Equal Parents Week Rally in Support of Michigan Shared Parenting Bill
September 16th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children's Michigan affiliate, is joining with other Michigan shared parenting advocates in sponsoring an Equal Parents Week rally at the Michigan Capitol on Wednesday, September 26. The rally will be held at the Capitol Building on Capitol Street in Lansing between 9 AM and 11 AM. For more information, call Dads of Michigan at 248-559-DADS (3237), or write them at info@dadsofmichigan.org.
Dads of Michigan and their allies are fighting to pass HB 4564, a shared parenting bill. They have the votes to pass the bill but are fighting to get it out of committee, where it is bottled up. Shared parenting activist Derrick Scott-Farnsworth urges Michigan moms and dads to come to the rally and "be prepared to visit your elected politicians' office to discuss the issue of equal parental access for your children."
In May, the Michigan National Organization for Women put out an Action Alert opposing HB 4564. NOW wrote:
"Joint custody is more expensive, as it presupposes the maintenance of two households with sufficient room and necessities for the children."
In other words, it's more economically efficient for the child to live with mom in a household dad finances, and for the child to see dad in a park on Sundays and no more. This is hardly in the best interests of children. And since NOW is interested in economic efficiency, I would argue that it's more economically efficient to not get divorced to begin with, but since the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women, NOW is not about to come out against divorce.
I discussed NOW's other reasons for opposing Michigan shared parenting in my column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan’s Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06), which I co-authored with ACFC Executive Director Mike McCormick.
"));
19 queries. 0.330 seconds.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
NOW doing what NOW does best, blame everything on the man.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Quite simply put, NOW opposes men and women having equal rights. The question is; is what they believe feminism (as they are the largest feminist organisation in the world), or is feminism something else that nobody actually follows.
For example, Wendy McElroy and Cathy Young both call themselves feminists, yet they consider men's issues of equal importance to women's issues. They dare to depart from the identikit 'women are victims, men are benefactors' model that has perpetrated society. For this they are shunned by the feminist mainstream.
If a feminist believes in equal rights for men and women, is she really a feminist?
September 16th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
That depends on your perspective, Callum. Yes, she's just an old fashion one. It's today's (so-called) feminists that just borrow an old term. No, feminism has a new meaning detached from the old and they won't join in - traders.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
That's a good point about it being so costly to maintain two households with sufficient room for children.
In fact, it is quite clear that the feminist mantra and the juristocracy which is running American families through our courts now would really prefer to come up with a way for all of the economic resources of the man to be allocated to the female's household. But of course, the man still needs to be productive to maximize the amount of money they can take from him.
This clear "need" has given me an idea for a new company I'm thinking of starting. The name I've come up for it is this:
ManDorms, Inc.
You see, I'm planning to contructing male dormitories in those cities with particularly vicious family courts -- which is pretty much the entire U.S., and I'll advertise to local bar organizations that we can house their male clients -- or the former spouses of their clients -- in safe, dry, monotired, attendence-checked bunks, complete with shared bath and showers -- I mean guys don't really care about privacy that much, right? And this way, the men's lawyers will know that these guys are going to have the maximum possible amount of money with which to pay their lawyers too!
Yep, I'm counting on major business referral flow from the legal profession!
ManDorms, Inc. could even offer a fully staffed child visitation center, where men's children could be brought in through a private mommy/child entrance, all carefully designed so that mommy doesn't have to set eyes on daddy of course. And this way, males could have their rationed amount of govenment-determined (and supervised if needed) contact with their kids. This is all so efficient!
In a few short years, I feel highly confident that all divorced men will be forced, by the inevitable increases in support awards to women which my new ManDorms would make possible, to become customers of ManDorms, Inc. I mean, how the heck else could they survive?
It's perfect!
September 16th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Great idea AnonymousPampleteer.
An alternative name could be "prison".
September 17th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Actually, if divorce is imminent and unavoidable, I'd argue that it's most economically efficient for the kids to go with dad with no child support mandated from the mother.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:08 am
"Joint custody is more expensive, as it presupposes the maintenance of two households with sufficient room and necessities for the children."
In other words, the more money dad has to spend on his kids the less he has to give to the mother.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:17 am
"And since NOW is interested in economic efficiency, I would argue that it's more economically efficient to not get divorced to begin with, but since the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women, NOW is not about to come out against divorce."
NOW feminists support mothers' rights for reproductive freedom and the opportunity of mothers to be supported by more than one man.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Anon P:
This is not a real moneymaker, since your 'deadbeat dad' customers can only afford to pay about one-tenth of the normal rent. Problem is, you're on the wrong end of the pipeline. The feminists, their lawyers, and Uncle Sam took all the money at the front end. Good luck trying to get in front of them.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:22 am
As always, NOW is first and only concern is how much money is going from man to woman. Period.
But I love this quote from the action alert:
"Divorce does not mean that the child’s needs should not be put FIRST!"
