New Column: New Virginia Law Says If You Have Sex You Must Register with the State or Forfeit All Rights to Your Child
August 28th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesMy new co-authored column, Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry Violates Fathers’ Right to Raise Their Own Children (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star & others, 8/16/07) criticizes an outrageous new anti-father Virginia law. The law has been debated in the press, but commentators have missed its central purpose--to remove fathers' rights to prevent their children from being put up for adoption against their will. The law asks any Virginia man who has had non-marital sex to register with the State. Men who fail to register waive all parental rights to children they may have fathered.
The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, appears below. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star regarding Fatherhood rights being stripped away (8/16/07), write to letters@freelancestar.com.
Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry Violates Fathers’ Right to Raise Their Own Children
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Virginia’s controversial new Putative Father Registry law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex in Virginia to register with the State. Supporters say the law will help connect fathers with their children before the children are put up for adoption. Critics see it as another example of the erosion of citizens’ privacy. Both sides miss the real point of the Registry--to remove a father's right to prevent his child's mother from giving their child up for adoption without his consent.
Incredibly, under the new law, putative fathers who fail to register waive their right to be notified that their parental rights are being terminated. They also forfeit the right to be notified of the adoption proceedings and to consent to the adoption. Rather than being required to make a legitimate effort to find and notify the father, the state can now simply check the Registry and, if the man has not registered, give his child away.
Such violations of fathers’ rights are common. For example, in the widely-reported Huddleston adoption case, Mark Huddleston’s baby boy was adopted out when he was three days old, but Huddleston didn't know the baby existed until two months after his birth. As a New Mexico court later found, the private adoption agency did not notify Huddleston of the pending adoption, thus denying him the chance to raise his son.
In an adoption case, the burden of identifying the father should be on the mother. It is the mother, not the father, who is certain to be aware of the child’s birth, and it is the mother who knows (or should know) the baby’s parentage. However, when states have tried to craft measures requiring a mother who seeks to put her baby up for adoption to find and notify the baby’s father, there has been opposition from the National Organization for Women and other women’s groups.
Defenders of the Registry justify disregarding fathers with numerous unfair assumptions about men and their intentions. For example, Kerry Dougherty, a prominent Virginia newspaper columnist, asserts:
“I think we're being too kind to these men. Guys who don't stick around long enough to find out whether they've caused a pregnancy have terminated their paternal rights. If they know a baby's on the way and then disappear, they aren't fathers…the General Assembly ought to look for ways to strip these irresponsible Romeos of their rights, not invite them to record their random copulations.”
One wonders if Dougherty knows anyone who has dated within the last 40 years. It is absurd to think that in modern relationships, when there’s an out-of-wedlock birth it must be because the father ran off. In reality, most unwed biological fathers do care about their children, but often do not know of their existence or are unsure that the children really are biologically theirs. There have been countless adoption cases where these fathers have struggled desperately for the right to raise their own children. One also wonders why a woman who wants to avoid the responsibility of raising a child (and of paying child support) is viewed sympathetically, while a man in exactly the same position is a villain.
There are numerous other problems with the Registry. A registrant must provide his social security number, driver's license number, home address, and employer, as well as details about the sexual affair and his sexual partner. This sensitive, personal information will be available to the baby’s mother, the lawyers involved in the adoption, court employees, and anyone able to hack in to the computer system.
The law should instead require that an honest, exhaustive search for the father be conducted before an adoption can proceed. This search should include use of the Federal Parent Locator Service, which contains a vast array of information, including the National Directory of New Hires. The FPLS is used to enforce child support, find children involved in parental kidnappings, and to enforce child custody and visitation. State systems are tied into the FPLS, and they are often remarkably effective at finding parents.
Fathers have the right to raise their own children. Virginia’s Registry is a shameful attempt to circumvent that right.
"));
19 queries. 0.672 seconds.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Seems to me that the mother should be burdened with the legal responsibility of identifying all possible fathers to "her" child. Then the state could contact each and offer him DNA testing to determine paternity.
If the mother fails to identify the father accurately (and honestly), then she should be compelled to pay child support to the state to defray the costs of caring for the child and/or pay child support to the adoptive parents.
By the way, does the following seem fair:
-When a "mother" decides she doesn't want her child, she simply puts the child up for adoption and walks away, no strings attached.
-When a "father" says he didn't want to be a father, they attach his paycheck for 20 years, and throw him in jail if he doesn't deliver cash continuously for 20 years.
What is wrong with this picture?
August 28th, 2007 at 4:11 am
"waive all parental rights to children they may have fathered."
Does this include child support?
Will he be eligible for child support even if he is said to have forfeited his rights to be a father?
August 28th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Just how far out of balance will we allow the scale of justice to become?
August 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Men have responsibilities, woman have choices in the best interest of the children.
Bring on the next "Strenghtening Families" program that will encourage "responsible" fatherhood and prevent fathers from "abandoning" their children.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
This law is only nominally concerned with identifying paternity. Inst ead it follows a well-worn track used by feminist groups and feminist lawyers: triangulation. You get from angle A to angle C by way of angle B. The point of this out-in-the-open dishonest maneuver is to get what you really are after while diguising the move behind something else. Here, the point is to discourage heterosexual relations between unmarried men and women. There is no question that feminists since the 1960s have been doing their best to separate heterosexual males from heterosexual females. They've been doing this by propagandizing in colleges--now in highschools--for the hatemongering notion that heterosexual males are all rapists, wife-beaters, and murderers (which is why men fight wars). Hostile environment sexual harassment regulations, which are universal from the federal level on down, treats sexual approaches by males to females as presumptively guity of the crime of sex discrimination. That's right: you show your anti-female sex discriminatory intentions by asking a woman out for a date.
What this law requires is that males "fess up" to screwiing a female who isn' t his wife by registering with the state. Okay guys, every time you drop your pants, you have to inform a bureaucrat. I'm sure this regulation is challengeable on discriminatory grounds itself--because it doesn't require the same response from females, as well as violating applicable federal and state privacy laws.
My point is that too many of the "fathers' rights" advocates keep butting their heads against the issue of legal attacks on the subject of child possession. This misses the point that this is simply another triangulation tactic invented by feminists to support their (pretended) "concern" about mothers. It isn't. These people are anti-male hatemongers and they use and will use any tactic they can find--and they're very cunning in discovering how to do this (they're mainly lawyers after all) to exploit the coercive power of the law in order to do males damage.
I suggest a redeployment of mens' groups away from the arguably "sucker" diversion of rights to children to the real enemy, which is organized feminist anti-male hatemongering. Don't be deceived: these women hate you and they've been at war with you since the 1950s and publication of the first feminist tracts in this country.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Is this registering to be a potential father or registering to be a potential Child Support payer?
August 28th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Laws like this one are a cancer that is spreading. And it starts somewhere and in this case, the state of Virginia.
If equal protection under the law cannot / will not be enforced in ANY state....then by all means, let the Feds come in & "help" those misguided states "correct themselves"...is what I would think should be done.
Unfortunately, I think the Feds would ( given their propensity to boil the frog whenever the opportunity presents itself ) side with this constitutional violation. This kind of stuff is big business.....follow the money trail !!
August 28th, 2007 at 10:41 am
AP,
The problem, as we've seen, is that biological proof or disproof of fatherhood is not useful in family courts. More than once a man has lost rights to children who are biologically his or has been forced to pay for those who are most certainly not his. Why? The case I recall reading about here was that the man hadn't filed an objection or protest early enough. Interesting that 'criminal' cases seem to have little or no limits on when/what can be appealed. But when it comes to 'civil' cases, there are all sorts of rules that must be adhered to. (But only if you are a man. A quick perusal of my divorce/custody situation will show that at least two states are willing to ignore their own procedural rules if it helps my soon to be ex wife.)
Now a lawyer will tell you that civil and criminal proceedings are two different things. Which would be a fine argument if it were not for the fact that men (and statistically speaking ONLY men) face jail time and other criminal penalties for a violation of civil decisions.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
First a caveat : I haven't read the new VA law. However, I can comment that for the most part "putative father registries" are a large benefit to fathers. They do NOT require that a man register just because he had extra-marital sex but rather that he register at the time of the birth of the child if he wants to establish his parental rights from the beginning. When the dad fills in the paperwork for registration at the hospital the child can legally have his last name on the birth certificate, does not have to go through establishing paternity beyond this acknowledgement, and it curtails the ability of the mother to later say "father unknown" and insures that IF the mother decides to place the child for adoption the father will be immediately notified. I hear, on a regular basis, men angry because they've been served with paternity papers or child support notices, men who were never told that they even have to establish custody rights (many think the establishment of child support automatically means they have immediate custodial rights), anger that their name isn't on the birth certificate..............all avoidable for those dads who know there's a baby on the way, those who accept the responsibility of becoming a father, those who are truly interested in raising their child even if the mom can't or doesn't want to, etc.
Dads who step up to the plate from the birth of the child, register to protect their rights, want the child to bear their name, ......... in other words, ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, should have no problem and indeed be grateful that their interests are being looked after. The registries DON'T require that a man register just because he had sex. Actually, it is voluntary and dads complete the registry because they want to be fathers in the full sense of the word.
Bluntly put, if a man doesn't want to produce a child, doesn't want the responsibility of parenting and support, then the responsibility needs to start long before the birth of a child............perhaps by buying a box of condoms. If a child is conceived through irresponsible sexual behavior, the pregnancy is not known to the father because the sex was so casual (hey guys....if you actually have a "relationship" with a woman you actually notice she's pregnant) or the dad simply doesn't want to acknowledge the child then what is the problem with having a registry that allows him to say "This is MY child and I want all the rights afforded to me as his father!". If a man suspects he may have impregnated the woman he has the right ... and the responsibility ... to establish himself as the father. Of course the registry, just like any birth registry, requires BOTH parents to fill in the blanks including all the identifiers as they will appear on a birth cetificate and they BOTH sign the paperwork TOGETHER. Neither has to provide intimate details of the sexual contact.
I don't quite see the complaint here that it is somehow evil that a father who WANTS his rights, wants the child to bear his name is being "forced" to identify himself. My birth certificate and my children's birth certificates.......and probably all of yours.......identify both parents: SSN, DOB, job titile, address, mother's maiden name. Registries, establishment of rights, acknowledgement of paternity; all these REPLACE birth certificates that say "illegitimate, bastard, father unknown" etc. Don't you think this will all be known if a putative father is served with a paternity action? If you want to conceal your identity from the woman you're having sex with, then perhaps the condom purchase is wise. If you perhaps had irresponsible sex but would choose to parent a child, then the Registry protects that right. If you're a man holding his breath that maybe you'll have to pay support for a child you didn't want the word is still condom. If you're concealing your identity and involvement then exactly how does anyone do an "honest, exhaustive search" to find you?
If you know your sexual partner is pregnant you still have the right to acknowledge the child, you still have the right to challenge paternity, and you still have the ability to accept responsibility for the child. This is 2007, there is no reason for "unwanted pregnancy" except the irresponsibility of the two adults. Somehow the reasoning for this column escapes me: Either you want to acknowledge your child and have rights or there is extreme anger that the easiest path to that is offered. If dad is registered (just like he would be if the child were conceived in a marriage) then cases like Huddleston wouldn't happen. What's sad is that it IS 2007 and we're still seeing large numbers of "accidental" pregnancies. If a woman lists "father unknown" on the birth certificate, perhaps she's telling the truth........the responsibility is on both people to at least know who you're having sex with, but today that responsibility isn't there.
You're addressing the narrow issue of adoption placement which is an extremely small percentage of all out of wedlock births. Most women keep their babies, and of course they may seek out the father for his share of the responsiblity. If that occurs, then dad has two choices: acknowledge his child, accept responsibility and elect to be a father to the child, or opt out of the father role and complain for 18 years that he's helping support a child he "didn't want". There's no middle ground once a child is born.
If a "dad" doesn't want to legally establish himself at the time of birth, then he doesn't have to register, doesn't have to acknowledge the child and doesn't have to give his name to the child. Of course if you think that conception is SOLELY the mother's "fault", then perhaps Sex Ed 101 wasn't offered in your school. I just came back from holding my new granddaughter in the hospital and can't imagine how I'd feel if her father was "unknown", if her father wanted no part of her, if she didn't bear her father's name, if my daughter were very young and faced with raising a baby on her own or if her husband denied being the father or was angry at the responsibility I'm lucky.....I raised responsible chldren. There will never be a question of who my grandchildren's parents are.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
If you register, please take note of who will have access to your registration. (from the GAQ section of the Virginia Putative Father Registry)
If I register with The Virginia Putative Father Registry will this prove that I am the biological father of the
child?
Registering with The Virginia Putative Father Registry does not prove that you are the biological father of the child
that you registered for. You must establish paternity to prove that you are the biological father of the child.
Who has access to my registration?
The Virginia Putative Father Registry is a confidential database, only the following entities can have access to obtain
information from The Virginia Putative Father Registry: the mother of the child; an attorney representing a party in a
termination of parental rights or an adoption proceeding; a party to an adoption; a child-placing agency; court or
person designated by the court; other states putative father registries; support enforcement; and any agency
authorized by law.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
"Who has access to my registration?"
Just about anyone I guess lol
August 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I'm sorry, but the notion that unwanted pregnancy automatically stims from having "unprotected" sex is the stupidest thing that anyone could possibly say. Unwanted pregnancy is largely the result of people, like you, that promote the myth that condoms are armor for your penis. The reality is, as consumer reports demonstrate, failure rates on condoms (even name brand top of the line) over regular usage is 100 percent. Meaning if you regularly use condoms it is certain you will experience condom failures and that certainly could lead to unwanted pregnancy. No form of birth control can offer 100 percent assurance that it will work. As such unwanted pregnancy is still very much an issue in 2007.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Dear Ms Cochran:
Your arguments are disingenuous, and blithely ignore the fact that the law will obligate a man to register to protect rights that should not be questioned or come with an expiration date in the first place. Remember that this registry is only useful in circumstances where the parentage is either in doubt or hidden to begin with; in the cases where a birth is planned by both parties and hidden by neither, this law does nothing.
In cases where the paternity is in dispute or hidden, the failure to register could cause harm in more cases than adoption. When a mother separates from the father before he learns of the pregnancy, she could marry another man and the true father would never have rights to his child; a court could expediently reference this law to deny his involvement (right to time with the child) after the child's existence is known, ensuring the mother has maximum time which equates to maximum economic benefit for such a mother; a mother who moves away and chooses to hide the pregnancy, with the father learning only when the child is two months old, then the mother dies in an unrelated accident, and the father legally has no rights (then Anna Nicole's lawyer would have won his gambit, and the real father would have been shut out); adoption is just one more case. Your argument is not helped by saying that adoption is too small a percentage for us to be concerned about the injustice.
Like it or not, many pregnancies are not planned. Also, whether you agree or not, potential mothers can and do deceive men to become pregnant; they can and do deceive men regarding the parentage of a child. Women who deceive in this fashion should not be given legal cover after a nine-month window, essentially a nine-month statue of limitations for paternity fraud. Unless a man registers, which, especially in these circumstances, is unlikely.
In non-parenting law, it would be equivalent to electing a president for twenty years, just because he or she managed to keep a convincing fraud for nine months. Evil deceptive people exist in both sexes; none should be given a pass just because they are skilled at not getting caught for a year.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Glenn-
A link to the law would be useful here.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
It seem's that most of you against this Law have been Ill informed and should be greatful such a law is passing in another state. What you see as a harmful law is actually a step towards family law reform.
My situation is one that amounts to the tallest roller coaster in the world I went through the highest of high's and the lowest of low's with my ex. I was lucky enough to be on one of the upward streches at the time my son was born and she allowed me to sign the birth certificate and the Paternity affidiavit and be a part of the birth of my son. However this putative fathers registry would have saved me in ohio from having to climb an even taller mountain in my custody case.
It would have been very simple for my ex to not allow me at the hospital for the birth of my son however because of the putative father registry should could never have prevented my son from carrying my name or from my name and signature being on his birth certificate. This system does not force any unwilling father to sign up but instead it helps those of us who want to be part of our childs life, be part of our childs life. It eliminates the costly expenses of DNA testing for a child you know is your's prior to being able to start and fight for child custody. It eliminates the ability for a mother to put a child up for adoption with out your knowledge.
No one should stand against this passing, in fact if you have children or every want to be an active parent you should stand behind this law because someday it might just help you, a family member or perhaps even one of your children.
Andy your argueing against your own point. I agree that we should not have to register for something that should be our right with out registering. But the fact is we dont have those rights, and if the first step of progress is to set up a register to protect and provide rights to fathers who normally would have had no rights under current law, then stand behind it. Its taken a long time to get to this point so lets let progress occur instead of harming something helping the progress we want. What you dont understand is this registry has no negative points for fathers if you do not register you are in the same boat you were in prior to this law passing. Meaning you have to go request DNA prove you are the father and then procede. How is it a bad thing that someone says father's should have the right to sign there birth certifiate and let it be know legally that they are the father of a child even when the mother wants you to have no part?
