The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships

by Jake Morphonios

Congress would feign admit its own dubious contribution to the suffering of America’s children. Rather, these politicians promulgate the myth that they are helping children through federal and state welfare entitlement programs. It is, in fact, these very programs which are responsible for the out of control rampage against children. Here is how the scam works.

The federal government levies taxes against citizens to redistribute as welfare entitlements among needy applicants. Congress created the Social Security Act, a section of which is called Title IV. Title IV describes how tax dollars will be distributed among the States to subsidize their individual welfare programs. In order for States to tap into the federal treasure chest, containing billions of dollars, they must demonstrate that they are complying with Title IV mandates to collect child support revenues. In other words, to get money from the federal government, each State must become a child support collection and reporting agency.

Every unwed or single mother seeking welfare assistance must disclose on her application the identities of the fathers of her children and how much child support the fathers have been ordered by a family court to pay. She must also commit to continuously reporting the father’s payments so that the State can count the money as “collected” to the federal government’s Office of Child Support Enforcement. As with all bureaucracies, this process has developed into a monstrosity that chews up and spits out the very people it was designed to help.

States have huge financial incentives to increase the amount of child support it can report to the federal government as “collected”. To increase collection efforts, States engage in the immoral practice of dividing children from their fathers in family courts. Have you ever wondered why family courts award custody to mothers in 80%-90% of all custody cases, even when the father is determined to be just as suitable a parent? It is because the amount of child support ordered by the State is largely determined by how much time the child spends with each parent. This means that the State “collects” less child support if parents share equal custody. By prohibiting fathers from having equal custody and time with their children, the State’s child support coffers are increased and federal dollars are received.

Opponents try to paint loving fathers as “deadbeat dads” for daring to challenge the mother-take-all system of family law. This is nothing more than diversionary propaganda. The concern of fathers is not that they are unwilling to support their children financially. This is not an argument against paying child support. Any father that cares about his child will do everything in his power to provide for the child. The concern is, rather, that children are being separated from their fathers by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of the father’s loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect – even if the amount ordered by the court far exceeds the reasonable needs of the child or if the father is required to take second and third jobs to keep up with outrageous support orders and escape certain incarceration. The truth is that most fathers don’t care about the financial aspects of these family court verdicts nearly as much as they care about having their time with their children eliminated for nefarious government purposes.

The root of this evil is a State-level addiction to federal tax dollars being doled out as entitlement monies by a monolithic federal government. In the wake of this horror are millions of children drowning for lack of the care, guidance, and companionship of their fathers. Statistics and empirical evidence universally confirm that children forcibly separated from their fathers by family courts are considerably more likely to suffer anxiety and depression, develop drug addiction, engage in risky sexual activity, break the law, and commit suicide. This travesty must end.

Unconstitutional federal bureaucracy creates many of the societal ills it claims to be trying to solve. There are several steps incremental steps that could be taken to restore a child’s right to the companionship of both parents. For example, citizens should insist that States abide by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No father should be automatically deprived of his fundamental right to the custody of his children without due process of law. Being a male is not a crime. Absent a finding of true danger from a parent, family courts should order shared parenting rights and equal time sharing for divorcing parents. These rights are fundamental and should not be abridged. The automatic presumption of custody-to-the-mother is unconstitutional.

The history of America is brim with examples of the federal government denying basic rights to its citizens. Women were denied the right to vote until the women’s suffrage movement secured the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Black Americans also were denied the right to vote and suffered myriad other cruel and humiliating indignities under the law until the civil rights movement brought about desegregation, put an end to Jim Crow legislation and compelled the enactment of the 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution. In each of these examples, society was slow to recognize that a problem even existed or that some of our laws were unjust. It took considerable time, concerted effort, self-sacrifice and perhaps even divine providence to realign concurrent societal paradigms with the principles of liberty and justice for all.

Our generation is not exempt from similar assaults on liberty. While many just causes may stake claims for redress of grievances, one group, more than any other, pleads for immediate support. The need to defend the rights of this group of American citizens, reeling from the unjust consequences of state-sponsored oppression, is before us. It is time to stand up for the rights of children and demand their equal access to both parents.

What America’s Child Support Problem is Really About

by JJ Feinauer, Deseret News

How much does it cost the average parent to rear three children from birth to age 18? Upward of $750,000, according to this nifty CNN calculator.

But Anne Dias Griffin, ex-wife of the hedge fund billionaire Kenneth Griffin, thinks the number lands closer to $1 million a month.

Griffin made headlines last month when she claimed that in order to keep up with the expenses of her three children, her ex-husband should be forced to pay a monthly six-figure sum in child support.

