How is it that a mother who seeks to eliminate the father is acting in a child’s best interest?
Helen Grieco “views the rise of fathers’ rights organizations in the 1980s-and the accompanying increase in custody disputes as bargaining tools-as a direct response to ‘the demand of the women’s movement for greater child support, which ended up costing fathers more money.’ What a skewed statement. Father’s rights as a movement has accomplished very little for the rights of fathers because of intense and brutish opposition over the years. The future of the movement shows some hope for restoring the rights of fathers. This is 2008, not the 1980s or the past. Clearly, Ms. Grieco feels threatened by any opposition, let alone the fact that parents have Constitutional rights too.
“While it is true that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children’s best interests,” Rep. Shirley Bowler (R-River Ridge)” and the bill’s supporters ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn’t it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?”
Why shouldn’t a father consider his pocketbook as important. Apparently nobody else does beyond a tool for exploitation. A father has become a tool for money extraction without consideration of human and civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. When it comes to the court system, legal argument and parents, isn’t it ALWAYS about the money? Does anyone ever discuss the balance of human and civil rights in the equation? The rights of parents are rarely considered in legislation because money and “children’s rights” is government empowerment. The current public obsession of legislators is the “interests of children” over adults. The reality is that this is wrong and unfair. Civil rights have clearly been distorted by socialist-leaning agendas in their struggle for power, not for the true benefit of anyone else. The Bradley Amendment and Title V fits neatly into the current agenda of many politicians. Unfortunately, many “former feminists” have become governors and have established themselves in political positions to ply their views on an unsuspecting American populace. The happy beneficiary of this monetary abundance and expense is usually the custodial parent via the “ever-important” rights of the child.