Mark, I have a child that came from an unintended pregnancy and the fault lies on my self and my ex. We could have taken measures but we did'nt. If she says she was on the pill I should have used a condom, the list goes on, but I do believe that using both probably makes the odd's 100,000 to 1 that you end up with a child, in any event its possible to still end up with a child using condoms and the pill, and thats were responsability falls into our laps, we still chose to have premarital sex.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Andy this may help:
Who Created The Virginia Putative Father Registry?
The 2006 General Assembly passed into law Section 63.2-1249, which established the Putative Father Registry with
the Virginia Department of Social Services. The purpose of the registry is to protect the rights of a putative father who
wants to be notified in the event of a proceeding for adoption of, or the termination of parental rights regarding a child
he may have fathered.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Thanks, kjhm.
Kris-
The biggest problem with this is the obligation to register, and forfeiture of rights if the registration is not done. If you truly are in the same boat, without registering, as before, then my difference is quibbling. (As a libertarian, though, I don't like new governmental obligations to register, though--- in your own case, if the register did not exist but you knew the pregnancy existed, you could challenge the birth certificate or petition a family case prior to the birth, something which I bet you would have to do even if you had registered and had been kept away from the hospital.)
But some mothers actually work to hide their pregnancy, go to live in another city or state, or deceive men (and themselves) into believing the child is from another man. The deceived men, some of whom may suspect the deception but some of whom may have no idea, should not forfeit any rights because they fail to sign up--- in advance of the ability to detect the fraud, mind you --- on a government list.
If it is optional, and does not waive rights by failing to register, then I agree with the usefulness. But Glenn's article here (and all others that have seen) mention the waiver of rights if it is not done, which just seems an invitation for those who want to abuse the legal system--- if they cover their tracks for nine months, the other side loses. That's bad. And if you had been deceived, or if you were not informed of the state registry, you would have had zero rights ten days after birth. Do you still think it's a good idea?
August 28th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Here are some other spooky problems with the registry--- which I copied and pasted straight from a blog that I got 3 or 4 clicks away from here. I'll stop posting for a while, that's enough of my voice and postings for a while...
Re: Favorite new Virginia law (Coming in July 2007)
Posted by: the weatherman (IP Logged)
Date: April 04, 2007 09:51AM
cool ill register myself against several child-baring age women and if they have a kid ill says its mine and theyll have to pay me to go away
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message
Re: Favorite new Virginia law (Coming in July 2007)
Posted by: Lurker. (IP Logged)
Date: April 04, 2007 10:47AM
How do I prove that I had sex with her? Do I have to bring pictures\videos? LOL I should of registered the last time Anna Nicole Smith was in town.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2007 10:49AM by Lurker..
August 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I can't see how this registry connects fathers to children. If you really want a registry then require women to do so. After all, they are obviouslly aware of their own pregnancy. Is it possible the state has come to relize that they can't trust a women to be honest or that expecting her to know who she slept with is to much to ask. Why wouldn't a woman know the mans name if he knows hers?
August 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I've sent my letter off to the Free Lance Star. I used to be a Virginia resident. I left because Virginia failed to protect my rights as a Father when my ex abducted our children. It seems as if the Nut-Wing political party has only solidified their hold on the Commonwealth that once was home to the Founding Fathers of this country.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
To the person who thinks we should be greatful for this law. As Glenn has stated, many men have fought adoption agencies. They have ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY (Cochran) and it didn't mean a thing. If you think this registry changes that you are ill-informed. They could jump on a trampoline waving their arms as they pass the window yelling I'm the Dad. If begging to raise your child isn't an acknowledgement then what is?
August 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I don't see how legislation like this leaves the desk of the feminist out basket without the next stop being the trashcan when presented to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense. There are already very good points made as to how this negatively affects Fathers. Using their own logic against them though; wouldn't it be fair to say that women need to register all of their sexual encounters as well, and if they fail to do so, they will not be eligible to collect child support? I'm not advocating the flip-side here, because in both cases; the children lose. Aren't there any legislators left who remember that these laws were meant to better the lives of our kids?
August 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Judi Cochran said:
"Bluntly put, if a man doesn't want to produce a child, doesn't want the responsibility of parenting and support, then the responsibility needs to start long before the birth of a child............perhaps by buying a box of condoms. If a child is conceived through irresponsible sexual behavior, the pregnancy is not known to the father because the sex was so casual (hey guys....if you actually have a "relationship" with a woman you actually notice she's pregnant) or the dad simply doesn't want to acknowledge the child"
From this statement that you listed above in your comment, I am to assume that you think that just because a man had casual sex and didn't think that he would be a father, then if he finds out later on in time that he produced a child, and he wants to have paternal rights to that child, that he should be denied that because: a.) he had casual sex and didn't think that he produced a child, and or b.) He didn't have a relationship with the woman to notice she was pregnant. Basically, you are saying that because a man didn't have a relationship outside of a sexual one with the mother, that he would be a bad father for a child and therefore should not have any parental rights to a child. WTF?!?
Nobody says that a woman who just has casual sex with a man and gets pregnant (even if she had no intention of having a child) should lose custody of that child when it is born because she didn't think that she would become pregnant and ..."the sex was so casual". The problem here is that, while a woman WILL know that she is pregnant and can make a conscious decision about what she wishes to do in regards to her parental responsibility (i.e. abortion, adoption, motherhood), a man can easily be unaware that he is a soon-to-be father. A man shouldn't be denied paternal rights and responsibilities just because he didn't know that he helped make a child and thus didn't register for this potential result. If he was not informed about the pregnancy, then he may very well be unaware of it. And if he is unaware about it, that fact does NOT make him less deserving of his rights as a father. One could say that a woman should be responsible for informing all her lovers of their potential "fatherhood" when she finds out that she is pregnant. After all, one would think that she knows all the men that she slept with during the time of conception. Basically, it all boils down to this. You think that every man should have to register as a potential father when he has sex with a woman, and if he does not do this, then he forfeits his rights as a father if that said woman becomes pregnant and gives birth. Well, I think that if a man is not informed of the pregnancy and birth, then he has had no consent as to his paternal rights or the forfeit thereof.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
What idiot proposed and/or sponsored this choice piece of legislation? We should start a nationwide movement to impeach these imbeciles. Every elected official swears an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. If they don't, they're eligible for impeachment. The dolt who drafted this bill probably has never even READ the constitution. I say, let's get rid of the bums. Sometimes, when I read Glenn's column these days, I feel like I'm ready a treatment for a way-out, wacky hollywood screenplay that no one will ever produce because it's just to stupid and far-fetched. What's this nation of ours coming to?
August 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Judi Cochran says:
"First a caveat : I haven't read the new VA law. However, I can comment that for the most part "putative father registries" are a large benefit to fathers. They do NOT require that a man register just because he had extra-marital sex but rather that he register at the time of the birth of the child if he wants to establish his parental rights from the beginning. "
However the Sacks article clearly states the following:
"Virginia’s controversial new Putative Father Registry law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex in Virginia to register with the State. Supporters say the law will help connect fathers with their children before the children are put up for adoption. Critics see it as another example of the erosion of citizens’ privacy. Both sides miss the real point of the Registry--to remove a father's right to prevent his child's mother from giving their child up for adoption without his consent."
In short, the situation is precisely what I described in my comment above: the law requires that the state be informed every time a male has extra-marital sex. The issue of fathers, child access, etc. is at best secondary , and is arguably what I said it was: the attempt of the state to place a barrier between males and females having sex. It doesn't require that a female so register, so of course we have a possible 14th amendment violation as well as a violation of the First Amendment protection against bills of attainder--two things I add to my description above.
I repeat my adjuration: forget the child access issue for the purposes of reading such laws: they're not about child support, etc. Whatever use moms may have for such laws for their own purposes, their purposes are not the purposes of the anti-male hatemongering feminist lawyers, activists, and politicos who put such laws in place. I've spent 11 years researching how "dominance" feminists think and operate--having prevoiusly spent 25 years living with them in academe close up and personal (both as faculty and as feminist students in my classes: a very ugly experience with some very ugly people), and am preparing a list of articles once my "sting operation" against the Office of Civil Rights of the Dept. of Education re: hostile environment sexual harassment regulations is launched, demonstrating from some of the incredible mass of academic feminist publications that they hate heterosexual males' guts and that they act accordingly. A number of them are lesbians, with their own particular brand of sexual politics to pursue.
When I see how fathers on the various Glenn Sacks sites react to the things done by the state in the name of "protecting" the rightrs of females, my heart bleeds for them. But they have not got the right snake by the tail. Feminist legal theory and feminist lawyers are by this point in time a major force in lobbying anti-male hate regulations into being, and likewise staffing the federal and local regulatory agencies that administer them.
I recognized the Virginia law the moment II caught a whiff of it. Make males more responsible? Yeah, sure. Make males think twice before having sex with a female--that's where the smell truly emanates from.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Virginia isn't the only state with bizarre laws-Kentucky is the worst. They condone parental kidnapping and whoever has the child-loses ALL their rights.
The problem of custody, child support & parental rights are NOT exclusive to men.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Its sad to see and its harder to accept that the reason we have made such small steps in family law reform has to do with the fact that we fight for progress and then fight the progress because its not the area we want.
First of all if you are not married and your long time girl friend, new girl friend or one night stand gets pregnant, as a father you have absolutly no rights. She can choose to have the child and raise him/her, choose to abbort the child and choose to put the child up for adoption, she can choose to let you be part of the birth, she can choose to keep you informed and allow you to participate in the childs life.
As a man you can choose to hide from the situation and let the courts eventually get child support from your monthly income, you can choose to actively seek legal custody, but aside from either running and hiding from responsabilities or facing them through court you cant choose to do anything else with the child that the mother will not allow...
If the registry offends you that much then simply dont register.
If you are a soon to be father and the women won't let you have anything to do with the child against your wishes then its in your best interest to register.
While I did not have to use the registry to get my name on my son's birth certificate the fact that I signed the birth certificate and the paternity affidavit associated with the registry saved me allot of head ache. My ex first tried to have the court dismiss the custody case saying that I had never established paternity. If the registry did not exist in ohio its true I never would have established paternity because with out the registry its the expensive DNA test. Why would any of us when things are going well pay for a DNA test of a child we knew was our's? But because the registry exists in OH, all I had to do was submit my paternity affidavit number to the court to show her sworn affidavit was bogus and the case is still pending. Other wise the case would have been dismissed I would have had to request a DNA test and instead of being a good deal into my custody case I would probably still be waiting on the first hearing
August 28th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I am not a father and will probably never be at the rate things are going. However, I have very strong feelings about issues like this. A very close friend has been deeply affected by the unfair, discriminatory, and anti-male family law regulations in Washington State.
That said, I wish to only remind folks of a situation that arose here in California many years ago that had nothing to do with family law. When California outlawed assault rifles they "accommodated" those who already owned them legally by requiring them to "register" their guns with the state. A concern was raised that the registration records would be used in a later confiscatory effort. Supporters of the registration program promised that no such thing would ever happen and that the records were strictly confidential. Now let's fast-forward to about eighteen months after the registration deadline. A state legislator proposed a law that would use the aforementioned registration records to identify everybody in the state with an assault rifle and demand that they surrender their guns to law enforcement. In other words, the records were now going to be used to confiscate the guns. State legislators were in favor of this law and it was gaining support. Then law enforcement agencies across the state started asking who would go out and confiscate the guns that had not been surrendered. The new law required those same local police to be the ones who would be saddled with that task. When law enforcement heard this they gave a resounding "NO!" and, eventually, the law was rejected and hasn't come back to my knowledge.
To get to the point of the above story, today the gathering of these data are "said" to be for noble purposes (yeah, right), but what such personal and private data could be used for in the future by both government and non-government groups is, perhaps, what scares me most. Extra-marital relations are among the questions asked about during an investigation for a security clearance. If an applicant has been playing around and people tell an investigator about it, then an applicant will almost certainly be denied a "Secret," "Top Secret," "Q," or "QQ" level clearance. And the agency investigating never has to tell the applicant why they were denied. It is also a topic of investigation for people applying for various state and federal licenses (like real estate licenses here in California). A database such as described would be an ideal place for investigators to look and it would only apply to men (read that as discriminatory against men). Such laws are the tools of POLICE STATE governments all over the world. Be scared, be angry, exercise your responsibilities as a citizen of this nation and tell legislators that voting for laws like this one will assure that you will vote and campaign against them. They do respond to those kinds of threats (promises).
Sorry if this dragged on, but I consider the parallel issue of government data gathering to be of critical importance. Right up there with FATHER'S RIGHTS.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
AL Simply put, you missed the point! if you you were an unmarried father you have no rights.... Your rights begin when YOU petition the court for custody.
The paternity affidavit gives you rights that you did not have prior to the paternity affidavit like being able to sign the birth certificate.... If you choose not to register you are in the same boat you would have been in prior to the law passing.... All this does is put you one step higher in the family law system then you were prior to the registry, if you choose not to your start at the bottom and its a long climb so I will take the free stair and be happy for now.
I still want more progress but this is atleast a step in the right direction
August 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Bobby the gun registration and this one are not even on the same page.....
A gun owner who wants to be legal followed the registry and it possibly screwed them, the criminal who already has an illegal fire arm did not register and when he is caught he faces felony charges.
the registry, is for father's who want to be father's and want to have rights from day one, its for fathers who want to be part of there childrens life and are either going to live out there days with the woman as a family or are going to end up in family court battling it out...
The registry DOES NOT require every father on the planet to register so for those of you who want nothing to do with a child you created simply dont register... On the child's birth certificate fathers name will be blank and if the mother goes for child support or welfare she will simply list you and you can be upset when they garnish your wages
August 28th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Yes, but Kris, it eliminates your rights if you do not register. Registry is a real issue for people who care about a free society, but it isn't the biggest problem with this. The biggest problem is that your rights are stripped by inaction.
All it takes is a person who is unaware of the law, or a computer glitch one day, or a person who is sincerely fooled, for him to lose standing as a parent. The law ELIMINATE the rights if a father does not register within 10 days of birth. It is good that it helped you. But someone in your exact situation with less knowledge of the government process would have been screwed. The option to be proactive can have its uses. The stripping of rights by not registering is diabolical.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Kris,
Perhaps the gun thing seemed a bit off-topic, but, in fact, I believe it illustrates a very important point and that is why I presented it. The point being made was absolutely not about guns (as should have been obvious from the next paragraph) but about the fact that the government data gathering represented by this new law is just one more example of how some law that is claimed to be helpful to a group is, in reality, an opportunity for future government and legal system abuses. If only males are being "registered" then what is to prevent, in the future, some government agency or lawyer from obtaining these data and using them against some guy who registered in good faith but had the fact that he registered used as evidence against him in some future litigation? No matter how one tries to color such laws, they still stink and smack of totalitarianism.
Wearing blinders to this issue will only lead to the further erosion of privacy and our rights. In other words, this is a Constitutional issue.
"A people who would trade their liberties for security shall have neither." - Ben Franklin
August 28th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
To Kris Di Francesca:
It’s clear you feel your situation went the best it possibly could. I and many others do not agree your advice is all that sound.
First, stop with the carping on the cost of a DNA test. It’s less than all but one month’s most meager child support payment. It is the cheapest money you can spend.
Second, with a DNA test, you are assured you are the biological father, which is the cornerstone of this whole deal, is it not?
Third, Lord help you if a year from now in an argument she says you are not the father and you go down the path of trying to force a DNA test at that point.
Fourth, laws exist that allow a man to determine, by DNA testing, if the baby is his or not.
(However, this only applies to those men who put in the time to retain skilled representation willing to stand up to a family court judge, such as Jerilyn L. Borack, sister to California State Senator Sheila Kuehl, who is also a real piece of work, and force her to follow Section 7630 (c) as it is written and do the DAN test per Section 7551. The Uniform Parentage Act of 2000 allow this but Judge Borack rules in favor of the mother no matter which way it is then issues an unrequested injunction preventing DNA testing in the future. Judge Borack then tells you to get counseling before again coming before her court.)
DanH
August 28th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I think men should CONSIDER providing their DNA only after he has seen that the mother has.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Mike,
A DNA paternity test to legal standards is $350 and is routinely done between only man and child. The mother’s participation is purely optional and not worth any hassle trying to secure when the results are to the fourth decimal place between just the two participants.
If you are planning on any action to include yourself in the child’s life, this is the document to start with, not some ratty piece of paper from an idiot state agency. The next piece of paper is the child's birth certificate with the biological father's name on it, which the court can order, not some ratty piece of paper from an idiot state agency.
Courts Rule.
DanH
August 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
This law, like "the best interest of the children" law that the "family" court uses every day is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The rights of parents to the car, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247: U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538. D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NF. 2d 858; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S. 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983).
A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
August 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
If you do not register what rights do you have? None
Before the registry if you do not register what rights do you have? None
Its simple it only helps a father in a situation were he wants to be a parent and the mother is unreasonable and will not allow him even the simplest involvement of signing the birth certificate....
The cost of the DNA test could be 1$ its the fact that prior to a registry a father who wanted to gain any form of custody over his child had to petition the court for a DNA test. Once that was approved he could move on....
With most contested custody cases taking well over a year why would a father who wants to be involved and is willing to go through the court process to assure his involvement not be thankful that any new law can remove atleast 1 road block from his path?