The Griffins’ legal battle has thrust the issue of unpaid alimony into the news once again, sold to readers with titillating headlines and expected outrage. Child support problems, from Janet Jackson to Dennis Rodman, make for perfect tabloid fodder. Spoiled celebrities, deadbeat millionaire dads and trust-fund children. That’s who doesn’t pay child support.

But FiveThirtyEight’s Mona Chalabi has shined a light on a far more complicated part of the narrative. Over $14 billion of child support funds went unpaid in America in 2011, according to Chalabi, and women are more likely to struggle with payments than men.

“In 2011, 32 percent of custodial fathers (meaning fathers who have legal custody of the children) didn’t receive any of the child support that had been awarded to them,” Mona wrote in her “Ask Mona” column on FiveThirtyEight. According to her analysis of the 2011 Census data, the number drops to 25.1 percent for custodial mothers.

Chalabi, who was understandably surprised by her finding, provided a few explanations as to why such a counterintuitive statistic might be true.

So many children, so many fathers.

First off, women with custody of their children are more likely than men to be living in poverty. These women are more likely to have part-time jobs, or no job at all. The implication here seems to be that men are slightly more likely to help their ex-wives out with child support because it’s more likely that women will desperately need the financial help.

There are other interesting elements that play into why child support might not get paid, such as racial differences (which are closely related to economic differences in her analysis); actual marital status (Chalabi points out that “custodial moms and dads who have never been married or are in their first marriages are much less likely to get any of the payments they’re due”); and prenuptial agreements.

All of these factors, however, speak mostly to the struggle of mothers — and fathers — in poverty, and how divorce or lack of marriage in the first place contributes to economic struggles. Chalabi’s analysis acts as a stark reminder that the issue of child support isn’t about celebrity tabloid disputes. Poverty and marriage trends are the real headlines.

——-

The state and the greed of so called custodial parents are at the center of this offensive media bloodlust. – MJR

Child Support Lacks Accountability

Discrimination [against non-custodial parents] is rationalized for the same reason that slaves, ethnic minorities and women were oppressed in an earlier era: free labor and arbitrary empowerment. Unlike dictatorial regimes, however, our government has perfected this oppression through legislative propaganda, which exploits the child into a multi-billion dollar industry, fleecing parents of finite resources and discouraging income productivity.

Quotes and sound bites to a vast audience unfamiliar with a complex case could not hope to overcome decades of stereotypes and draconian laws designed to perpetuate this child control industry. My best hope, therefore, existed in a news conference at my home where genuine child support could be observed first hand. A father’s mortgage, taxes, play areas and holiday enjoyment are a father’s child support, made impossible when a third of income goes to taxes, and another third to a support collection unit.

My point continues to be this: a self-sufficient father has the same right to enjoy a family unit as a self-sufficient mother. An American form of government encourages each to grow those units. Under the current socialist form, I nevertheless satisfied years of one-sided obligations until they were abused without any child payments in return. This showed not only that I was a responsible parent, but prepared to commit my career to enforce God given rights to raise my children.

Unlike the 1950s, a vast majority of today’s parents are raising their children in separate households. If we can bus 5-year-olds to school, we can certainly allow fathers in the same communities to enjoy equal time with their offspring. Such logic, however, would negate the need for lawyers and child support transfers as the engine behind federal grants and collection unit interest revenues to a dysfunctional state government.

In short, the privacy right which I have been compelled to secure through the courts is a meaningful father-child relationship free from joint power abuses by the state and a superior creature of law known as the “custodial parent.” It may be analogized to the woman’s privacy right established in Roe v Wade.

For those still clinging to the current antiquated system, however, child support is a welfare payment because it lacks accountability. Abuses such as drug or gambling addictions, lawyer-generated controversies, partner support, income destruction and father replacement agendas are highly disguised in our overburdened courts. Still unanswered by my government is how I am supposed to raise my children without a 23-year law license.

Leon Koziol is a Utica attorney. On Feb. 11, the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division suspended his law license because he has not made child support payments for his two children.

Child Support System Treats Dads Badly

by Katrina Kollins

It’s funny how the fathers are told not to move out of their homes or to desert their children, but yet low-life women can move out, take the children, get custody and child support, live off our tax dollars by getting welfare and never have to get a job!

Then the fathers have to pay thousands of dollars to get to see their children and never get custody. But yet the fathers have to pay the bills left by these women, the mortgage, etc., and these bills are never considered when it comes to child support and these women get off scot free. Most of these women use the children for the money!

Support should be on a card like unemployment, and the women should have to have receipts for the children’s purchases. Pennsylvania’s child support court system is unbelievable when most fathers are the better parent, but yet our courts allow this to go on.  Never once are these women asked how they are going to help support these children.

Maybe the children aren’t abused physically but by God mentally they are; these women spend the day on their cell phones or the children spend the day in a car, but yet more fathers actually spend time playing with their children, reading to them, or just outside going for walks, etc.

