Fathers & Families--Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State
December 21st, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
For fathers and the children who love them and need them, Massachusetts sometimes looks a lot like feminist hell. In this series, Ned Holstein, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, points to four um...problematic...Massachusetts family law bills. The first bill Holstein cites limits the freedoms of all dads--even married dads and "dads" with no children!
From Holstein:
Here are four candidates for the most dubious family bills in the Massachusetts Legislature....I would like to hear from those in other states – tell me about the legislative doozies in your state. Then we will determine the winner of “most ridiculous family law bill in the country.” The winner will be chosen according to secret criteria that are 100 percent subjective.
(To enter the contest, your email must include the text of the bill, or a link to the text. The bill must be current. Please indicate whether I can use your name as the submitter.)
For our first entry from Massachusetts, I offer:
“Don’t Get in a Car Accident in California”
Massachusetts Doozy Number Four, HB 113:
OK, so you are happily married and live in Massachusetts and lose your job, so you go to California where you think you have a better shot. On your second day there, you get in a horrendous car wreck and are hospitalized for the next four months. Under HB 113, a court shall issue a warrant for your arrest because you left Massachusetts for over 90 days without making “provisions for the support” of your spouse.
(The word “shall” is important because in law, it means that the thing must be done, without room for discretion.)
Yes, that’s right, this law would apply even to marrieds, even without kids. And failing to find a job in California despite best efforts. And falling ill. And working on commissions, which do not arrive in 90 days — you get the picture.
Naturally, it would also extend to those with child support orders.
So don’t try to better your family’s circumstances by going out of state — you might end up in jail if things don’t work out. (This could get bad if the dollar keeps falling and we start going to Mexico for work.)
Presumably, like all family law, this would be applied in a gendered manner, so that women would rarely, if ever, be arrested under its provisions. And speaking of the little woman, this bill seems to assume that she is helpless and cannot support herself while you are gone — and no exception just because you and she are childless.
"));
19 queries. 0.379 seconds.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Talk about overbroad. HB 113 would be ruled unconstitutional if it is ever challenged. Actually, if it were applied across the board, it would be a wonderful way to keep women from abandoning their families because they no longer "feel" as though they are in love. Of course, I don't think women are the target audience for this bill.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Even so, hope they don't waste too much time wondering why the marriage rate in that state drops like a rock after this bill passes.
Don't get married. Ever.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
America gets less and less free everyday and will continue to become so until we are pushed into one mold, only for the sake of abiding by the laws
December 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account".
Thomas Jefferson
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I think a lot of our Founders, and I think they still have a lot to contribute to these discussions.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I have read hundreds of bills in my time - I have to say this one may take the cake - certainly top 3 of all time boneheaded bills.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I still think the winning combination are the database in Virginia that requires potential fathers to submit private information that can then be accessed by pregnant women and their lawyers coupled with the child support laws that can give you a felony conviction in absentia before notifying you that you have a child make Virginia the scariest state (okay, Commonwealth) in the union.
Mind you, this one's a good effort. A few more winners like this and Massachusetts will be in the running.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
You took the words right out of my mouth, Judge. Imagine a woman packing up the kids and leaving her husband to move in with BF out of state, and then getting arrested for leaving without "providing for her husband's support."
LMAO!
And while she's jailed, he picks up the kids and gets temporary custody of them which becomes permanent since he's now the "primary caregiver."
Why isn't NOW up in arms???
December 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I've now emailed my state rep voicing protest over this bill.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/273-15a.htm
Good lord. The existing law on the books that this amends already made this the law. I can't find anything in here about what the deserted spouse has to prove before the husband is arrested. It might make sense if the spouse were institutionalized or incapable of caring for themselves, but this appears to apply to able-bodied and childless wives.
It'd even make sense if the law only applied to spouses with court orders against them, but it clearly says 'or' before talking about orders or judgements.
For that matter, what were they thinking? Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages, why write the laws so that they apply to half of hetersexual marriages, all of gay marriages and none of lesbian marriages?
December 21st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Exactly one year after the National Organization of Women merged with the American Bar Association to form NOW-ABA, a spokesperson announced that the organization plans to lobby NOW-Congress for a sixth consecutive increase in child support payments to the state made by all parents.
Exemptions will apply for lawyers and their children.
The spokesperson went on to explain that after the perfection of the Brave-New Bokanovsky process, which is used to repeatedly split zygotes without causing any damage, child support on non-lawyers had to be increased in order to keep population levels in check. A shortage of caretakers has developed for the children of lawyers.
The spokesperson noted that NOW-ABA is drafting plans to impute an ability to nurture children to all women who are not lawyers. Women who are not lawyers will be drafted to serve 4 years caring for the children of lawyers. Men were deemed incompetent to serve as a result of their testosterone disability.
The NOW-ABA spokeperson noted that approved feminists and lawyers will not be required to serve the 4 years as long if they can prove that they are the direct descendant of a person who has passed the NOW exam or the BAR exam prior to 1/1/2040.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
See crap like this needs to be sent, mail or email, to Mitt's opponents for president (McCain, Huckabee, Paul). So they can bring this shtuff up in debates. Then they need to be delivered to the other candidates, Democraps and Independants alike so that THEY can bring it up and ask him about it, on TV.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Can somebody point me to a link with the text of this bill? I find it so incredible that I tried to verify it's existance by searching www.mass.gov, but I'm not able to find anything about it.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Will the Dred Scott doctrine require other states to return escaped fathers to Massachusetts?