Again its simple if you dont want to be involved or aknowledge paternity or that you are the father of the child you simple do not sign up...
August 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
To Kris Di Francesca
You are totally full of bull shit.
Registering is an attempt at an end-around of men's rights.
Try to pull it off with the wrong man and it will be thrown out of court.
It's simple: Ignore this piece of crap and the people who are trying to shove it down your throat.
DanH
August 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am
The issue is really very simple. Family law, espeically as it relates to parental rights, was designed to deal with the break up of an existing marriage. As we all know it has failed to even do that correctly. Much less does it deal with issues related to modern soceity like wide spread casual sex and the bastard children resulting from the occassional birth control failure. Laws like this registry are merely half assed attempts by law makers to try and "catch up" with the times. The reality is instead of further incursion into family life the state merely needs to remove itself from family life completely.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:00 am
OK. I have read the VA statute and the case commentary. (Article 7 - 63.2-1222 and 1249 ) and I have looked at the form.
"Men who have been sexually active with someone who they are not married to are required to register........IF....they want to know if the potential child is being put up for adoption or if the mother is looking to terminate the father's parental rights."
"A possible father has 10 days from the child's BIRTH to register, though there are other circumstances in which that timeframe differs." NOTE: Within 10 days of BIRTH, not 10 days of having sex. If he is certain of his role in a pregnancy and wants to protect his rights to the child at birth, in VA he can register in advance of the birth and INSURE against the mom placing the child for adoption or in any way obstructing his rights if he has chosen to invoke them.
To register, men are asked to fill out a one-page form or register online. The form asks for information such as SSN, thnicity and information on where and when they think they conceived the child. (NOTE: They are asking that they be acknowledged as the father within 10 days of the birth.) The form asks the father to state the city and state and approximate date of conception of the child. This is merely to further establish that he has reasonable belief that he is the child's father. It does not establish paternity, only DNA does that, but it does establish that he may have parental rights to the child. (However, a dad can sign an affidavit of paternity at the time of birth, agreeing to forego DNA testing.) The form also asks for all the same information on the mother and further asks for identifying information on the child. This moves dad further up the ladder if mom is saying he couldn't be the father.
Sen. Jay O'Brien, the patron of the VA legislation, states that while the registry shifts responsibility to the fathers, it also protects their rights. It protects the paternity interests of the father. It means that NO adoption attorney can proceed without checking the registry and a birth mother can't go anywhere in VA to gat an adoption if the putative father has registered.
You all jumped on Kris about the fact that the Ohio Registry saved him a from a long legal climb regarding his parental rights. Without it, he would have had to first establish paternity, even though there was no question he is the father, then be immediately hit with a child support order and THEN and ONLY THEN he would have had to file for custody. Because of the Registry, instead of a year into the process and possibly getting some temporary visitation with his son, he instead was able to counter the claim that he "had established no rights" and proceed very quickly to temporary orders, extended summer visitation and is moving through the courts toward a solid custody order no matter what games the mom has tried to play. He may or may not be ordered to pay child support in the future but that will depend on the outcome of the custody case.
Is it fast enough for any dad who wants to be part of his child's life. No, it's never fast enough. But that long climb without the Registry would mean that he could have lost a year or more in his baby's life and a longer period of time attempting to have his son bear his last name.
Some of you pulled bits out of context with what I wrote earlier. If you read it you should note that I put equal blame on both parents. Of course I am aware that birth control fails, that casual sex isn't the only cause of "accidental" pregnancy, that relationships fail, etc. However, before the mom held ALL the cards, and the Registries are finally dealing a hand to dads. Some might lose their rights if they know nothing of the pregnancy and there will be those dads who learn of a child years after an adoption. The Registry is free. A DNA test is not terribly expensive and is the definitive answer for dads who wish to deny the paternity or who may be uncertain. They can still have a DNA test and register within the allotted time if they choose to parent the child. At least their rights are protected.
I don't know of any jurisdiction that tests ONLY the putative father and the child........DNA testing is done on all 3 parties.....mom, dad and child.....in all 50 states. It is definitive (unless one parent happens to be a Chimera). As Kris said, if you don't want to be a father, don't believe you could be a father and/or don't think your rights need to be protected, then by all means don't register.
I've skimmed large number of documents and opinions regarding the Virginia and other states registries. There appears to be a running thought in many of the articles that says, "The problem with the registries is that most people don't know they exist."
I'm rather confused: There is, on one prong, the desire to empower un-wed fathers and protect their rights. On prong 2, there is anger that legislation is actually being written to address this issue. Prong 3, dads lose children to adoption because they had no ability to make themselves known. Prong 4, there is anger that legislation is actually being written to address this issue. Prong 5, a dad comes forth and says the Registry protected his rights. Prong 6, there is anger that the legislation helped him and how dare he try to explain the value.
My confusion: Do you want your rights protected or is it more productive (?) to rail at any progress that appears to be attempting to balance the scale. That's a rhetoric question.
DanH: I do believe you have to have access or rights to a child BEFORE you can have a DNA test without the mother's involvement. Keep in mind that your "ratty piece of paper" just might enable you to have the right and the ability to accomplish your goal of being a part of your child's life no matter how obstreporous the mom is.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Virgina or any other state, according to the Constitution, can't "grant" or take away custody or parental rights without due process!
August 29th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Here is a blog posted on MySpace -
From: Father fighting to stop adoption of his baby girl
Date: Aug 26, 2007 3:32 PM
My friends site - who was looking for the identity of the people who have his son - has been taken down due to the request of Larry from Wood Crapo Law firm. Me thinks this is "Larry Jenkins" from Wood Crapo. Larry Jenkins is the lawyer representing the Adoption Center of Choice. The Adoption center of Choice has Cody O'Deas child.
This makes three. Cody, Bryn, and now Joshua. The pattern with this agency is starting to come out into the open in my opinion. To me, it looks like this agency is not interested in a child being with a father who wants to raise them - but rather the "adoption" sale of the baby. (these are only my opinions and in this country we have the right to have opinions and free speech)
These are only THREE men that I personally know about and are in contact with. There are many more that have already been to court and have lost - and possibly more going through the process right now.
Some of you may not know about Bryn. He contacted the ODea family about a week ago and is also trying to get his daughter back from this particular agency.
Please find it in your heart to write to uag@utah.gov on behalf of all three of these men and repost this to spread the word.
Their links are below. Bryn is in the process of creating a website for himself. He will temporarily be on the babyselling site as well. The text posted was a letter written by him to his state government.
Cody http://www.myspace.com/babyselling
Cody http://www.babyselling.com/
Bryn http://www.babyselling.com/
Joshua http://www.myspace.com/CanYouNameThesePeople
August 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Joshua
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=171124679&MyToken=57ebcb8a-ed1e-4d24-9211-cbb4faf6e9ce
August 29th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Robert,
Quite wrong, or have you never sought nor been on the receiving end of an ex parte motion?
August 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Yes George, I have.
But, because the laws are in place dosen't make them Constitutional.
The domestic violence laws allows the family courts to circumvent the Constitution by lowering the standards for arrest and prosicution. It's now up to the accused to prove that the accusation isn't true.
The fact that our government has abandon the Constitution as a guide is the REAL issue that we should ALL be concerned with.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Sorry, I missed the phrase "according to the Constitution" in your original. I agree 100% with you that family courts are a travesty, and the judges would have been first in the stocks (or gallows) following the American Revolution.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Judi Cochran says:
(Quoting Virginia statute under discussion here) "Men who have been sexually active with someone who they are not married to are required to register........IF....they want to know if the potential child is being put up for adoption or if the mother is looking to terminate the father's parental rights."
"A possible father has 10 days from the child's BIRTH to register, though there are other circumstances in which that timeframe differs." NOTE: Within 10 days of BIRTH, not 10 days of having sex. If he is certain of his role in a pregnancy and wants to protect his rights to the child at birth, in VA he can register in advance of the birth and INSURE against the mom placing the child for adoption or in any way obstructing his rights if he has chosen to invoke them.
The "IF" condition of course puts a different light on the requirement, andt that means that the original McCormick/Sacks article generating this string was at best incomplete and at worst misleading.
There is still, however, the point to be made that the phrasing of the opening sentence--focusing on whether or not the male has had extra-marital intercourse and tying informing the state of that fact to some hypothetical future (not all intercourse leads to pregnancy)--which raises the suspicion that what the state is trying to do is regulate extra-marital sex. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough feminist-inspired legislation and the feminist arguments and commentary published in the law journals supporting same to recognize the kind of sleazy link-ups spawned by legal requirements that in themselves don't explicitly mention them.
I'm referring to the current state of hostile environment sexual harassment laws and regulations. Nowhere do we find explicitly stated in promulgated regulations that the purpose of these regulations is to discourage heterosexual males approaching females. However, all one has to do is read the academic feminist literature to learn that these people are in fact not simply anti--heterosexual males but against heterosexual intercourse. Only fanatics like Dworkin and MacKinnon and their followers among current "dominance feminists" are willing to come right out and say that all heterosexual activity is a form of sadomasochism. The 1970s brouha about feminist lesbians being sadomasochistic ultimately undercovered the notion that so-called "radical" faminists were convinced that male-female sexual relations necessarily involve sadistic sexual practices is the real source of all this in later feminist literature and activism..
My point is that reading the Va statute the way Judi Cochran does--presumably taking it as a harmless legal if-then requirement--is simply naive. The fact of the matter is that feminist lawyers are as shiftly and dishonest as the day is long. Never, never will you find them saying in public that sexual harassment law is intended to drive a cultural barrier between heterosexual males and females. Instead they hide this under the strained interpretation that deduces sexual harassment from the Civil Rights Act's forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex. MacKinnon in her groundbreaking 1979 book on the subject , however, made it clear:: hetersoexual intercourse is all a form of male "domination" and the use of that domination to impose sexual intercourse on unwilling females for the purposes of sexual pleasure derived from domination and inflicting sexual pain on females.
Does SM appear explicitly in any sexual harassment regulations? What do you think? And it gets worse--and funnier. The main model that 1970s feminists were invoking for describing heterosexual male sexual activity were the novels of the Marquis De Sade. The great unaknowledged foundation of current anti-male dominance feminism is the novel "Justine." If was from this novel pre-eminently and from other writings of the 18th-century French "sexual experimenter" that 1970s feminists derived their notion of what heterosexual sex is all about. It's about males dominating females--and that means (what else) sex discrimination! So when MacKinnon published "Sexual Harassxment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrmination" which was used by then chair of the EEOC committee that first introduced sexual harassment as a form of violation of the Civil Rights Law of 1964, namely Eleanor Holmes Norton, what that committee read was a legal text full of ersatz social psychology in which the (unnamed) Marquis De Sade was tacitly referenced as the ultimate authority on what males do to females when they have sex with them.
So when some state legislature tells every male to register with the state after he sleeps with a women he's not married to, I immediately skip over the supposed "purpose" of doing so, and look to the kind of thing that feminist lawyers and politicos do , all in the name of "equity" and "justice." Whatever is to be gained by such registration vis-a-vis paternity issues is--in my earlier "triangulation" metaphor--merely a side trip or feint in one direction in order to go in another. The real purpose of such a requirement? To put a significant burden on the male that he has to think about the next time he goes hom with a woman after bar time.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Michael...
I am not being naive or "interpreting" the statute. The "IF" is there for the putative fathers who want to assert their rights to a child. The statute is for those fathers. I see too many dads who weren't married to the mother of their child and learn pretty quickly that they have no legal status. The registries allow those dads to have that status, which puts their foot in the door to custody rights. If a man does not want rights to a child he may have fathered, is not interested in pursuing his rights or doesn't care what the mother does with the child, then simply put he doesn't have to "sign up". Somehow Registry has gotten twisted into Reporting Sexual Activity. You register IF you think you fathered a child and want parental rights. You register IF you think you fathered a child, want parental rights and are concerned that the mother may place your child for adoption without your knowledge or consent.
What part of protecting fathers' rights and giving them a mechanism to assert those rights do you find so distasteful? The statute is simple: If you have sex with a woman you aren't married to and want your parental rights protected, then you register. If you have sex with a woman you aren't married to and DON'T want parental rights then you don't register. Now I hear "If you don't register you waive your parental rights." If you don't want to assert your rights then what's the problem? If you don't want to have to "think" after last call, nothing is compelling you to. It's also sad that the females in the picture don't want to have to "think" either. It's also sad that if you're in VA and you think this statute means you have to register after each sexual encounter then you haven't even grasped the intent. Interpret the "purpose" any way you want. But "think" for a moment about how many men who would welcome the opportunity to be in a child's life just might have a new way to assert their rights. If a woman chooses to place a child for adoption and the father would like the opportunity to say No and be a father, registering this intent means he will have that opprtunity.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
For Lorraine in KY: Kentucky DOES NOT condone parental abduction. (KY.REV.STAT.ANN 509.070) It is a felony and has been since 1984. In 1991 the custodial interference laws were boosted by a stronger extradition statute for parental abduction in 1991 (KY.REV.STAT.ANN. 440.375) Kentucky has been actively prosecuting this crime since the statute was enacted, and was an early driving force in establishing clearing houses, training law-enforcement and boosting the remedies for the pattern of behavior in the family court. There have been some revisions and "boosts" to the code since 1991. So, you must be referring to a case where either one parent had no legal status to begin with or where the "left-behind" parent had absolutely no knowledge of the laws.
Pull up the Missing Children in KY lists and look at all the parents who have been charged with felony custodial interference. Yes, whoever has the child "wins" if the other parent does nothing to invoke the remedies and assert his rights. I can't imagine what the Kentucky "bizarre law" that you refer to is.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Judi Cochran says:
". . .i f you're in VA and you think this statute means you have to register after each sexual encounter then you haven't even grasped the intent."
I think the statement is at best ambiguous on the number of times you have to register. I see nothing in the statute that negates my interpretation.
"What part of protecting fathers' rights and giving them a mechanism to assert those rights do you find so distasteful?"
I've already stated at length why I find it distasteful. That is because I find the "purpose" of the statute (as you distinguish from "intent") to be at the very least suspect. You haven't responded to my main argument, which has to do with the quarter-century-old campaign of feminist lawyers and law professors to carry out a war against heterosexual males using the weapons of legal process. I don't know whether you're a feminist and I don't care. Eleven years of studying academic feminist anti-male literature and anti-male feminist legal theorizing (not to mention a previous 25 years living with professionally with academic feminists, who are simply impossible to work with and who insult you to your face with regularity) leaves me convfinced that when they say what they say as often as they say it, then they mean it. The "intent" may or may not be what the statute says it is (or you say it is), but for me the default position is that when a feminist "purpose" is detected, the burden of refutation rests on the person who argues that an anti-male political agenda is not being served.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
DanH you might want to pull your head out of your A$$ and breathe for a second then take a moment to rethink things.
First of all I am all for fathers rights, and today of all days I feel like putting on a spiderman costum and crawling up in lincolns lap to bring notice to our cause.
I am not saying that the registry perfects family law and that we should let is rest at this. I am simply saying that this law is progress, a step in the right direction. I am willing to bet that the majority of people apposed to this are in the middle of a custody dispute and this new law has no benefit to them.
No were in this law does it require you to sign up at any time, it is there if you know someone you were involved with is pregnant and know she will not allow you involvement to your child. This law is a benefit to all future fathers because it puts them one step ahead. To be honest the VA law is better then the one in ohio because it allows you to do this prior to your childs birth....
The whole family law system is still in the stone ages but look at state with out the paternity registration law, and a man having a child with an women who wants him out of the picture. An unmarried father will have to petition for a DNA test, HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE? lets say 2 months. So now this father has been out of his childs life for 60 days, he then has to go to the appropriate family court and petition for custody, how long does it take to appear for your first court date? Mine was a little over 4 months so now that father has been removed from his childs life for 6 months. This allows a father to save precious time and countless dollars in legal expenses.
Yes I believe a father should have more rights, but how do you have rights if your not even on the birth certificate? Your not even the stated father. This law is giving all unmarried fathers the ability to stand at the plate and take the pitches by putting a bat in his hand...
Its been extrememly difficult for me to understand and see why its not 50/50 from birth but the simple fact is. If only one parent is on the birth certificate why should any man be allowed to claim that child? And its more likely that the unmarried mother leaves and care's for her child then goes home alone and sends it off with the unmarried father because they parted ways. So of course the mother has legal rights from the begining. If you want to start on an level field get married or understand we start down in the count.