Divorce almost by definition means that the child's will not been put first. I't's laughable for NOW to purport to be concerned about what is to them merely a minor side issue, the children. What NOW is about is the woman's want and needs...first, last and always.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
"And this way, males could have their rationed amount of govenment-determined (and supervised if needed) contact with their kids."
GALs can monitor the contact so that fathers are not allowed to demonstrate affection or ask about religion. Perhaps encouraging boys to work hard at math and science will also be forbidden by the GALs.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:45 am
I think shared parenting is better for alot of reasons. I think if parents work as a team they would realize how much they would actually save. With shared parenting you can do away with things like daycare expense. With shared parenting it insures the child has a relationship with both parents. This way if something happens to either parent the child would have an easy transition. At a state level workers are starting to see how unfair our system is to men. An example is if a father loses his kids to the state, all the mother has to do is pass a criminal check. Fathers on the other hand have to pass a criminal check, go through parenting classes, have thier home inspected, pass a phycological test and what ever else they ask for. If shared parenting was inacted the state could no longer use this tactic. Also through shared parenting it would save the state alot of money, because there would be less children in foster care. If you do not want to share your child. Make wise decisions on who you have a relationship with. A child has the right to be with and have a relationship with both parents. Like it or not.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:36 am
A couple of points:
Firstly, NOW claims that shared care presupposes the maintenance of two households with sufficient room and necessities for the children. In fact, all parental separation presupposes exactly that if the noncustodial parent is to have the children stay with him, i.e. if he is to play any significant role in their lives as a parent.
Secondly, I am concerned that shared parenting legislation will put many more men at risk of criminal prosecution for for false claims of domestic violence, for the purpose of preventing shared parenting and maintaining the financial enslavement of the father. Other ploys include (i) provoking a father into some outburst that will then form the basis for a domestic violence complaint, (ii) setting up surveillance e.g. cameras, friends or boarders, as a "fishing expedition" to catch a few situations in which the father shows anger that are then taken out of context to portray him as abusive, (iii) alienating children against the father so that their testimony and emotional reactions concerning him are used to prevent shared parenting. Is there any way that shared parenting legislation could discourage inappropriate use of the "prove the father is unfit" provisions? One way of course is for Courts to prosecute for perjury when they uncover such lies and plots, but that won't happen any time soon at least when the offender is a woman. Another approach is to define the "unfit parent" criteria very precisely and require evidence of claimed unfitness across a significant time period except where one-off or recent evidence concerns serious violence corroborated by medical evidence of injury or death.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
"Also through shared parenting it would save the state alot of money, because there would be less children in foster care. "
The states and their social service agencies receive money from the federal government for each child they have adopted, through Title IV-E.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:49 am
"I am concerned that shared parenting legislation will put many more men at risk of criminal prosecution for for false claims of domestic violence, for the purpose of preventing shared parenting and maintaining the financial enslavement of the father. "
I ask all who share this concern to continue their support for shared parenting.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I think through shared parenting child abuse claims would go down. The reason is parents could keep closer eye on what is being done to children. Children would be more open with fathers instead of afraid. Mothers would not be able to keep children from fathers. So moms could not hide abuse. Children would know fathers are not the bad guy. They would grow up seeing a positive father figure. They would feel more loved and excepted.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
To Amy - yes, good point, that is a probable advantage of shared parenting once it is established between two parents. I was thinking more of the separation process, and/or the way mothers might (with encouragement from wimmin's groups and lawyers) set up the man before leaving him to ensure she gets the children and the financial benefits of having sole custody.
To Michael H - yes, I agree, I would hope my concern did not reduce sensible people's support for shared parenting. But I think it's worth being aware of this risk and for policy makers to include measures to reduce it.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hans,
"Secondly, I am concerned that shared parenting legislation will put many more men at risk of criminal prosecution for for false claims of domestic violence, for the purpose of preventing shared parenting and maintaining the financial enslavement of the father."
This is happening now, it's called the silver bullet and will get sole custody for the mother in cases that are disputed. This scare the judge tactic will continue to be a problem in the family courts as long as they don't prosecute false accusers.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am
"They would feel more loved and accepted."
I hope so.
"This scare the judge tactic will continue to be a problem in the family courts as long as they don't prosecute false accusers."
Perhaps judges will someday sanction the lawyers of false accusers who present a case that is not based on any evidence.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
My son is fifteen and wanted to contact his brother. His brothers mother told him all these horrible things about his dad. She also told him to ask other family members on his fathers side. When his dad side was approached they thought it was perfectly okey for her to this. Knowing of course none of these things were true. My husband only lives about half the United States away.Has not seen her in about 25 years. Plus because of her games refuses to talk or have anything to do with his family.I am so glad ex's know what we are doing! I wish there was a justice system that would go after anyone that does this sort of thing. My kids feel terrible because they have no relationship with thier family. Of course thier lies are my husbands fault to. I even think they got ahold of me on here. Go to myth about divorce and find Kate. She is the person in question.