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
This is what folks of Candidate Mitt's ilk have to offer, only on a National level.
Things like National welfare, and National l health sound ALL kinds of warm and fuzzy, until it's "privitized" onto the backs of de facto slaves. Redistributing VAWA , Title IX (and other impotent "education" delusions), seems more practical.
Perhaps a 1000% tax on designer shoes, makeup, chocolate, and wine?
Vote with your wallet-and your feet?
How many "new rules" impose confiscation, as well as egregious delay in issue, of MENS passports?
Tell me again how that old "escaped slave" law, espoused by Democrats, worked between States with reciprocity?
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
[...] law bills. The first bill Holstein cites is Massachusetts HB 113--to learn more, see my blog post Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State. The second is [...]
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Ambros and CaptDMO, if you do some research on Massachusetts and their former governor, Mitt Romney, you will find the only folks he did more battle with than the Massachusetts legislature were the Massachusetts judiciary.
He also got the Massachussets Speaker of the House indicted, and got him to cop a perjury plea. He sued the pro-gay marriage Supreme court justice of Massachusetts, and he got the former President of the Mass senate, a Mr. Bulger (brother of FBI's most wanted "Whitey" Bulger) fired from his job as head of a Mass college.
Romney has ads video clips on his site in which he clearly states his view that every child deserves a mother AND a father. He also made a speach in which he spoke of removing the "incentives" for out of wedlock birth and divorce.
He may have more on the ball on these issues than any other candidate. I have found no other candidate who makes any statements which imply any respect for fathers, or any ideas to solve these problems.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Constitution Article IV Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Case closed!
b
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
Once again, we're becoming more and more like the countries Bush declared to be "The Axis of Evil." Soon we may have a situation here in the U.S. out of the movie, "Children of Men," where all women no longer could have children. This time, it will be because men will refuse to father children because of fascist laws like this one.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:25 am
I learned a long time ago after my first divorce that our nation's laws are biased on the woman's side.
Men don't stand a chance, don't even have a PRAYER, because of this stupidity that's going on in our courts.
Best advice?
Don't marry. Ever, ever, ever. I don't care if you're truly in love with the woman. She's got you by the codsack no matter what, and no matter who is at fault.
The system sucks. Screw the courts.
December 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I recently saw a "Judge Judy" show. Normally you see pretty plain vanilla cases about he said she said revolving around petty arguments. However, in one particular episode, this husband and wife were being acused by the ex-wife of something. I do not know what it was becasue I came in the middle of the program. But, naturally the ex-wife was upset with him about something. "Judge" Judy asked the father if he paid his child support becuase the ex brought it up for some reason.. The father said he was paying it until he got injured on the job and had to go on diaability. "Judge" Judy started her theatrics and demaned to know if he was paying child support, meaning currently. Unless she knows something I don't neither he or anyother man (or women) inhabiting this planet could pay child support when income does not exist.
She then went into her tirades and "explained" to the audience (and america) that this was a "valid" reason for the ex to be "upset' with him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In other words, heaven help us (read men because women women would plead helplessness) if we lose our jobs, get injured or in some fashion lose, through no fault of our own, our income. "Judge" judy's recommendation to his man, get a job at McDonalds. How does one stand on one's feet all day when they are on disability?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
And this is what is being broadcase all over America. Think about it, there are a lot of stupid people in this country that think these programs are worthwhile. Instead, I view these, even without the blatant gender bias, as unadulterated crap and basically reinforcing the notice that men are criminals and not deserving of any rights what so ever AND held to a standard that NO person could possibly meet.
This just show what a low life "Judge" Judy and other judges are like. Basic slime.
I have to go to Jury duty shortly. When the crooked attorneys ask if I can follow the judges instructions, my simple answer is NO. If they ask why I will tell them. Unless this is communism, (in courts it most likely is), I can still speak the truth.
December 25th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Let's see, "Flight from the republic" was a crime punishable by death in old East Germany if you didn't make it over the border. Massachusetts sounds eerily similar now, with its leftist government. Will "Die Massachusetts Demokratischen Republik" (MDR) bring back the old grey Wehrmacht-style black-collared -less-eagle-over-swastika uniforms, bowl helmets, goose-step, and AK47s for its police, and minefields and barbed wire to its borders? Will we see a "Boston Wall"? Is the MDR the new East Germany? Sounds like it.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Can we be more facist than this ridiculuous law?
December 27th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
[...] two bills Holstein cites are Massachusetts HB 113 and HB 1396--to learn more, see my blog posts Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State and Under New Bill, Restraining Orders Can Be Extended Without Notice. The third bill is explained [...]
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
[...] Holstein cites are Massachusetts HB 113, HB 1396 and HB 92–to learn more, see my blog posts Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State, Under New Bill, Restraining Orders Can Be Extended Without Notice and Don't Want Your Baby? [...]
February 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
[...] Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
[...] Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
[...] Amazing New Bill Says Dads Can Be Arrested for Leaving the State [...]