The only way we are going to make progress is to not fight the small steps given to us, instead we need to keep focused on making the additional changes.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
For Glenn: How does one do an honest, exhaustive search for a man unless the woman can or will supply some solid information on the guy? Or, for that matter, if mom simply says "His name was Joe but that's all I know.". FPLS needs identifiers beyond a name. Are you suggesting that a photo of the woman be posted with a caption "Did you have sex with this woman on or about December 15? She had a child and we want to know if you want any rights." Yes, if dad is registered FPLS can probably find him because the identifiers are there, and at least in VA, if dad has registered they will find him even if mom lies. There are no other protections except for dad knowing about the child and making himself known. Finding out years down the road that he fathered a child who was placed for adoption does not produce a solution. Of course dad can step in and start a long expensive battle to attempt to reverse an adoption because he wasn't notified, but we only see those rare cases where there was a ruling in favor of dad. Those cases usually go to "best interests" and the adoptive family prevails because they were not party to fraud and by the time the case would have exhausted the appellate channels dad would be dealing with an angry psychologically scarred child who was abruptly removed from the only parents he has known since birth if the adoption were reversed. Yes, dad would "win"..............something. Do you really believe that every man who "might" have fathered a child wants that child, wants the rights and responsibility? Some of the angriest dads in this country are angry because they feel that reponsibility, especially financial, has been forced on them, including many dads who are divorced and feel "forced" to help support their child. Are you aware that most women who seek abortion are driven to the clinic by the father and the father pays for all or at least part of the procedure? If reality isn't going to be the major part of the whole picture, then none of the discussions are of any use.
Your thought is a decent, honest one, but totally lacking in reality. Unfortunately, too often when the adoption card is on the table, mom may not even have a clue who the guy was or know anything which might identigy him. The adoption proceeds as "father unknown" and no one can force a woman.....or a man.......to provide a list of any and all sexual partners from around the time of conception. When adoption isn't the keyword, the mom can't track the dad for child support either if she has little or no information on his identity so FPLS can't help her either. You are working under the assumption that 1. Woman gets pregnant and gives birth. 2. Woman can always identify man she slept with and give his "name, rank and serial number" so to speak. (Or at least know his name and where he lives.) That was more a reality in 1960 than in 2007. In 1990 there was more "Thinking about last call" because of AIDS but by 2000 we've forged ahead to tipping the scale on the side of out of wedlock births. This is the reality.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
lets not forget that VA is a commonwealth, and they make the laws as they go in court. Va believe they are above all others in this Nation.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
To Judi Cochran, who says: “DanH: I do believe you have to have access or rights to a child BEFORE you can have a DNA test without the mother's involvement.”
California Family Law Section 7630(c) states:
"An action to determine the existence of the father and child relationship with respect to a child who has no presumed father…may be brought by the child…the Department of Child Support Services…the mother…a man alleged or alleging himself to be the father…"
As mentioned previously, the Uniform Parentage Act of 2000 also supports a man’s request for DNA testing. All a man has to do is allege he is the father and not get Judge Jerilyn L. Borack who will rule in the mother’s favor no matter which way it is, and the DNA test is all but automatically ordered by the court (Section 7550).
For the mother to object…doesn’t that set off alarm bells???
DanH
August 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I went to the site the poster posted above re the three men - although it doesn't say on there why they posted it - I see it now. Those men were all losing their children due to a registry that was not of their own home state. Agencies will have women come in from out of state, induce them and Adoption agencies use these registries in that state to intentionally deny men access to their children because "hey - the registry is there - we don't need to notify them.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Judi-
You are rapidly losing credibility. You seem to want to base the rule on the exception- that a woman who carries a pregnancy to term won't usually have a good idea who the father is. If she really doesn't know, than the State cannot find or notify the father (obviously). I'm probably not alone in thinking that MOST women who become pregnant without knowing who the father will get an abortion. I believe most women in this situation very definately knows who the father is. In the cases where she delivers a baby and has no idea who the father is (or even knows who he is but he is not aware she is pregnant, or maybe is but she said she was getting an abortion, or she disappears, etc., etc.), well, how would the father know to register?
While the law does not force a man to list all sexual partners, a State often compels an unwed mother to put a man's name, any man's name, on the birth certificate so that child support charges can accrue to him rather than be paid for by the State. There is a 6-month period for him to contest paternity, and since they didn't receive notice in time, they were conclusively presumed to be the father. He doesn't have to be the father or receive actual notice of his obligation- the child support, and State penalties, start piling up, and the 6-month period had lapsed. Eventually the State catches up to them and puts a hold on their passport application or whatever. There was a recent snafu in LA about this- cut rate process servers claiming process was served to men who weren't fathers, and then the "fathers" getting soaked, with no opportunity for recovery of any money they paid, and, of course, no penalty for the lying mother. Don't forget, these "fathers" are Deadbeat Dads.
I'd much rather see a law giving parental rights (and by that I mean equal to the mother's) to any man paying child support, even if he's not the actual father. The VA registry does NOTHING for fathers in situations where he is unaware of her pregnancy. Even with registration, so what? He's NOTIFIED that his child is being put up for adoption. Great. And yes, you are right, some men are angry that fatherhood was forced on them, often by a conniving, lying woman. Lying about birth control, fishing used condoms out of the trash to self-inseminate- where does it end? You can count me among the men who believe a truly "accidental" pregancy in a woman over the age of 22 is very, very rare. And the probability that a truly accidental pregancy is carried to term is even more rare.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
"Virginia is for Lovers!"
“Men, please register with the State every time you have sex here.”
99.97% of the time the Registry will be used by Child Support Services when she decides to raise the child in a one-parent, no income home. 0.03% of the time it will be used to locate the biological father for adoption proceedings.
As it is the mother who will be attempting to raise the child in a government-funded non-income home, logic would dictate that SHE should be the one registering every time SHE has non-marital sex.
Many states require notification of the biological father in adoption proceedings and cannot proceed until this has been achieved (an announcement in the back of a newspaper doesn’t cut it). If this is what the Virginia legislators wanted to accomplish, they could have enacted the same statutes. This is NOT what they wanted…
A small advancement in men’s rights?!? No, an attempt to legislate the discarding of men’s paternal rights. The Registry is misguided, mis-labeled, and legislated misandry. On court challenge, it will get dumped.
DanH
August 29th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Michael -
I haven't responded to your "feminist" arguments because I have zero interest in them. In this discussion you insert a paranoid thought that "this must be about the feminists" and you believe that there is a hidden agenda other than to protect father's rights. Personally, I had no interest in the "movement" when it started 40 years ago either. I felt, and still do, that feminism was a blow to those of us who were intelligent, professional and still liked to be treated like women. There were easier and more intelligent ways of fighting for more equality in the payroll department and a better ability to climb the ladder through merit than demanding to be "treated like a man". I am obviously not a feminist. And I never needed a "label" to hold my own professionally. If I had wanted to debate feminism it would have been when I was in my 20's at the start of that "war", not today. Back then I had no desire to "burn my bra", act like a man or whine about the fact that I might make a few dollars less than my male peer. I was too busy to whine and too confident in my own skin to bother with a bunch of wailing bimbos. I still like the door held open for me, I don't want a man to ask me to dinner and expect me to pay "my share", and, at my age, I can still be quite pleased when a man isn't afraid to pay me a compliment. An honest woman will say that a catcall or compliment isn't "sexual harrassment" but a little boost to her day AND a large boost to her ego.
I do wonder if the feminism movement hadn't come so far if 99% of my clients today just might not be the dads. Bluntly, I care much more about the children subjected to today's custody arena than I do about any of the adults. That allows me to have a clear concience and open mind when I help someone.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
DanH......
Yes, the action can be brought by any of the above. The test requires mother, father and child and either parent can abe compelled to be tested through court order. Your earlier statement was that "dad can take child and be tested without the mother......".
August 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Serenity -
I have no fear of losing my credibility. No state compels a woman to put a man's name on the birth certificate. In fact, in all 50 states a woman can't put a man's name on the birth certificate unless he signs an affidavit of paternity and signs the birth certificate application at the hospital. Of course the state can compel a woman to list the father if she applies for welfare or child support. A dad served with a paternity action/ child support action has only to respond to the paperwork if he truly believes he isn't the father and if he truly didn't get notice how why would he start paying?.
You didn't read my prior posts
August 29th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
To Judi Cochran,
The DNA Paternity test does NOT require the mother either by code or test procedure. 7630(c) is father and child only. The Q-Tip cheek swab between father and child is accurate to the fourth decimal place (99.9997).
Compelling a mother and child DNA Maternity test is a different statue (Section 7650). It also only requires those two and is similarly accurate.
DanH
August 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I said in my earlier post that there is little reason for "accidental" pregnancy today. Of course, men don't lie to the women they have unprotected sex with. They are just tricked into it by conniving women. I thought men wanted to get rid of that image.
DanH
So you're saying that 99% of children born to unwed parents today are on welfare? Why is it that every time fathers' parental rights are on the table, every discussion slowly comes back the child support agenda?
Which is it: "I want to be a father" or "I want to be a father as long as it doesn't mean I have to have any financial responsibility" ? What I am hearing is "I don't want to register my intent to have a role in my child's life because the evil women and the evil government might make me have to help support my child." If a man doesn't want any role in the child's life and doesn't want any financial responsibility, he is free to terminate his parental rights at any time.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
DanH -
You just went back to what I said before: Dad has to have "access" to the baby. I don't mean legal access but sans kidnapping if mom isn't cooperating how does dad get to the lab with the child - or even get close enough to the child? I think it's silly to say mom and baby need a stand alone test unless there is a question about whether mom actually gave birth. When a DNA test is ordered by CSEA or the court, all 3 must be present. I "assume" you're talking about sneaking a child off for independent testing.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
99% of the new mothers who decide to provide a single-parent, government-supported, non-income home to raise the child will have the state agency make a bee-line to the Registry file cabinet.
0% of the adoption papers that come in will cause the agency to even glance in the direction of the Registry file cabinet.
Does that make it clear what the intent of the Registry is?
DanH
August 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
To Judi Cochran,
Again, NO!
The court orders whoever has the child to report to the testing facility with the child. If the child does not appear, the child's custodian is in contempt of court. It is then a criminal matter and you can take a breather with the legal costs as the State takes it from there to get the child's cheek swab.
DanH
August 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The intent of the registry is very clear. Title IV D.... and the hundreds of billions in collections... now they will have a sexual history on most woman... Child Support fraud will skyrocket with the states collection percentage, amount and bonus. If its not joe blow 1 its joe blow 2.. if not 2 then its three. Guarnteed state income as your the father til proven otherwise... All states do it with the mothers word now VA has a list to work through. This is insane.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
DanH you really need to stop... An adoption agency will have to check the registry but I think you miss the point most men who use this registry are soon to be fathers who want to be fathers and they will use this to skip one of many steps in the family law system.
Next the welfare department already requires the mother to state the fathers name, if she does not know she better make one up...
Its simply dan dont use the registry and be the deadbeat you obviously intend to be.. Sorry but I had to express how I truely feel... Being a MAN who has used the OHIO VERSION of this law to my benefit I can speak from experiance this helps unmarried fathers gain rights they did not have prior to this
My belief is simple as an Unmarried Father in the Family law system we are placed into a boat with taking on water...this registry is not the fix for our leaking boat but atleast its a plug to slow the leak till we can do something better
August 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
kenyatte it does not require you to registry because you have had SEX with a women.... What this is, is if you know she is pregnant you know the child is yours you register to gain rights you did not have before.
Now if you know your the father I highly suggest you only register if you want to be a father. It will benifit you only in this situation... However registering or not registering makes it does not make it any easier for the mother to list you on the welfare papers and have the state bring action against you. All she has to do is list you on those welfare papers and its up to you to protest her claim..... Hell she could say her baby's dad is micheal jordan it would be up to him to prove its not his
The registry is only there for upcoming fathers who want to be fathers that want to knock out a step in the family law system... If its not you dont use it but dont harm the people it will help by fighting something good
August 29th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Kris-
The problem is still the same. I agree that on pure pragmatics, a list can help a father who signs up. Your insistence, however, that without the registry, a father has no rights anyway, so removing them by law doesn't matter, is simply mistaken. Are the rights difficult to enforce? Yes, I'm sure. But still the rights exist. With the registry, you have a convenient, ironclad and permanent stripping of rights for fathers --- just for failing to sign up, regardless of the reason!
Defensible reasons for fathers not to sign up include a) being a naive, normal person instead of a family law hack; 2) living out of state, even if the potential mother moved there; 3) being duped into thinking the child was from another father; 4) a potential mother (aka "woman") who simply did not tell the real father (maybe they told someone else); and there are probably more. The bottom line is, it is for the convenience of those who want to disregard the rights of fathers, who want to put a short time limit on any rights that might apply to them. And a law that facilitates the withdrawal of rights is no friend to those whose rights are threatened.
And Judi- dismissing accidental pregnancy is nothing short of naive. And the problem is not that the list can be useful, it is that the list can kill a father's relationship and legal rights as noted above.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
The number of comments--mainly in calling into question the reasoning of "Judi Cochran"--that ferret out the downsides of the registry idea lead me to think that there's an awful lot of loose garbage ready to be generated by this requirement, so much so as to calli into question the integrity of the thinking that went into this idea in the first place.
This is exactly what has happened as case law has proliferated in the wake of making sexual harassment something a woman can not only complain about but sue for damages for. What has happened is that the the operable definition of what constitutes hostile environment SH has simply been sent spinning into outer space. Nothing is simpler than doing an analysis of the semantics of definition lying behind one after another decision--whether pro or against the complainant--and coming up with the irrefutable conclusion that SH regulations are quite vulnerable to a constitutional challenge by reason of creating regulations that are constitutionally void for vagueness. I.e., SH is in any given case is simply the definition which the last authority in any legal procedure--administrator, committee, judge, jury, appellate court--happens to say it is
The similarity to the present issue? Not difficult: there's simply too many unresolved side-issues chasing this idea, something which the remarkably focused and canny comments on "Cochran's" thinking in this thread have made amply obvious. In both cases, we have the well-nigh inevitable creation of "unforeseen consequences" that usually result when politically motivated regulations are put in place that are intended to do just one thing well, and end up doing a lot of things badly, and if allowed to go on long enough will end up being constitutionally challengeable, as some have already indicated re: this registry thingy.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Does the Ohio or Virginia Registry document have this phrase:
“This agreement can be declared null and void at the sole discretion of the signer anytime until the child’s 21st birthday if DNA testing shows the signer not to be the biological father, or the mother or courts prevent DNA paternity testing.”
Signing the document creates a very high hurdle (more a brick wall) to challenging paternity should it later become an issue. Did you really intend to agree to be the father regardless of who is actually the biological father? You do know you can still be pushed totally out of the child’s life but be stuck with paying $350,000 over 18 years regardless of who is the biological father or the Registry, don’t you?
Use your head: Don’t sign away your rights for absolutely nothing in return. First do the DNA paternity test, then get your name on the birth certificate, then, and only then, if you think it has any meaning (it doesn’t), sign the damn Registry. Declaring your intent is not worth the paper it is written on except for locking you in when the little lady is committing paternity fraud.
Everything you believe you gained was already available to you without the leg irons you willingly signed up for. Drink the Kool-Aide if you want to, but please don't shill it as a small but important improvement in men's rights. It's not.
DanH
August 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
DanH
I know that Ohio has either a 90 day or 1 year limit on the paternity registry. In that time frame either the father or the mother can dispute the registry, but once it goes beyond that from my understanding you are the father and not even a court can contest it.....
Thats why I have said so many times if you KNOW you are the father sign, it will provide rights you did not have before.... But dont just go register because you had sex with someone and think it could be your's or one of 10 other guys...
If you are unsure and want the responsability if you are the father then I sugest you wait till the child is born and request DNA...
What your missing is for those of us who knew beyond the shadow of a doubt the child is ours these registry's clear a small part of the road block other wise known as family law...To me every day I have with my son is precious so I am greatful that it exists and shortened this already long process by a few months
You obviously have never gone through the rough custody dispute that I along with many other fathers have. Yes I could have gained all the rights the registry provided me with in time, but you miss the point that this makes it instant. I filed for custody january the 11th, and my first court date was april 27th.. I saw my son a total of 5 hrs in that time because its all my x allowed...And on april 27th I was granted visitation on temp orders... Had the registry not existed or I chose not to sign, on january 11th I would have had to petition for a DNA test say that took the same time frame for my court date, I would have had to wait 4 months with out contact, then they probably would have said the DNA testing had to be done within 30 days and set a new court date. My next court date is september 12th and was set april 27th... if it did not exist I would have had to wait 8 months before being able to get a temp order for custody... This is a small step you just need to open your eyes and stop making it into something its not and see it for what it is
August 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Michael M
If I read your message right you believe this registry requires a man to register because he had sex with a women, am I correct?
If I am correct, you are wrong this is there for men who know beyond the shadow of a doubt they are about to be a father and want to make sure the woman can't block them from rights we as fathers should have even prior to a court order or custody case.
If you know you are the father and dont care about your rights you simply dont register and deal with it the old fashion way
August 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Kris said "if she does not know (the name) she better make one up" how does 'John Smith' sound? I'm sure their are only a few million by that name.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Andy I understand your concerns about the registry but its a little different then you think. I filed for custody my ex filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that I had not established paternity... My attorney provided my registry affidavit and the case was not dismissed....This piece of paper is worth its weight in gold to a father and its stands up in court
The problem is your creating negatives that are not there.... What rights can this registry kill for a father? I am really interested in hearing what rights you believe it removes for an unmarried father
August 29th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
There are NO fathers' rights until there exists a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Michael H, you are one of many who believe its all or nothing... Unfortuently I can see your side... But I can also think of everything I have ever accomplished and remember it was not all or nothing I accomplished them one step at a time and each step was progress....
