal. In this case, what is in dispute is the custody of adopted children.

While having children is always a blessing, being, like in my case, incapable of having biological children and receiving the gift of an adoptive child, is a very special privilege. This child is never an accident, an unplanned consequence: this child has been chosen by the love of his/her parents. I will not try to explain here how many and beautiful are the dreams of a parent who adopts a child. Neither will I try to explain the profound and tender love that adoptive parents develop for their children. Nevertheless, I will certainly try to highlight the importance of physical custody for the parents of adopted children.

The fact that allows people to adopt as their own other’s people children, is that what really makes a child your child is that he/she is raised by you, and what makes someone your parent is that he/she raised you, and by raising I refer to the day to day type of contact that only physical custody can provide.

Even when adopted children get to know their biological parents, the children will consider parents only the ones who have raised them. This fact implies a truth that should be considered here: that in the absence of a bloodline between a parent and a child, like in the case of adopted children, sharing the dynamics of day-to-day life is what creates the bond between them. For an adoptive parent, the physical custody of his child is not one of the ways to create a bond with his child, it is the only way. Beck v. Beck affirms this singularity of adopted children, stating:

…that because the girls were adopted, they needed “the benefit, contact, and security of both parents.” 86 N.J. 489 (1981)

Beck v. Beck admonished against endangering this attachment between the adopted girls and their father:

Viewing the issue in terms of the importance of fatherhood in the lives of the two girls, it (the court) concluded that the lack of real contact with the father would have negative developmental effects, particularly because the girls are adopted. 86 N.J. 492-93 (1981)

Depriving adopted children from one of their parents, as family courts usually do in custody cases, takes away for the second time what life has already taken once: the love, comfort, and security that only their father and mother can give them.

New Data on Fathers and their Children

Two recent articles on the relationship between fathers and their children give new data on this important issue. The articles are Our Fatherhood Crisis , by Glenn Sacks and Robert Franklin, published on June 21, 2009 in The Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/21/our-fatherhood-crisis/?feat=home_commentary), and Obama’s Father’s Day Criticism of Dads Misses Mark by Glenn Sacks and Robert Franklin (http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/family-parenting/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20440872&page=print). I want to quote some of the most relevant facts that appeared on these articles:

1 - Professor Rebekah Levine Coley lead a recent Boston College study of low-income minority families, and found that when nonresident fathers are involved in their adolescent children's lives, they worked as an important protective factor, decreasing markedly the incidence of substance abuse, violence, and delinquency.
Writing about this study, MSNBC health and science writer Linda Carroll explains that:

"When it comes to preventing risky teen sex, there may be no better deterrent than a doting dad. Teenagers whose fathers are more involved in their lives are less likely to engage in risky sexual activities such as unprotected intercourse, according to a new study...While an involved mother can also help stave off a teen's sexual activity, dads have twice the influence."

2 - Professors Kathryn Edin of Harvard and Timothy Nelson of the University of Pennsylvania conducted a study of low-income, unmarried fathers and found that most strive to be good parents but often are thwarted by the children's mothers' interference. They found that these dads provide what monetary support they could, but focused on the non-financial aspects of fatherhood. These aspects include educating their daughters about relationships with males and teaching their sons how to defend themselves.

Ms. Edin's soon-to-be-published subsequent studies (Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing) found that when mothers move on to have new partners their actions are "strongly associated with increases in the probability that the biological father will have no contact with his child.” When fathers move on to have subsequent partners and children, they largely retain their desire to be in their original children's lives. According to Ms. Edin: "The evidence points more strongly to the role of mothers 'swapping daddies' than it does to the role of fathers 'swapping kids.'" A single mother's new partnership "may provide strong motivation [for her] to put the new partner in the 'daddy' role." The biological father is then less likely to be involved because the mother is more likely to exclude him and/or because he may feel he's now redundant.

When a mother wants to exclude her children's father from their lives, she can push him out easily. Family courts usually award custody to mothers, and are extremely lazy enforcing fathers' visitation rights. In most states, mothers are allowed to move their children thousands of miles away from the children's fathers, destroying the fathers' bonds with their children.

3 - Dr. Perry Crouch is a gang intervention specialist in Los Angeles. He states that only about half of one percent of the gang members he deals with have fathers in their lives.

4 - Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, after examining hundreds of pre-sentencing reports detailing the family histories of convicted criminals, found that the common denominator of those cases was that one parent, usually the father, was missing from the home.

5 - In Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur analyzed data from five different studies and concluded that children of single parent families are more than twice as likely to drop out of high school as their peers with two parents, they're also less likely to go to college if they do finish high school, and more likely to be both out of school and out of work, proving that fathers and educational performance are also strongly linked.

6 - The Urban Institute report titled What About the Dads? tells that even when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children in the foster care system instead, pushing fathers away from their children.

Readers should also check out the statistics on these issues gathered by the people of Fathers and Families: http://fathersandfamiliesorg.siteprotect.net/site/infores.php