Judges, this court system, need to grow a pair and finally stick up for these fathers! This has gone on way too long!

Hot Potato: 'Experts' Analyze Parental Alienation

A political hot potato rests in the hands of the American Psychiatric Association as it updates its catalog of mental disorders. They must decide whether to include parental alienation on that list, a disputed term conveying how a child’s relationship with one estranged parent can be poisoned by the other.

This is most often is triggered by a divorce and child-custody dispute. There’s bitter debate over whether this plague of society should be formally classified as a mental health syndrome. That question now is before the psychiatric association as it prepares the first complete revision of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since 1994.

“We’re gotten an enormous amount of mail — more than any other issue,” said Dr. Darrel Regier, vice chair of the task force drafting the manual. “The passions on both sides of this are exceptional.”

On one side of the debate, which has raged since the 1980s, are feminists, advocates for battered women and others who consider “parental alienation syndrome” to be an unproven and potentially dangerous concept useful to men trying to deflect attention from their abusive behavior.

On the other side are legions of firm believers in the existence of a syndrome that is likely grounded in bipolar and sociopathic behavior. Recognition of parental alienation in the psychiatrists’ manual would lead to fairer outcomes in family courts while enabling more children of divorce to receive appropriate treatment so they could reconcile with an estranged parent in their poisoned relationship.

This family blight not only cripples families, but relationships across the board in an ongoing manner. It is a plague of this modern society and needs to be regarded as a mental disorder.

Associated Press Article – source material removed

Divorce: End of the American Dream

Anti-father and feminist sources indicate that in a nationally representative sample of 11-to-16-year-old children living with their mothers, almost half had not seen fathers in the last 12 months. Protagonists of the nation’s fathers indicate that the nation (United States) has seen an increased refusal of fathers to provide for their children, leading to high levels of poverty among single-mother families.

When a couple breaks up, the standard of living of both mother and father declines. Why? Incomes that once supported a single home are now supporting two. The drop in living standards has been mistakenly blamed on fathers when it has nothing to do with them.

Based on U.S. Census data, non-custodial mothers are 20% more likely to default on their child support obligations than non-custodial fathers. This is despite the fact that non-custodial mothers are less likely to be required to pay child support. Non-custodial mothers with support obligations are asked to pay a smaller percentage of their income in child support than noncustodial fathers.

The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women. Research shows that most divorces do not involve a serious transgression by fathers. Data backs up the fact that the majority of fathers are not guilty of violence or adultery, but divorce is a result of  the mother feeling unappreciated or emotionally unfulfilled for other reasons unrelated to the marriage directly.

From a man’s perspective, his wife ended the marriage against his will, removing his children from his daily life. He sees the children as harmed through the destruction of what was a stable, two-parent home and a shared  prosperity that all had enjoyed together. From the male viewpoint, the decision of the wife mandates that he dramatically lower his standard of living in order to finance the decision to end the marriage.

While there are women that are mistreated in marriage and for whom divorce is a liberation, most divorced women aren’t victims. As a result, the facts reveal why men that once worked hard to support and prosper their families become disheartened and refuse to make the same or more sacrifices under new conditions foisted on them.

Politics pretends that simply not seeing one’s children is the same as paternal abandonment or irresponsibility. The politics of the broken family created by government is contradicted by a wealth of research combined with millions of personal experiences of divorced and separated fathers. There are fathers that voluntarily withdraw from the lives of their children for good reasons. There is more evidence that many fathers are driven out of the lives of their children by maternal sociopathic behavior sanctioned by the system. Linking  reality to male irresponsibility is ridiculous, if not patently absurd.

Fresh data from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement shows that the overwhelming majority of so-called “deadbeat dads” earn poverty level wages. Most dads that are able to pay their child support do so despite often being unfairly cut off from their children. The fact is that because of the system, they have little choice anyway as they have become an undertrodden subclass of Americans, part of a machine that destroys and humiliates. Fathers with divorced families receive no positive credit for what “they must do”, even when they do so with love and care.

Even worse, the multi-billion dollar divorce industry is heavily funded by custody battles and government itself. Arguments over division of assets are a significant part of lawsuits. Lawsuits are also driven by fathers that insist on the right to see their kids while mothers try to limit the role of the father. Declining incomes of both mothers and fathers makes decent legal remedies more remote since the system by nature feeds on any residual incomes, further hurting children in a negative atmosphere of temporary insanity. In this economy, a large cross-section of Americans don’t have the income to fight much of anything, let alone deal with the basics. Those are the facts and resulting blight of the American Dream: court politics sustained by a broken system of misguided politics and government exploitation.

Arguing About Unemployment and Child Support

Unemployment is rampant in America, yet little is done for the victims of the Bradley Amendment. Tens of millions of innocent Americans stand to be victimized by government inaction, retaliatory conduct and self-righteous anger.