This is a step towards progress, not a huge step but a step
And yes Lane when a mother signs up for welfare they have to state who they believe is the father.. Thats it just who they believe.. Nothing stops them from being able to name anyone they want even if they know its not true, then its left up to the man to dispute it when the state comes after him for child support to repay the welfare she has collected... And we could only wish that some of these women are nice enough to make up a name like john smith, but we know how most of them are... This has nothing to do with the registry and is so far off topic its not even funny, I simply addressed a statement that was made with factual information
August 30th, 2007 at 7:33 am
DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!
Ill-informed or not, what little I know about history tells me that very often when one's name is on a governmental list or registry, it can come back to bite you in ways you've never suspected possible.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:13 am
"This is a step towards progress, not a huge step but a step"
When the Department of Social Services (DSS) places a child for adoption without contacting the father (like in the case of Elian II), will the father sue the government? (In Massachusetts, the government has provided DSS employees with immunity.)
When a mother names a father of the child (as required by law), he may rebut parental responsibility through DNA testing. If the man named by the mother is not the biological father, does the state want to assign another man financial responsibility?
The registry is intended for child support and to protect the government from lawsuits. The father has no parental RIGHTS. Many government employees, including judges but particularly DSS employees, have NO respect for fathers' rights. NONE.
We MUST have rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Micheal H again you are so wrong...
If a father is not in the picture by choice or because the mother does not allow it, and the mother wishes to collect child support she can do it two ways, She can petition the court for child support name a father and then its left up to that man to defend himself by requesting a DNA test, or she can sign up for welfare and name the father and let the state go after him while she is collecting benefits.. Either way its the same result.... You have to prove you are not the father....
The registry only benefits fathers who know its there child, it DOES provide them rights. For me it gave me the right to be a father with out a DNA test... With out the registry you are no one until there is a DNA test if you want custody. And the flip side to that is if she wants child support you and names you, then you are the father and responsible to pay until you prove you are not the father
Your points and concerns have absolutly nothing to do with the area's the registry covers and the rights it provides for fathers...
Rosemarie Says...
"DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!
Ill-informed or not, what little I know about history tells me that very often when one's name is on a governmental list or registry, it can come back to bite you in ways you've never suspected possible."
look at it this way, a man has a 5yr relationship with his current girlfriend and things are great, the father witness the birth one would think they would both sign the birth certificate right?
Now look at it this way a man is has a 5 yr relationship with his current girlfriend and they are having a baby, one month prior to the birth of the child they split up and the women decides she wants nothing to do with the father. But the father still wants to be a part of his child's life...
It would be in this mans best interest to register because it would allow him to sign the birth certificate and it would allow him paternity rights, it would put this man one step closer to court when he files for custody....
IT ONLY HELPS FATHERS WHO WANT TO BE FATHERS TO THE CHILDREN THEY KNOW ARE THEIRS.. IT IS BAD NEWS TO SIGN UP IF YOU WANT TO BE A DEAD BEAT
August 30th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
" Kris, The registry only benefits fathers who know its there child, "
How can this registry protect a man against losing ALL his rights, if he has no idea the child was conceived or born? It seems that unfortunately the father will be "blocked forever" from having his child in his life.
Is there a part of this law that protects the fathers that have had their children hidden from them?
Linda
August 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
If the father has no idea then he is in the same boat with the registry being a Law or not... I
f he has no idea he would never register, so it would not benifit him... If the registry never passed and he never knew then he still would not know.
Like I said this is not a big step, its a very small step towards progress, it protects a very small group of fathers. The fathers who know they are having a child.
Linda your last question is kind of tricky... As I said I fall under the ohio version of this law and have signed the registry..
My ex took my son and cleared out my home while I was at work, I filed for custody the next day, the court date I recieved was 4 months away. My ex filed a motion to dismiss a month later claiming I had not established paternity. Because I had signed the registry and established paternity the case was not dismissed. So in a very small way it protected me by getting my son back to me in as timely a manor as the courts could.....I will not even begin to go into my disliking of the court system and how or why it takes 4 months to get a court date but the simple fact is had it not been for the registry instead of going 4 months with out seeing my son it might have been 8 months or a year depending on how long it took to get DNA and then begin another custody case
Other wise it does not protect a man from having his children taken from him.. the mother can still do as she wishes until a court order is in place, but this was also the case prior to the registry
August 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I know the intent of this law. However, I guess I would have to see it in action for a few years. If only to see the loop holes that are found. There are always loop holes, and they usually rear their heads in a few years.
Even the best intended laws are eventually warped.
Linda
August 30th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Linda is it your opinion that it would be wrong for a father to sign his childs birth certificate prior to a DNA test?
August 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Definately it would be. It would be equally wrong for a man to sign the registry saying he is KNOWS he is the father, prior to DNA. I don't know any man that can know this without a DNA test.
I simply reserve the right to be on the fence with this registry. It was just put into law, it needs to be watched very carefully. I'm just glad my state is not the guinea pig.
I have some concerns about where this law will be in a few years. And, how can children & fathers be protected with it. (after this law has been tested in courts) OR, how can children and fathers be screwed from it.
Linda
August 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
This law is only new in that state is has been in ohio for quit a while...
I read what you say is even married men should request a DNA test prior to signing there childs birth certificate, and also take it to mean that no man should ever be excited about having a child or witnessing the birth of his child because until he has a DNA test its not his child.
For those of us who are sure that the child is ours the law is a great benifit, it removes the mothers from being able to prohibit you to being able to sign the birth certificate
August 30th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
This whole blog shows the problem with fathers rights movements and why we will never make any progress...
According to micheal H we move to gain a presumption of equal parenting. How can we have a presumption of equal parenting when the father does not accept responsability until he has DNA? Who is the mother supposed the share equal custody with?
By giving us the registry it allows us as a father to say we are the father, it allows us to legally sign the birth certificate and to accept the responsability and title that we as a fathers rights group fight for. The RIGHT TO BE A FATHER.....
Yet here we are saying this is so negative, why would you expect the courts to give you shared parenting of a child you deny being yours until proven by DNA?
August 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
How dare you. PLEASE, do not put words into my mouth. That is not what I said.
No where did I say " no man should ever be excited about having a child or witnessing the birth of his child because until he has a DNA test its not his child. " And for you to make that statement takes away from your credibility.
However, if you want to twist scenario's around. I CAN PLAY TOO... But, I would never put words in your mouth.
1. If an unmarried woman is playing the field, how can any man that had sex with her know it was his child until he has a DNA test?
2. If a married woman is cheating on her husband. HOW can either man knbow it is his child without a DNA test?
Why is it considered "negative" to want proof the child is your own flesh and blood? Woman lie about who the father of their babies are every day. the children derserve to know EXACTLY who their father is. All too often they are denied that right because of their MOTHER. Not because of their FATHER.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
You just said no man should sign a birth certificate until he has a DNA test.... That right there says that there is he should not believe the child is his until the DNA test proves it....
A married man is the father even when he is not thats a law in all states funny how it works but its true...
I will give it to you that women are not honest, I mean not always honest... But I bet 8 out of 10 men know the child being born is there child...
I know its rediculous to say we want presumtion of equal parenting we just want proof its our child by DNA because we were not that responsible with our relationships prior to the child being born
August 30th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
" Kris Di Francesca Says: You just said no man should sign a birth certificate until he has a DNA test.... That right there says that there is he should not believe the child is his until the DNA test proves it.... "
Yes I did. Seeing how this forum is about unmarried fathers being protected by this law. We ARE talking about unmarried men. For you to throw it out there that I was including ALL men. It absurd.
" Kris, I know its rediculous to say we want presumtion of equal parenting we just want proof its our child by DNA because we were not that responsible with our relationships prior to the child being born "
Why is it rediculous? The resposibility falls also on the woman before she got pregnant. Does that stop her for wanting everything? Hardly
August 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Marriage is not the pillar it once was... I know couples that have been together 20yrs and have never been married but they have children, I know couples that have been together 10yrs and have children again never married.... I know couples that have only been together for 1 yr and they are married.
For you to say a marriage license makes the difference is absurd.
Men know when the child is there own, they know when they relation ship is only between them, just like when women do.. So why should that man ask for a DNA test just because he is not married?
And this is the point you have missed please open your eyes and see who this law benefits. It does not effect in any way shape or form the guy who is unsure if the child is his and wants a DNA test. It does benefit the guy who knows the child is his does not need or want the DNA test to prove it, but wants to be on the birth certificate and wants to procede to custody as quickly as possibly by eliminating one of many road blocks....
For the men that want the ability to have a DNA test they simply wait and request one...
August 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
"IT ONLY HELPS FATHERS WHO WANT TO BE FATHERS TO THE CHILDREN THEY KNOW ARE THEIRS.. IT IS BAD NEWS TO SIGN UP IF YOU WANT TO BE A DEAD BEAT"
Ah, the true colors shine through... I haven't seen many father's rights supporters using the term "dead beat"
August 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Pete you obviously dont look at the real world.. Plenty of parents are dead beats.... My dad was one.... Anyone who wants to bail on their child and not accept responsability is one...
You obviously dont pay much attention to the fathers rights movement's..... Just because I believe dead beat parents exist does not mean I am not a supporter it simply means I see reality for reality....
IF YOU KNOW the childs yours and you choose not to sign to me it says I want them to have to come and find me, I dont want to admit I am the father and I dont want to make it any easier for the system to find me when someone wants me to step up and provide for a child I am responsible for creating
August 30th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
The fathers rights movement is supposed to be completely about men who want to share in the parenting and responsibility of raising their child. So, they should be the first to use the term "deadbeat" since they are consistently undermined by those not seeking involvement in moving toward equal parenting, but stepping in to rail against having to have real responsibility. Like it or not, there are many "deadbeat" parents in this country. There are parents who will walk out on jobs, conceal their address, work only under the table, refuse to acknowledge the children they know are theirs.......all to avoid any financial responsibility. Turn on afternoon TV and you will hear men cheering when the DNA proves the child isn't theirs and enraged when they find out it is theirs. You will see men who have supposedly loved a child, had a long active involvement in the child's life then turn their back on that child 10 years later, at the time of divorce or separation, because now they want a DNA test before they're "forced" to continue being responsible.
I have personally heard men say they want 50/50 custody SOLELY to avoid child support, I have had men say they would rather terminate their parental rights than have to have any financial responsibility, .....there is a litany of "reasons" in that chorus. I had a dad actually tell me that he didn't believe I could love my adopted child because there is no "DNA connection" and that he could never understand why someone would want someone else's "bastard offspring" to "have to support". Is it any wonder why you aren't gaining ground and respect in the courts?
What should be happening is the fathers rights supporters should be openly acknowledging the existence of "deadbeats" and saying "This is not us!". That group of dads is hurting the "cause" because after a while the perception is that the whole movement is more about child support than parenting. This blog started because of a new law which allows dads to identify themselves and have an easier path toward parenting their child. It utterly amazes me that the moment a dad (Kris) steps in and says "Hey...I want to be a dad and the Registry helped me move more quickly toward a legal standing" everyone began hammering him. He has simply said that you sign the Registry if you want to acknowledge your child, give him your name and, of course, be responsible for him.
Of course you only sign a registry if you want these things. Otherwise you wait for a DNA order, or if you're in the deadbeat category, hold your breath hoping you never get "served".
"Deadbeats" come from all walks of life, they aren't just the "poor guy" you depict as one who can't pay because he has no job, has too many other kids, wants a social life, doesn't make enough money to provide for the child he fathered. The "wealthy" deadbeats are just more subtle: They can hide their assets, tie things up in court for years, conceal their actual income.......
You all have many opportunities to downplay your connection with those dads, straighten your shoulders and say "We are about equal PARENTING, we are not here to shirk responsibility." Instead you embrace every dad who whines that he doesn't like paying child support, and often sympathize and cheer him on. This hurts the credibility of all of you fighting for equal parenting rights.
If you fear the registry, the only logical thought is that you are pretty certain you have a child and don't want to be "caught" and have to be responsible. If you only want to step up and acknowledge your child you lose nothing.
For Linda -
Just one thought. I don't know you, but if you ARE a "Linda", not a "Joe" using "LInda's" email, I would "assume" you are the wife or girlfriend of a man who doesn't think his child is his or is paying support to another woman and YOU don't want the child to be his. If it is the latter, you should instead be pleased that you are with a responsible man.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Judi says - For Linda -
Just one thought. I don't know you, but if you ARE a "Linda", not a "Joe" using "LInda's" email, I would "assume" you are the wife or girlfriend of a man who doesn't think his child is his or is paying support to another woman and YOU don't want the child to be his. If it is the latter, you should instead be pleased that you are with a responsible man."
Too funny. I question how this the law will protect a father when the mother hides the prgnancy from him , and , all of a sudden you question my life , and ASSUME I am either a man or living with a man that has another child. I have had absured words put in my mouth by Kris.
This forum is about the law and the view point of what it means to different people. Just how is this law supposed to protect the children any better than a DNA test already does?
Do you believe ONLY men can be "DEAD BEATS" Turn on the news any day and you wil;l also see men that are overjoyed about being proven they are the fathers. There are 2 sides to any coin. I simply said I will wait to make judgement on this law. I will hardly accept the word of 1 person. If I had hard proof that this law is exactly like the 1 in Ohio and that the Ohio law has protected these children and their fathers I would change my questioning of it.
I simply believe that ALL children have the right to know their REAL parents. This is not wrong, and I will not apologies for my beliefs.
If you really need to know about me. I am ALL woman, we have been married 42 years. We have 3 children that are 100% ours by birth. We are the grandparents of 9 children. Don't make any mistake in the fact that I feel very strongly about family hertiage.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Kris-
The "negatives that are not there" ... umm... really are there. One difference in the VA law compared to what you've said about Ohio's, is that the ability to register is within 10 days of birth, a much shorter time period.
Scenario 1: a couple living in another state; the woman moves to Virginia without the man; after birth, the woman gives the baby for adoption; if it's 11 days after birth, the man is assumed to have waived all rights.
Scenario 2: a woman has two lovers; real father is told that she used birth control with him, and forgot with the other; she marries the other; one year later they divorce; real father, because he did not register, nevertheless has zero rights regarding the child. You can argue he's naive, we can agree, but it is still too easy for the rights to be abrogated, a short time frame in which the deception is vindicated by law.
Scenario 3: an in-state couple; a short-term relationship; the now-pregnant woman moves across town to grandma's before pregnancy is evident to the presumed father; said father, regardless of desire to be a parent, and ability to care for a child, will have zero rights 11 days after birth.
The problem is that these situations occur. I do not say that enforcing rights is easy for the father in any of these situations, but the possibility of redress and legal recognition of the truth existed before this law. With the law, that possibility is eliminated 10 days after birth, unless the registry is made. The provisions of the law are explicit: the waiver of all parental rights. Performing a DNA test, and obtaining results within 10 days, is a tall order. Conscientious individuals will indeed have this law used against them. Even in your own case, if you had been on a down moment, and the mother of your shared child had moved to Virginia, you would have a much more difficult time enforcing any rights. I acknowledge that the register can help those who are informed about it and who suspect that their paternity may be challenged. The problem is that these issues are not advertised in advance, and a man may not know of this until the rights are already gone, eliminated by law.
Without this law the parental rights, with many imperfections to be certain, remain in place. With this law the same rights are expediently set aside.
The help to some fathers, however beneficial, provides no benefit to those fathers whose rights it dismisses. If the register was optional, you could say it would only help fathers protect their rights. Since it provides for the convenient disposal of those rights if it is missed, it is certain to also hurt many others.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Judi-
Your responses get more absurd all the time. Usually blatant shilling like yours gets caught out sooner, with less responses. It is another reason why Glenn should provide an 'ignore' button, even it makes the rest of us register.
And I have known women who seek custody SOLELY because of the money it provides, who will brazenly accept a guarantee of money in place of custody. They, however, won't admit it.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Linda -
I apologize. The reason I made that "assumption" was that very often I see wording similar to yours in the situation I described. Yes, women are equally responsible - it does take two. No, I don't believe only men can be deadbeats. It may surprise you, but more moms fight paying support and simply don't pay, percentage wise, than dads. Often, non custodial mothers aren't even ordered to pay support.
In answer to your question: The registry does not replace a DNA test, it simply allows a father to identify himself, sign the birth certificate and have immediate notification if the mother attempts to place the child for adoption. It is simply asserting his legal standing from the beginning, whether the couple is together or not. In most jurisdictions, the birth mother is presumed to have SOLE legal custody of the child until a father files to establish his custody rights. By signing the registry, he has asserted his rights to seek custody, to be listed as the child's father, to have his name on the birth certificate, etc. With the registry identification he may file for his custody rights immediately. Yes, he can still seek DNA testing and then wait to seek custody until the test is complete and he's identified. However, he can step into his child's life much sooner if he doesn't want or need the DNA process.
In states like Ohio which have a very well established registry, non-married fathers usually sign the registry form, sign the paternity acknowledgement, sign the birth certificate and therefore establish their legal status with the child at the time of birth. A mom can no longer put just any name on the birth certificate unless the dad does the above.It does not bestow custody. It does not "bestow" child support unless the mother files for it. It is not mandatory. If a dad does not think he fathered a child, he does not sign anything.
VA goes a step further by allowing a dad to sign BEFORE a birth if he feels that mom might conceal the birth, seek adoption, etc., thus allowing him a modicum of status. No state can protect against the scenarios where the pregnancy is concealed, the parties don't actually know each other, the mother leaves, etc. DNA tests protect everyone of course. I think the VA Registry is overreaching by saying that a dad has only 10 days to learn he is a father and bring an action. I can't imagine that this part would stand up in court. It's interesting that the VA statute appears to have that provision to speed the adoption process and to terminate dad's rights prematurely.
I am sorry I have irritated so many people.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
"The registry does not replace a DNA test, it simply allows a father to identify himself, sign the birth certificate and have immediate notification if the mother attempts to place the child for adoption."
This can be a big legal problem for the baby as well as the father. He honestly believes he is the father. Places his name on the birth certificate. What IF his assumption is incorrect? And the baby is really not his. The fathers name on the certificate becomes the "legal" father. NOT necessarily the biological father. Of course they bond.
The baby grows up thinking he/she has known his entire heritage. Only to find out he /she doesn't, know who his father really is. This has to be very devastating. Is there a provision in the law, that provides for this travesty? Or are they asking that the DNA testing be done to be as close to 100% sure as possible, before the certificate is signed?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Clarification: Are they making it "mandatory" for a DNA test be done before the fathers name is put on the birth certificate?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
The courts not infrequently force a birth certificate to be filed with a false biological father's name "in the best interests of the child," the DNA paternity test results be damned.
If momma doesn't want to reveal who she was/is sleeping with, the courts fall all over themselves to oblige, the child and Dad be damned.
DanH
August 30th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Andy S
On subjects as important as this one, no one should need a "shill" to draw comment. No one has to read my posts. You see, I have been working with parents, mostly fathers for over 30 years so I feel that the more people ask questions and respond on important issues regarding parenting, the laws, the remedies, the new legislation, the more people are prepared when they are suddenly thrust into the custody arena.
One fact that is, more often than not, painfully evident to me is that at the outset of a custody battle most people are completely ignorant of their rights, the law, the process and of any "back doors" which may help them. They don't know where to start and too often the advice they have been given is anecdotal and faulty. Answering a question, clarifying a law, explaining a process or simply giving some solid advice can often help someone head in the right direction. When I teach, I find that the Q & A part of a seminar can be as educational as the lecture itself because there is clarification.
Unmarried fathers, for the most part, do NOT know their rights. They often just "assume" they have them. I know how difficult it is for a dad whose child has disappeared to get help if he isn't on the birth certificate, he isn't registered and never signed a paternity affidavit, registry or had a DNA test. He is most often a "non-entity" to those very people who can immediately help a parent who is "known" under the law. He can't even seek an emergency custody order like a "recognized" dad can.
Shill? What I do is "blatantly" answer questions, share my expertise and knowledge, and I am pleased when there is a flurry of discussion because one person might suddenly have a glimmer of hope and know what to do when or if he is faced with the particular situation under discussion. When someone comes to a discussion and is met with only anger and being made to feel ignorant he is going to quickly move on and seek advice or information elsewhere. Fortunately, I am always open to other opinions and new thoughts. And I will answer any question I can whether the next 20 bloggers like it or not, especially if I know the answer will help.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
A DNA test is only mandatory in child support enforcement cases. In most states an "affidavit of paternity" is required for the dad's name to be on the birth certificate. This DOES NOT make him the "legal" dad and he can still ask for DNA and he can later have the birth certificate amended to remove his name if he chooses. Or, he can have DNA and file for an amended certificate to add his name. DNA results are just that. The parents have to amend a birth certificate. Some dads with positive DNA results add their name, many don't.
Courts cannot and do not "force" a man's name be put on a birth certificate whether he is the bio dad or not. Perhaps Dan is thinking of the Welfare department forms where a mother must list a father's name if they want benefits. Alleged Dad must then be served with a paternity action ordering DNA testing BEFORE the file goes to support enforcement for "payback" of the welfare. None of this has anything to do with the birth certificate. If a child is born during a marriage, the husband is considered the "legal" father in most states. I would like to see some compelling case law regarding "forcing" anyone's name to appear on a birth certificate. There have been court rulings, especially when involving an older child, regarding not changing the birth certificate "in the best interest of the child". These cases have all involved situations in divorce cases where a "legal" father wants his name taken from the child and his status as "father" stricken.
Of course it's devestating to a child if he's rejected by a parent he loves. It's also psychologically damaging to many people when they see "father unknown" on their birth certificate. Isn't it a shame what this society does in the name of "Biology"? Fortunately for my daughter, her birth certificate bears my name, her father's name and no longer has a birth certificate that reads "Bastard Child". No matter what her "heritage" before she was placed in my arms, she is as loved as much as her sister is.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Linda-
.
"This forum is about the law and the view point of what it means to different people. Just how is this law supposed to protect the children any better than a DNA test already does?"
Linda the first sentance says this forum is about the law and what it means to different people... The law is not up for interpritation it is what it is....
This law is not put in place soley to protect children... This law first and formost is put in place to protect men...
This law is a benefit when the mother will not allow the father to sign the birth certificate of a child he knows is his. this law shortens the court process for those men who immediatly want the ability to take action and gain custody of their child. This law cuts through some red tape and allows a father to remove one road block from his path...
If a father signs paternity he can move on directly to custody and if at that point the mother wants to dispute paternity she can, within the time line and a DNA test will be ordered how ever it will not slow the custody case....
With out registering a man files for custody, the mother disputes paternity and the man gets slapped with a big fat card that says DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT 200$, he then has to start over request dna, once its confirmed he is the father he can then repetition the court now he has been out of his childs life for close to a year and he's fighting to gain custody of a child he does not even know
August 30th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I really think if you listen to anyone it should be Judi, She has helped me out with my custody case and even though my case is about as long and drawn out as they get, I would be in a world of hurt if it was not for Judi.
I actively participate in F4J's email group and attend some rally's when I have the oppertunity. I have refered other men to judi who are having issue's and the one thing I can say for sure is she knows her stuff better then most attorneys do.
You know you have made the right choice when the people you have refered reply back with thank you, I have my kids and they are now safe.
I know its all to common to find the negative in something new and it's really easy to jump on the few people who are saying yes "its new but its not bad" because they are the minority... But remember both of us are speaking from experiance with how this law benefits fathers.
Again this is not a fix to our problem at all, but it is a small step in the right direction.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:52 am
Judi...
Yes, indeed, courts can and do order a man's name be entered on the official birth certificate knowing full well DNA Paternity tests have shown the man IS NOT the father. My post above is correct as written.
You must not be familiar with family courts in the United States of America, where this happens on a not infrequent basis.
DanH
August 31st, 2007 at 7:17 am
Kris, ostensibly the only reason for this registry is to allow a man to be a part of a child's life should he choose.
Call me paranoid, but I see the potential for nefarious uses.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:49 am
DanH -
I have been working with the family courts throughout the United States for 35 years. Perhaps you didn't understand that I am a professional in the field of custody, and that is the basis for the advice I give. I am probably more "in the loop" with new legislation and court opinions than anyone on these blogs. All I asked you was if you have case law showing where a court has ordered a birth certificate amendment in the scenario you describe. I can find no published case precedent nor can I find even any anecdotal material describing what you call a frequent occurrence. Sometimes a non-bio dad is on an official birth certificate because he was married to the mother when the child was born or he has signed a paternity affidavit and birth certificate and later learns he isn't the dad. This, however, was not done by the courts but rather it was voluntary. I can see the scenario where dad goes to court to demand his name be removed from a birth certificate after DNA testing. This would be done in Juvenile or Probate courts, however, not in family court. I have also seen a custody order where non-bio dad is seeking custody rights and there is agreement between both parents so a provision in the order might be that the birth certificate is to be amended.
I have, however, seen the situation arise where a "legal" dad........child born during the marriage......has wanted his name removed from the child's birth records AFTER divorce and he has been denied "in the best interests of the child". What you appear to be saying is that family courts are ordering an amendment against the man's will. If a non-bio dad wants parental rights, has provided for the child and wants to continue in that role he should be allowed to make it "official" by being added to a birth certificate. Again, this is voluntary and the dad is before the court because he wants to be recognized legally.
I don't like to toss out opinions which are not well researched or documented, so when I see a statement like yours I seek clarification through statute and case law. You must have at least anecdotal cases to say men are forced to be on a birth certificate. I can find no published opinion where this has been done unless he, and the mother, requested it. I could, of course, have misunderstood the reason you made your statement. Perhaps you don't think a non-bio dad should be allowed to be on a birth certificate? That would be sad since I see so many non-bio dads who have willingly assumed the role of "father" , who love the child as their own and who fight to make it "official". If a man can suddenly, because of a DNA test, turn his back on a child he has been the psychological and de facto father to, a child he claims to love as his own, then one has to wonder if he has any concept of what being a father means. If it is only about biology, then how sad for both man and child.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:08 am
Thanks, Kris. I hope that your persistence in trying to get people to understand how important this issue can be has sent the word to at least one dad out there you might have helped already. We were able to "invoke" the registry so fast in your case that you have had all this success in moving forward in your custody case. Perhaps other dads will now realize that they, too, can follow the same process. That's what these discussions are all about! There will always be those who choose the long way around and you won't, and probably can't, change minds.
By the way....Johnny's boys just started school. Now you know that doing things right from the beginning works in California too! While participating in these discussion may be frustrating, know that you have already helped at least one dad and his 2 boys.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:31 am
Judi Cochran
"Paranoid" about feminists and their agenda? I think not. Maybe because you have "zero-interest" in feminism you remain in the dark about their very organized and extensive anti-male activities.
W/o going into the genesis in feminist indoctrination beginning in college courses (i.e., "Women's Studies courses universal throughout the land), and the link-ups through graduate school and especially in law schools, a number of which sponsor separate feminist law journals in order to develop their anti-male theories and agenda), I should simply point out that national feminist orgs such as the National Organization of Women and the National Women's Law Center in Washington, not to mention a small host of lesser-known orgs, regularly write or sign onto briefs presented to the federal district and appellate courts. which preach a particularly noxious brand of anti-male propaganda dressed up in legal terminology. If you want to know what these people really think, read the briefs to the Supreme Court on gender issues available online.
It is well known to people who inform themselves about such issues that NOW's legal branch the 'Legal Defense Fund" has long made it one of its primary purposes to "educate" federal judges in the anti-male feminist ideology and its relevance to current legal questions and/or cases being litigated. They regularly appear in front congressional committees as well as local legislatures holding hearings precisely on such ssues as legislation controlling the dissolving of marriages and the disposition of children thereof.
It is also no secret to men's orgs dealing with divorce and custody issues that NOW is on record as taking an overtly aggressive and hostile position on all custody issues and--it should be needless to say--they assume a strategic position that is straightforwardly anti-male: all marital issues are issues of power from day one, and as in society at large all relations b/t males and females are at bottom controlled by a struggle for power (who's to do the housework is an issue going back to American feminism's post-World War II orgins in the activities of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA. Paranoid? I' ll give you a ref. to the academic study that documents the major input of communist ideology into 1960s and 70s feminism). All of this means that for feminists all marriages are an alliance between ideological enemies, and divorces and struggles over custody are merely an extension into the post-marital period of the war between males and females that is fundamental, basic, and ongoing. This is what feminists mean when they continually repeat the old marxist line: "The personal is the political." I.e., marriage is fundamentally a political arrangement between enemies.
A few other tidbits. (1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a member of NOW (a fact that should come under congressional scrutiny) and when it comes to cases that have a "gender" slant she always votes the party line. (2) Feminist anti-male propaganda is consistently anti-marriage, and indeed against any relations between females and males other than the "relation" of struggle for dominance. (3) All male advocacy groups and initiatives are viewed by these people as anti-feminist and therefore anti-female attacks.
The bottom line is that these people are literally at war (war conducted by "other" means) with all heterosexual males, and they tireless and relentless in their pursuit of ways to damage males within the law. The fact that no shooting is involved is one reason while males in thiis country don't really believe in the "war" scenario. But the feminists do--they're in for the duration.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:47 am
If there are no loop holes in this law that can cause a child to be used as a puppet. Then I am all for it. I have run quite a few scenarios in my head of how this can be great as well as a train wreck.
I can not blame any father for being suspicious about any new laws. The old ones are not exactly father friendly.
Judi - I respect and appreciate you sharing your knowledge of the laws. Let me explain where I started to be vocal about the family laws......... There was a time I didn't think a mother could actually hate her ex more than she loved her child......... Without going into details. Lets just say, I saw the anguish my son went through trying to protect his daughter through the family courts.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:32 am
Mike-
You make me weary! I said I have zero interest in debating the feminist movement, not that I am not fully aware of the history, the organization and the involvement NOW or any other group has. (By the way, the Women's Legal Defense Fund no longer exists. There is a new designation.) This particular blog is about the ability of unmarried fathers to be recognized when they choose to be. I am fully aware of the feminist movement from start to present because I was there when it was happening. I saw them organize and structure an agenda then put that agenda into action. I also saw the men of that era, my peers, laugh and snicker at the movement and do nothing to consider organizing themselves to counter it. Today, while men are no longer laughing, I still see no strong organized voice to counter the position of the feminists.
When does the day come that the men's groups become more organized and cohesive so they, too, have a voice? The way things stand now, all I see is complaints about how well organized and powerful the feminist movement is and the "men's movement" is still fighting back by cheering on adult males dressed up like Batman and at such cross-purposes with each other that there is no noticable structure. The men's groups picket, hold rallies, fight with each other over semantics and blame women (or the evil family court) for all their woes. They make news by antics rather than well structured possible solutions. Where is the "Men's Legal Defense Fund"? Where are the father's rights law journals? Where are all the professional men who could help structure a cohesive voice? Where are the non-profit shelters for male victims of DV? I have watched the fathers rights movement "develop" over the last 10-15 years and have seen none of these things happen.
You are essentially saying to me that since I'm a woman I have tremendous power and you don't know what to do about it. I don't need to debate that. It's a fact. Yes, there is a "war", but one side is fighting with structure and real ammunition and the other is still throwing stones. Men still just complain that women are "doing this to us", thus in essence they are allowing the women the King of the Hill position. My clients are men because they have no structure, no "Voice" to turn to for help. Women don't much need my services because they have myriad resources to use to fight their battles. When will there be equivalent resources organized on the other side?
Women quit whining about their lot in life, stepped up to the plate and organized into a cohesive voice. Men are still saying "How dare they?!" I remember my mother talking about the organization women had when they fought for the right to vote. Then, men stood and laughed and snickered and ordered their wives not to participate. The "war" today is just over different issues, but the power structure has shifted. So, don't think for a minute that I don't "get it". I not only "get it" but I fully understand why that particular driving force is so powerful. Perhaps if the men's movement organized the same way there wouldn't be a "war" but a "truce" ...... or at least a balance of power. "Batman" makes for a minor news byte. It also contributes to the "view" people have of the male advocacy groups. Instead of bemoaning the power of NOW, go change that view.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Linda -
I do not question that women....and men....can hate the ex more than they love the child. I see it every day. It is the driving factor in almost all parental abduction cases and the sole reason for false allegations. Many women threaten "Give me what I want or you'll never see your child again", then they proceed to try and see that it happens. Women will bring a false sexual abuse allegation against dad, not caring a whit that then the child has to be put through physical and psychological examinations, grilled by social workers, police and prosecutors, all for no valid reason except that mom wants to "fix dad". I see dads cut off from any contact with a child they love because mom decides to lie. I have seen both sides willing to kill a child before accepting a custody order they don't like. I have seen mothers offer to sign away their rights to a child for money. (I had a case in PA where dad, a psychologist, asked what it would take for him to have primary custody of his son. Mom said "Give me $25,000 and I'll sign off on any custodial rights." He paid, she left, the child was a 9 year old boy.)
Every time I think I've seen or heard it all, I hear a new twist in the "game". The damage it does to a child is almost immeasurable. An Ohio appellate court observed: "It is the duty of each parent to foster and encourage the child's love and respect for the other parent and failure from that duty is as harmful to the child as is the failure to provide food, clothing, or shelter. Perhaps it is more harmful because no matter how well fed or well clothed, a child cannot be happy if he or she feels unloved by one parent." It's too bad that this isn't a lesson every parent heeds.
And, believe it or not, some people just seem to like the drama of being in court, no matter how much harm it might bring to their children or how much money it costs. If you sit in the waiting area of any family court for half an hour, you'll hear people putting together "stories" that would make your hair stand on end, usually with statements phrased, with variations on the theme, "Hey, what if I say THIS? THAT will fix him/her!" After the laughing, you can see people compose their faces into Sad Susie or Sad Sam as they walk into the courtroom. The prize? A target child who thinks mommy and daddy both love him. I always say that the day I stop being angry about these patterns of behavior I will no longer be able to stomach doing this work.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Linda I would think its safe to say you and my mother sit in the very same boat....And I know the frustration your son has felt first hand.