Article: Arguing about Unemployment and Child Support

Freedom Under Attack by Lawmakers

Everyone knows that a protective order is commonly issued under all kinds of circumstances. A protective order can be fraudulently issued as well. This kind of topic is likely to affect the lives of custodial and non-custodial parents alike as federal lawmakers seek to invade your civil rights and privacy under the pretense of safety and justice. Repeal Bradley has enclosed the name of the lawmakers that are concerned about taking your freedoms away and imposing draconian laws.

New York State Senator Andrew J. Lanza, R, District 24 (Staten Island), has introduced Senate Bill S4796, which, if passed into law, would require that anyone who has had an order of protection issued against them must wear at all times a GPS monitoring/tracking device. Further, tampering with and/or disabeling the device would constitute a Class E Felony. “Justification” for the measure is the puported “need to put more teeth into orders of protection in order for them to mean more than just a piece of paper”.

New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D, District 51 (Kings County/Brooklyn) has introduced a “same as” bill in the Assemby, A5424.

Each bill proposal is currently in the Codes Committee of its respective chamber. Both are said to have broad bi-partisan support in each house of the Legislature. You need to be aware of this fact.

This legislative insanity should send ice water surging through the veins of anyone who has ever had the dubious pleasure of having experienced the Kafkaesque world of the restraining order. Simply put, it means that anyone – whether guilty … or totally innocent – accused of domestic abuse will be put under police surveillance 24/7 via an electronic monitoring/tracking device, with no due process, no, trial, no recourse, and no remedial and/or statutory protections.
These bills are co/multi-sponsored by:

Senators John J. Flanagan, Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr., Joseph A. Griffo, Kemp Hannon, William J. Larkin, Jr., Elizabeth O’C. Little, Serphin R. Maltese, George D. Maziarz, Frank Padavan, Dale M. Volker, Catherine M. Young

Assembly Members: Lou Tobacco, Ginny Fields, Ellen Young, David Koons, Sandra Galef, Michelle Schimel, Dennis H. Gabryszak, Alan Maisel, Steve Englebright, Ivan C. LaFayette, Janele Hyer-Spencer, Nettie Mayersohn, David G. McDonough, Annette, Robinson, Robert K. Sweeney, Harvey Weisenberg

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO ASK WHAT HIS/HER NEXT STEP NEEDS TO BE, NOW …, AND REMEMBER, NEXT NOVEMBER IS ELECTION TIME AGAIN. IT WON”T SIMPLY BE A NEW PRESIDENT THAT WE”LL BE ELECTING OR REJECTING. WE’LL ALSO BE VOTING FOR THOSE WE WISH TO HAVE REPRESENTING OUR INTERESTS IN THE LEGISLATURE AS WELL!!! Be alert!

A Fair Role for Fathers?

Boston Globe Editorial on Divorce and Parenting

“Charles Kindregan, a law professor at Suffolk University, soundly argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis. ‘You don’t need a presumption when you have facts,’ Kindregan says. The relevant facts include children’s age, temperament, emotional development, and medical needs, as well as how parents get along and how far apart parents live from each other. A judge looking at an infant will have to make very different decisions than a judge looking at a teenage boy.”

translation:
“Dad can see the infant or young child an hour or two a week if mom allows it. Men don’t have the temperament for children. We might give good old dad a chance when his kid is a teenager. The kid will already be damaged from growing up without a father and the father-child relationship may be strained or non-existence from limited contact and negative talk from the mother. It’s okay for dad to spend time with the kid as long as they live within 1,000 miles of each and mom is not unhappy about the visits.”

The Globe editorial and the expert it quotes are out in left field. There is absolutely no reason why a father should be kept away from his baby or toddler under normal circumstances. This is the kind of discrimination that men deal with every day in America. If courts want to take rights away from fathers, then fathers have the right to be free. Naturally, you won’t see the courts go in that direction. Changes must be made. Why?

Fathers are not indentured slaves to an ex-wife in the name of children. Yet, the popularity of unconstitutional federal law among divorced mothers and feminists has brought this attitude of disdain towards men to its current reality. The Bradley Amendment and all unconstitutional Title V law must be repealed. This should be a Presidential election issue!

Hillary Clinton: the federal Bradley Amendment

This video features closing video from the Democratic debate on CNN from 2/20/2008. The federal Bradley Amendment violates the Constitution of the United States. Bill and Hillary Clinton were and are chief promoters and enforcers of this legislation. They don’t get it. As politicians, they have violated the trust of Americans, as well as the human and civil rights of millions of Americans without apology in the name of children. Repeal the Bradley Amendment.

Hillary Clinton: the federal Bradley Amendment by repealbradley