My ex has played every game possible and what seems obvious to those of us going through it is not as obvious to everyone else. I regularly dont see why things are not done immediatly to correct her behavior but I have started to understand it takes time to get through the system and be able to show what she has done....
For now the registry is the only piece that has worked for me, my ex prevented me legally from seeing my son for 4 months with out the registry i still might not have seen my son because it would have changed the process to require a DNA test before I could procede with custody.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
J. Cochran
i agree with you that men need to organize, but that requires consciousness-raising, and that is the main reason I contribute to the Glenn Sacks entries, as well as the writing agenda I have set myself for the future. (What has Batman got to do with it?) While you deplore my emphasis on the feminist input into the current state of gender law, you are demanding that I do something to contribute to fighting it., which contribution you complain about as well
I have none of the presuppositions about yourself that you attribute to me, though your making such ungrounded attributions is telling in itself.
I "weary" you? Let me tell you something: you should have announced your professional involvement in the "gender legal industry" from the start. As far as I'm concerned you make your living from a set of regulations and procedural structures that feminism did a lot to create. Your denial of your participation in the feminist movement has no credibility with me.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
My professional involvement has been laid out repeatedly in Glenn's blogs. I have attributed nothing to you, and was rather using the collective "you", not "demanding" that you personally do anything. I don't deplore your input, I've heard it all before. No matter what created the regulations, people don't much have an alternative but to use them to the best of their ability.
Batman has to do with the recent fiasco in Washington. You decried the "view" people have of the mens advocacy movement and you blamed it on NOW. The Batman antics contribute to that "view". Going to Washington with a strong lobby, an agenda , a purpose would go a lot further than scaling the Lincoln Memorial in Halloween costumes. Men are looking for a few strong leaders in their movement.
I don't have to have credibility with you. I have credibility where it matters to my clients and to those asking a question. The only "presupposition" I have about you is what you have put forth yourself which has been primarily attributing all the men's problems in family court to the feminists. The only thing I attempt to put forth is a little advice on how to deal with custody issues. I do not and will not debate my politics on any open forum, nor is there any compelling need to. I most certainly don't make my living by giving free advice on blogs.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
To Judi-
I apologize for the label. However, with all due respect, you seem overly optimistic about the intent of the law and the outcome of the courts in general. I suppose I might do the same to prepare for questions form students, or appearances before a judge, to maximize the time used to make my point. On the blog that modality doesn't go down as well. And it took a lot of posts to get a recognition that 10 days after birth is too short.
The presumed intent of a law is its marketing handle... the text is the devil in the details, and is what happens. The intent is probably why most legislators signed off on it; the inclusion of the "10 days after birth" provision to withdraw all rights belies the interests of at least some of its supporters. The "waiver of all rights" provision is simply too severe; the "10 days after birth" is simply too soon. These provisions work together ONLY to serve those who are not concerned with preserving the rights of a father. Adoption agencies are asking to have zero requirements for a good faith effort, and they shouldn't get it. Just a legitimate, good faith effort. It is precisely what should separate an adoption agency from a baby-seller.
You already mentioned that many people assume their rights are "just there" and are woefully uninformed of the law. You say you know how difficult it is for for a father whose child has disappeared. Well, for those cases, in Virginia, it will be simple. Those who come to you will now have a clear bright line to separate them: those who registered, knowing they would had a problem before they had one, and for them the process will still be difficult (but easier than before); and those who knew they had a problem only when they got the problem, and for those, their recourse will not be difficult, it will have been waived by law.
Under those circumstances, I don't believe anyone can justify wholesale support for this law.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Also for Judi-
Many people here, myself included, have had problems with family court not operating in reality as it should according to law. Asking someone to find a court case where DNA proved paternity but the court disallowing it is asking to prove a negative--- the court can simply refuse to admit the evidence, and make the case citation meaningless. On the ground it can happen that way--- if it doesn't in your cases, you are to be commended. But it doesn't surprise me.
In my case, the transcript of my hearing was altered before it went into record. And I saw my ex's lawyer paying cash to the stenographer in the courtroom. (I had to pay by mail, with a check, and the payment could have been a legitimate transcript purchase.... but I wondered. And I'll never know.) But reading case files won't help you find those, either. Also in my case I got a good lawyer who made sure the law was respected.
August 31st, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Andy,
What state are you in? Your tale about the stenographer is incredible (note: that doesn't mean I don't believe it) Fortunately, in the two states I deal in, there is an audio recording, and my attorneys assure me that if there is an error in the 'official' paper transcription, the original recordings can be subpoenaed. The one drawback is that only in one or the two states is the 'recording or not' easily discernible. In Ohio, it seems that I have only the magistrates word as to whether or not the recording is on. In Maryland, the recording is on all the time unless white noise is played to mask the recording. This is obvious to everyone in the courtroom and gallery.
Now, the downside is that it seems far too many decisions are made following bench conferences. I've seen this in both states, and get the impression that it is sadly common in many legal proceedings. Kinda brings back memories of the star chamber...
August 31st, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Andy at first everything about this law was negative and now we have moved to 10 days after birth is not enough time...
In the states this law is not in effect the father does not even have 10 days, so this is 10 days that a father has here to do something that many other fathers wont get....
Also in those state with out the law if the mother puts the child up for adoption and does not list a father the real father has already had his writes waived for him.. the 10 days will not effect him a year later if he is told he has a child and persues custody from the mother....
And as I have said it countless times this only benefits a soon to be father who knows he is the father... it is a very small step... but it is a step
August 31st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
To Judi:
My butt warmed many an oak chair in law libraries on my way to becoming the top student in a Paralegal class, instigated by the horrible realization I knew more about paternity fraud then any of the attorneys I had consulted to represent me. When my deal was over and done with, I spent $21, 500, talked to 95 attorneys and law firms (which I can document), and read thousands upon thousands of appellant court decisions that were related to paternity fraud.
Yes, courts can and do order the county records clerk to enter false biological father names on birth certificates. Yes, a lesbian woman can purchase a fertilized egg, have it implanted, give birth, and sue and win to get her and her female partner’s name entered on the birth certificate.
I stand behind everything I post.
DanH
August 31st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Kris-
I still believe it is a bad law. Philosophically I am opposed to this type of registry. I acknowledge that, due to a host of other inefficiencies in actually enforcing one's rights, this can be a short-cut to help you to obtain them. That is the only benefit, and a better solution would be to increase the abilty to enforce one's rights to begin with, not this band-aid to make up for the short shrift they are getting now. This benefit could have been offered without any time limit., and would have been offered that way if the intention had been sincere. And 10 days after birth is too short to argue that it is reasonable.
Just because I acknowledge the benefit does not mean I agree to the cost: a countdown to eliminate those rights. Failing to register is a good reason to waive your rights to the best vacation slots on the work calendar, not a reason to waive your rights to your son or daughter.
In the states without a similar law, a woman can ignore this. It goes against her conscience, and the conscience and record of the adoption agency. In Virginia, the law tells both of these actors they have nothing to worry about.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
George-
I am in California. This was at Los Angeles Superior Court, San Fernando courthouse. The only way to get the transcript directly is to pay the transcriptionist, at least in this particular courtroom. The discrepancy that I noted was important to me (the judge basically told me to shut up, sit down, and not interrupt), as I had objected and spoke out of turn to refute the bedtime of my kids, as alleged by my ex's attorney to be 8:20. I remember it very specifically because, well, after all, who sets 8:20 as a bedtime anyway?! If she had chosen to lie with 8:30 (9:00 was the real time) I probably would have thought she believed it. It ended up cutting away an hour from my mid-week visiting time. I didn't notice a cash payment at that time. Anyway, when I finally got the transcript to bring to my new lawyer, I looked through it pretty thoroughly. My interjection was there, and so was the admonishment from the judge, but the reason for my interruption was missing, and the ruling on the time had been consolidated (instead of the judge's declaration of 6-9, then the lawyer, then myself, then the lawyer again and then 6-8 from the judge) to reflect just one declaration, 6-8pm, from the judge. My interjection was placed a little bit earlier, at another bad point for me. But I know that it was changed. Very material to me personally at the time, not material to the rest of the case since then. But I became a lot more suspicious after that.
After that, many months later at the next hearing, and every hearing since, I brought a recorder to the courtroom, but with all the warning signs about recorders I was afraid to use it. But I watched the stenographer very carefully, and at the end of the next hearing I did see cash change hands. It looked like a small amount to me, but I was maybe 35 feet away. It is conceivable that the difference on the transcript was an error, and not intentional. It was near the end of the session, and maybe she was eager to leave early. At the time it mattered to me, but it was still impossible to know. I resented the time reduction, but mom was always late picking them up anyway, so it didn't matter much. I brought up the matter with my attorney, who did not assure me anything about fixing it. I don't know whether he believed me, but he probably would have at least told me not to worry, if it was all recorded.
This order came from the judge with a gavel, after a closed session in chambers with the attorneys. When I asked my attorney to let me be in, even not to speak, he said that, yes, I have a right to be in, but if I exercise it then the judge won't have the session to begin with. I'm also suspicious of the fact that the judge lets one attorney draft the order. I noticed important things getting shifted around on the orders that were different from what was said in court.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:43 pm
The judge lets, or orders on side to draft the order but it is subject to scrutiny and change by the other side before it's submitted. If this didn't happen, it's your attorney's fault. The judge doesn't "dictate" the order and it isn't often the key elements of the final draft aren't there. The order in which they appear isn't always the order they were decided in, but rather the order that follows the general order of how orders are drafted in a particular court. The chambers session with the judge is where some minor technical exchanges take place,including acceptance of the status. Nothing major or untoward takes place there and since at that point testimony is order you didn't miss anything.
Often one or both people are told to stop by the reporter to provide proper spellings or if there is a CD to be made available, to pay for it in advance, etc. Sometimes the party who requested the stenographer will also pay for parking or other expenses, like lunch if that is the rule in a particular reporting firm. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the stenographer's tape to be "doctored", and the tape is made available to the record along with the transcript. It is possible that since you were interrupting and there would have been a flurry of activity related to your outburst that your off the record comments remained just that. Since you were not sworn and simply speaking out of turn your comments wouldn't lend themselves to the record. California courts sometimes do an interim order, called a Minutes Order, with the key elements of the decision for referral and accuracy when the order is being drafted.
Most transcripts are paid for directly to the reporting firm, or to the individual stenographer. I have seen transcripts with errors, but usually it's a wrong word or misspelling, nothing major that would affect the outcome of a case. There are instances also where a judge will order something "stricken from the record" during testimony and your outburst could have very well been one of those times since it was just that: an out of order outburst. I am a bit shocked that your attorney would allow you to do that to begin with. Shouting something out will not get it in the record. I'm surprised any of it was there. Skilled court reporters know better than to try to record extraneous comments.
I always tell clients to bite their tongues, pass on notes to their attorney, and NEVER speak up unless asked to. I also tell them never to embellish when answering a question, just answer without trying to explain. If you have a good attorney, he can open the door for you to explain your answer by asking another question. Then your concerns are on the record. Otherwise you can give the appearance of someone who can't control himself and you NEVER want to be perceived that way in a custody court.
September 1st, 2007 at 6:54 am
Judi - when did women "quit whining"? I must have missed that momentous occassion.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:36 am
Rosemarie
Then you missed the whole feminist movement! They did stop whining long enough to form a very powerful platform in this country. Unfortunately, we are a nation of "whiners", blaming everyone and everything on our problems but, except for a few brave souls, do not stand up and actually do anything about it. Then when something appears on the horizon that just might be a new remedy to what we're whining about, once again the whining starts that it either isn't enough or that there must be evil intent.
You're exactly right. Whining is a national American pasttime.
September 1st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
And it does not eliminate anything... Prior to this law we forfited our rights until we went through court.. This gives us 10 days to gain rights we never had before.... after the 10 days its back to the same game petition the court request DNA and then persue custody......
Prior to this law the mother could put the child up for adoption right after birth and say I dont know who the father is.... and thats all it took... now the mother can say that but as long as you registered before the birth or within the 10 days after birth she can say she does not know the father but your info is there so they will contact you.....
I agree with you 10 days simply is not enough time and it should be longer however 10 days is 10 days more then we had... and the rights we forfit after the 10 days just puts us back at square 1 hope she has the child and petition the courts
September 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I don't whine but I complain incessantly. There's a difference, albeit a subtle one - LOL
September 5th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Judi-
You make some assumptions about my situation that demonstrate misplaced idealism and faith in the courts. Unless you know the Los Angeles Superior Court, you shouldn't make representations about what they do or do not do. As far as I know, no tape existed. It is possible that one existed, but I was not made aware of it. My lawyer (who is not a slouch), who I retained after that hearing, did not mention it either. As mentioned, the particular error in the transcript was not material to the larger case, although for personal reasons I remember it well, and it certainly could have formed a different impression of the he-said she-said play-by-play, if that had become important. I admit the possibility that the incorrect transcript may have been a result of sloppiness, and not the result of a conspiracy against me. But I personally went to the courthouse, and no tape was available. When you state "the tape is made available along with the transcript" it sounds like a textbook answer instead of reality, at least to me. In short, you take too much for granted.
I had been sworn in, as a matter of fact. The other (i.e., not my) lawyer had commonly been speaking out of turn, and interrupted the judge (actually a commissioner, if you are going to pick nits) numerous times. This particular time was when the commissioner was pronouncing her orders, with raised gavel in hand, and I do not believe it is appropriate for uncontested arguments, which she had been interjecting thorughout, at that point. And I interrupted. I did not shout, and it was not a violent outburst. And my interruption, and the judge's admonishment, were both in the record; what was missing was the assertion I was objecting to. That misrepresentation was clear, and acted upon, by the judge. My lawyer often objected to contest the other lawyer's (mis)representations of fact, but the frequency of these misrepresentations and interruptions was a big wave to counter. Both lawyers had been admonished in chambers, I am told. And my lawyer did prep me as you mentioned. And the exchange was not extraneous, it was relevant to what was being ordered.
The lawyers were in chambers with the commissioner for nearly 110 minutes; I know, because I had nothing else to do except wait and watch the time. The total time I was sworn in was less than 15 minutes. Your judges may run things differently, but I disapprove of this arrangement--- regardless of what happened inside (and let's face it: I will never know), it does not appear to be minor technical exchanges. The appearance is that the opinion is formed in chambers, and the parties informed later.
Since orders were not agreed upon, the commissioner stated the visitation and child support orders and then followed it with a sharp crack from a gavel. You may not call it dictating orders, but it seems to fit. I understand that in an ideal world with ethical lawyers representing both parties, the written expression of the orders can be handled by one party drafting it and the other reviewing it. I do not care if the sequential order is different from how I heard it, and I wouldn't complain about that. However, the arrangement gives the opportunity to fudge, and even pervert the intent of an order. And no, my 2nd lawyer did not let it pass. But it delays things. And as everyone without custodial time knows, justice delayed is justice denied.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Andy -
There are times when semantics steer things in the wrong direction. I deal with the California Superior Courts on a regular basis and I am quite familiar with their procedures. You misunderstood my use of the word "tape". I was referring to the paper tape printed as the stenographer types in the steno machine. It is a continuous "tape" and is the official "recording" that is used to transcribe from. I believe you must have thought I was talking about an audio or video recording. The "tape" is not made available to the litigants, but available, once it's transcribed, to the court along with the official transcript . You would be unable to use it unless you were skilled in the shorthand of the steno machine because you wouldn't be able to read it anyway. I am so used to people seeing the "tape" pile up and be read from in the courtroom that it never occurred to me you wouldn't know what I meant.
What you describe is not much different than how "things are run" anyplace in this country. It is true than when the parties cannot come to an agreement the commissioner or judge will order (dictate) the arrangement to be entered. Usually both sides have problems with the results when it comes to that, but unfortunately there is no way around it when the two parties cannot work out their own arrangement. In many jurisdictions a large part of the final arguing and "arranging" is done in chambers. Also, in most jurisdictions, if there is a sticking point on one side the attorney will come out and discuss an issue with his client. Other times the judge has already made a decision and the fine points of the final entry are hammered out in chambers. Usually it is the plaintiff's attorney that drafts the final entry.
I do not have any misplaced idealism or faith in the courts. I do, however, realize fully that there is no choice but to work within the confines of the rules, procedures and statutes in place. One doesn't have to like it, but there isn't an alternative. I deplore the fact that in this country judges sit on the bench as the result of political election, not merit, and, often, no legal skill. I have dealt with judges who arrive at the family court bench who came from a law practice of real estate, personal injury or probate and absolutely no knowledge of the intricacies of family law. I personally know judges who I swear got their JD's at Sears. A recently disbarred judge from Ohio (Carole Squire) actually told the disciplinary counsel that the reason she refused to allow court reporters in her courtroom was because then her lack of knowledge would be "on the record" and too embarrassing. Prior to her interim appointment, then election, to the domestic relations/juvenile court she had worked a brief time as a magistrate (equiv. to commissioner in CA) in that court and was FIRED for incompetence so her lack of skill was no surprise. It might interest you to know that the fathers rights groups in Ohio backed her election wholeheartedly because she pandered to them during her campaign. Her firing as a magistrate was public record and her reputation was no secret.
I was not presuming to know your case intimately, just offering a little explanation and clarification regarding issues you were raising.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Judi,
Hopefully you'll grant that any conversations that take place in chambers give the lay person a poor view of the entire process. As there is no record of what takes place, and the only participants are those viewed as 'having each other's backs' (attorneys), why should we have any faith in decisions that stem from these back door sessions?
Given my experiences with a magistrate in Ohio, I'm not at all surprised that at least one was fired for incompetence. I wouldn't necessarily expect nor require the cleverest jurist on the bench, but one who can read and understand the fairly straightforward language of the UCCJEA would be nice. I'm fortunate in that I have good, communicative counsel in that state (I wish I could say the same for my home state), but that costs money.
Therein lies another problem endemic to the system: he who has the most money tends to win. My wife has counsel who is good at obfuscating issues and muddying rather clear water. Due to my generous parents, I have mostly been able to counter this. In addition to destroying me financially, the drawn out process has not been helpful to me or my son. I daresay it has not been helpful to my wife. Anyone who can hold on to hatred and lying to the level she does cannot be in a healthy place mentally. (Now, in my specific case, I think it may be ill will harbored more by her parents than her, but bad mental health still exists).
September 5th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
'nuff said; thanks. And yes, I took the "tape" to be an auditory recording. And I think the tape was mis-transcribed, since actual comments were there, out of sequence and context. And I suppose, that while it didn't help me any, it was likely an honest mistake. But this lawyer was a real ringer, and I wouldn't be surprised if she had blatant misdeeds like bribery in her briefcase.
And as far as the judge making the order, I think it is preferable to agreements. Too many judges wash their hands by telling litigants to "talk it over and try to come to an agreement," and each time, the judge picks a new detail, suggests what they might do if they had to actually issue an order themselves. Then, when the judge pressures people to sign an agreement, a litigant has to choose between signing something unfavorable or challenging the judge's wishes. In this way a judge's bad decision reflects upon a litigant and not the judge. Issuing orders from the bench would eliminate many of the "go talk and come back in 3 months" delays, which quickly turn into years, and eventually would help the system to better reflect the laws, as higher courts would get cases and corrections quicker, and local judges would actually get feedback. It takes a lot of backbone to challenge a judge who's going to rule on your case. It would be nice if the judges would stiffen their spines and take responsibility as well. Maybe that's for another blog.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Andy S,
I feel your pain regarding the drawing up of orders and unneeded delays. In my case, I had to wait three months from a verbal order from a judge before there was a signed order. My wife's attorney was tasked with drawing up the order. He finally gave my attorney a copy for 'review' just a day or two before it was due (one month from verbal order) and it had almost nothing whatsoever to do with the judge's verbal ruling. Rather than sign something, we went back to court (more money) and the judge told my attorney to draft the order. This writing, near as I can tell, matched the judge's order verbatim, and was done within just a day or two of the hearing. Now, rather than my wife's attorney saying "ok, that's what the judge said" and signing off, it took six more weeks and my attorney's threat to request a contempt hearing before signing off. That three months cost me about 9 days with my son, not to mention his birthday and father's day.
And what I have to blame the judge for is not calling my wife's attorney to task. I couldn't find anything (in this instance anyway) that would be considered 'unethical' or worthy of an official complaint, given the limited defenses available to someone who makes a complaint against an attorney. Despite possibly being 'ethical', it would be nice to see a judge hold attorneys to a higher standard. This judge can be a downright bastard to a woman who is one hour late dropping her kids with her husband, or a husband who is a day or two late with his support payment. But as far as I can tell, he reserves official rebuke and punishment for attorneys who are shits.
Judi, if you are reading this, I understand that there may be reasons for these actions and inactions. I realize that there may be private warnings and so forth. But why are attorneys afforded extra privilege? If I do something and the judge chooses to punish me, it's right there for anyone with a couple of bucks to get a copy of from the clerk of the court. Doctors, cops, teachers, and most other professionals are subject to public records of disciplinary action taken against them. Why should attorneys be different? Yes, there are some ethics complaints, but these are few and far between. They are also handled within, whereas other professionals are often handled and fates decided by lay people (in my state the three professions mentioned can all be reviewed by lay people at some level). Again, why the double standard?
September 5th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
George -
I agree! Admonishments in courtrooms generally are in regard to issues or demeanor, not ethical behavior. Attorneys do get held in contempt, fined and worse for behavior that crosses the line. I have never quite understood why attorneys disciplinary hearings are so secret. That's why I am pleased when someone like Carol Squire (google her) is dumb enough to make the hearings public. In her case, she opened the door when she and her husband filed a garbage lawsuit saying she was being discriminated against by the Supreme Court, the other judges, the attorneys and complainants. That let the press in to proceedings where she said "I'm stupid and didn't want people to know!". It made headlines. Alas, Carole, we knew already. Even the outcome of most disciplinary actions are buried in the Supreme Court opinions or the Bar Association decisions and only the most egregious make the news. It's all public record, one just has to know where to find it.
There's also the fact that a disbarred attorney can often come back in a year or more to get reinstated. Ernie Preate, a former PA Attorney General was arrested while in office, convicted on felony charges, did time in a Federal Pen, then was reinstated after 5 years and is "practicing" law in Scranton, PA. He's no longer a DA or AG, but as a convicted felon has a thriving criminal practice. We had a judge here who wasn't "slapped" until his 8th DUI conviction, and only then because it happened in another state. I see it all the time.
I will repeat something that is a litany for me: If I didn't stay so angry at the ineptness of the system I wouldn't be as good at my work as I am. Once you say "Whatever", you don't have the energy to keep fighting for clients. Some of us who are involved in this "arena" still have ethics, principles and a sense of pride in what we do.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:02 am
This blog thread could be turned into a book! It took me two hours to go throught it, as I have only caught brief pieces of it for the last week. Judi, you convinced me that the Virginia law is better than what existed previously, but Michael's point about feminist triangulation and, "There are NO fathers' rights until there exists a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting," are also valid. I see the key as being that the true feminist/lesbian agenda is the destruction of marriage and of the traditional family, and that the Virginia law serves this agenda. I look beyond the law to philosophy and religion for direction. Unmarried men truly deserve no rights to a child under the law, and that is an old idea, but the unmarried woman bears a bastard child, which are both ancient precepts. Couple that with the reality that women have, under the law, complete control of the reproductive process. A woman can choose to use birth control or not, to have an abortion or not, or even to abandon her newborn with no legal consequences, whereas an unmarried father, who never contracted to be a father, is labeled a deadbeat if he refuses to pay child support. From these realities arises the doctine of Femme Sole which asserts that the woman is solely responsible because she has all the options under the law, ergo, child support is completely unjustified for unmarried l (noncontractual) children! I agree with Dr. Baskerville, that no-fault divorce must be eliminated and that marriage must be restored as a legal, enforceable contract. Title IV-D is a travesty which funds mom and kids only house-holds, facilitates poverty and crime, and generaly encourages the destruction of families, especially when coupled with no-fault divorce and the fiminist bias of courts.
Judi, you are correct in your analysis of men's lack of ofrganization, up to a point. That point is when you use the analogy of war. My sister, my wife, my mother, my grandmother did not go to war. I, my father, his brother, my mother's brothers, and my grandfather all went to war. I do not use that term lightly, but many feminists do, when they know nothing of it. Still, I hold the judges, lawyers, and lawmakers responsible for the abomination of family law, not the women who take advantage of it, and , by so doing, have their souls destroyed by it. I will leave it at that, the conclusions to remain unstated and between the lines, with the following exception: you are a brilliant, principled person and you are makng a valuable contribution to our understanding of this abomination. Thank you, Judi Cochran, and I would hate seeing you end up on the wrong side of this war.
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com
September 6th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Ken -
Thank you. What I try to do is, while responding to the extraneous issues, still try to keep everyone on point with the issue at hand which in this case was the discussion about registries. I disagree that unmarried men have no rights. They have the full rights of a parent when they step up and ask for them, whether by DNA, affidavit, registry and/or hands on involvement with the child. From that point on the rights differ little from the legal process ANY parent must go through to establish legal custody rights. Registries move them up that ladder more quickly so that the custody issue can be dealt with from the same starting point as their divorcing counterparts.
If two people conceive a child and neither wants responsibility for the child, then those remedies you state exist. If a father knows about the child and chooses to accept the responsibility, then he has every option to do so. While neither may have "contractually" conceived, if the end result is a child, then both are equally responsible to feed, clothe and shelter the child. Low income fathers who have primary custody can and do avail themselves of the same government assistance the mothers get. WICK was created to deal with the fact that a child is born and neither parent is capable of taking care of the child's needs. It at least takes care of the birth and the child's medical care while seeking nothing from the father. What I HEAR is "The woman got pregnant, it's her problem and how dare you make me pay.".
I fervently believe that there IS a presumption of shared parenting at the outset of any custody case. That;s what the custody court is for. It may surprise you to know that in most jurisdictions I am seeing a move toward 50-50 arrangements with child support deviations. While I deplore some of the chosen mechanisms, like Mon-Tues MOM, flip Wed, Thur-Fri DAD, flip weekends, share holidays - which means the child moves back and forth every two days. I find this completely unreasonable for the child. This arrangement is being awarded more and more when the parents want a 50-50 arrangement but won't cooperate in agreeing to the mechanics of it.
Unfortunately, when I come into a case what's on the table is interference, abduction, alienation, false allegations, interstate arguments, etc. so I don't often get to recommend an arrangement unless I am wearing the mediator's hat at the beginning of a case where the parents are willing to listen to reason. I am, however, able to write the argument, the supporting memorandum, offer opinions and help lay out a case in the cases I do deal with. I know the "climate of the courts" in most jurisdictions because my cases come from all over the country. I know what the perception of the cases are from the viewpoint of the court, I know what the judge needs to hear, and I know how to put it all together no matter what jurisdiction the case is in. I know not to base my opinion on an individual state's "behavior" by the "behavior" of an individual county. A father facing the court in Los Angeles, CA is by far worse off than if he were in any other county in California. Ditto State by State. Recently I was called "the hired gun from the big city" in a neighboring county court a scant 20 minutes from the "big city". Fortunately for the client that was the opinion of the assistant prosecutor, not the judge or the jury.
I didn't arrive at my "opinions" by reading or researching but rather than by a lifetime of participating. I know that judges my age have a tendency to not even understand why a father would want primary custody of young children, because we are from a generation where mothers were the caretakers and dads weren't particularly hands on or interested in assuming that role. But I know that this mind-set can be overcome with appropriate presentation. I know that the "trier of fact", whether it is the judge, the magistrate, the commissioner, etc. will rule based on the presentation, the arguments, the supporting evidence, the logical interpretation of the law, etc. A judge can know full well that you have hired an idiot to represent you, but he can do nothing about your choice in counsel. A judge can know you didn't present the appropriate argument, but he must rule on what you presented.
Your reference to "war".... I, too, do not take the word lightly and I personally know much of it. I am a woman and I was in Viet Nam in the early 70's and I know everything about honor and country. Viet Nam was, perhaps, a travesty but we were there and there was honor in that. However, "War" is not only defined by armed conflict. It is a sad state that "war" is used to describe what should be a peaceful amnesty when it deals with the future of our children. That it has deteriorated into "war" reflects not on the feminists, the mens movement, the courts but rather on a society that has come to a point where people's need for control, for financial gain, for revenge, is paramount to the needs and interests of the children. A long time before "no-fault" terminology came into being "fault" could simply mean "irreconcilable difference" , "irretrievably broken", etc. and in states where stronger "grounds" were needed they were simply concocted by the litigants. The intent was to stop the long drawn out trial process to achieve the same end. However, no-fault only accomplishes this when collaborative process or agreement is on the table. The long process remains now just as it did before the words no fault arrived. It's just that the argument isn't who slept with who, who hit who or who did......something. The fight is still about the money, the assets, the name-calling and most importantly the children. Who cares what it's called? The end result is the same. We are now a society that primarily feels "entitled" and battling parents help feed that belief in their children. I am currently dealing with a second generation of the same behaviors. I look at my grandchildren and hope that by the time they are adults there will be a more moral, peaceful and sane world. My mind can hope. My heart, and my gut instinct, bemoans the fact that my mind won't win.
I'll never be on the wrong side of this war, Ken. I could get rich by fence sitting or defecting or becoming a "hired gun". But, when I look at the object of the "war", the children, I'll stay angry, stay focused on what I believe is morally and logically RIGHT and while, not rich, I'll always be able to look at myself in a mirror and smile, and I'll sleep well at the end of the day. I don't care if everyone likes what I say or what I do for a living. I DO care that the lives I touch might have a new glimmer of hope, might be better able to protect their children, might have the law work for them. I DO care that these clients, and those souls who perhaps read something I wrote or heard something I said and learned something, may have a less rocky path to climb, a new part in their children's lives and a better understanding of the "system" and the reasoning, logic and perception to move forward well-armed and prepared.
I have pictures of hundreds of children, gathered over the last 30 odd years, whose lives I helped. I take absolute pleasure in hearing from a parent whose case I helped with who now has graduation pictures, wedding pictures and pictures of new grandchildren. Yes, I like getting paid for the work I do. But that pales in comparison to the rewards of knowing my time was well spent and I contributed to the well being of what has become 3 generations of children.
Trust me, I've been called a lot worse than "feminist" (wrong label to hang on me but whatever) and to me it just means someone is listening. When the "other side" calls me bitch, I know I did what I was paid to do. How can I fault that? After all, early every morning my phone rings and a 3 year old voice says "Hi, Grandma". And I start the day knowing that all my clients want to hear in the morning is "Hi, dad".
September 6th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Beautifully put, Judi. I knew we were about the same age, but now I wonder if we ever met.( I Corps, MACV Team 3, '71-'72.) For those of us who have the experience, we do not want to see this mess become a true war, and that means you and me. Glenn is, of course, doing his best to keep this abomination from going to that extreme, even though he has never been to war. Analogously, I have never been ordered to pay child support, but I can still feel the injustice of the men who suffer under this system, and it is getting worse, not better. For every small step we gain, we lose at least two. Your guess as to how long this can continue is probably better than mine.
Just one little example of the insanity of the child support appparatus is the concept of imputed income. If I were ordered to pay child support right now, I could, and probably would, have an income imputed to me that is twice what I am making or am capable of making. I have advanced degrees and multiple certifications, but can no longer work in my field due to unprovable age and sex discrimination. I would have to sell out for cash, hide the money, and work the underground economy just to feed myself, because the state would garnish almost all of my income! This has happened to countless men in Texas, where I live. The system does not give a damn that they have destroyed men and rendered them incapable of supporting their children. All they want is the 66% matching federal funds, and Greg Abbot jails men on a civil violation to get it! Makes sense to me.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I still think it's a bad law. A registry in and of itself has many merits---- but tie it to an explicit waiver of rights, for people who otherwise would have had legal rights, and the price outweighs the potential merits.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Ken -
I think I responded to you off the blog by accident. I asked "Does the name Warren Surette mean anything to you". If you were in or around MACV headquarters and floating around Saigon we met.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Ken -
Income is "imputed" when someone becomes voluntarily unemployed or underemployed and there is then a "presumption" of "ability to earn" based on the average of the last 3 years documented income. Reductions are becoming common when the job is lost involuntarily and there is proof of attempts to seek work, a shift to retirement income, disability, and other situations which are not in the obligor's control. However, too many dads simply try to get the reduction through support enforcement administrative hearings and not through the court. Support Enforcement can only modify when ordered to do so by the issuing court. Then they can calculate the new figures and adjust accordingly. One fact you should know that more often than not the mom's contribution to the total is imputed to at least minimum wage or to her average earnings if she was employed. I see women all the time who are just shocked that this happens and that a judge tells them to get a job. The theory of the system is that anyone can find employment for at least minimum wage.
As for you, your degrees wouldn't cause imputed income. You would still be assessed at your current income at the time of the order, or an average if it varied greatly over the last 3 years. Texas calculations combine the two incomes then runs the percentages. I have a client in Texas who owned a software company and it went bankrupt. His "new" support order is based on his salary as a salesman in a computer store. The computer jobs he would have been able to walk into 20 years ago are now filled by entry level 25 year olds. He only had to show that he had sent resumes and interviewed, then not been hired when the first argument was "underemployed". Life isn't ALL unfair when there is appropriate followthru.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
In an ideal world, you are right, but that is not how many judges in Texas operate. Just ask the teacher in Houston who lost his job before the order was given and the judge simply refused to consider the fact. Also, consider the fact that men have no right to legal counsel in civil court, meaning that unemployed men must pay $600+/hr. for represenatation, or go without.
As to floating around an R&R area like Saigon, i did float around there a couple of times. Mostly floating on scotch and/pr Ba-Mi-Ba. I do recall that some local AP's gave usa some touble about a silly thing they called curfew, but with our Su Do-an Moch (1st ARVN) patches, the local ARVNs took care of it for us!
September 15th, 2007 at 11:55 am
In this thread, it was suggested that the existence of deadbeat fathers undermines the fathers' rights movement and the creation of a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
This suggestion is logically unsound and is based on gender bias.
The existence of deadbeat parents of either gender does NOT condone family court discrimination against either gender.
We MUST have a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.