Fathers & Families’ Holstein Criticizes Obama's Father's Day Speech on Sporting News Radio
June 22nd, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Fathers & Families’ founder Dr. Ned Holstein appeared on the Samantha Clemens Show on Sporting News Radio AM 1510 The Zone in Boston on June 20.
Holstein asserted that equal treatment for fathers in family court is the most important solution to the problem of fatherlessness. It doesn't cure the problem if the dad is truly irresponsible, but it's the best place to start.
Holstein also criticized Obama's new Father's Day speech, saying "Dads don’t want to be chastised on Fathers Day--save it for another day."
Holstein explained that "Responsible Fatherhood" programs Obama supports won't be truly effective until fathers are treated fairly and equally in family court--a formerly irresponsible dad can be spiritually transformed but still locked out of this children's lives.
One of the callers was a likeable dad who was refused shared physical custody, then suffered a move-away and Parental Alienation--a dad with a lot of pain, kids with pain who cannot be heard, and a court system that is empowering a mother to carry out her worst, vindictive impulses. The solution for the kids? Fairness and equality for fathers.
"));
19 queries. 0.362 seconds.
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Has Obama condemned his father or has he written a book about him? Father's Day is to honor fathers not to condemn them. Family court is a tool used to confine fathers out of their children's lives. Obama: condemn your father before you condemn any other father.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
minus one for obama...i didn't vote for him...he is a liberal democrat...which means to us men...we go to the back of the bus
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I have a question and I am asking because I legitimately want to learn and understand, not to be argumentative, so please cut me some slack and take this the way it's intended.
I've heard the horror stories from the men on this site and other places about mistreatment in Family Court and it is disturbing. I don't think that there should be a presumption against fathers when determining custody. The thing that I don't understand is the statistic that 80% of custody disputes are settled without ever going to court. Of the cases that do go to court, it's roughly 50% where fathers get custody. Based on those statistics, it doesn't seem like the courts are the reason that predominantly mothers have custody. Am I missing something? Please don't jump on me, just teach me...I'm here to learn.
Looking at my own life, I can think of four fathers off the top of my head who actually wanted primary custody when they divorced and three of them got it. I also know three mothers who fought for primary custody and lost in court.
I'm not denying that the horror stories are real because I believe they are, I just think there have to be other factors as well, if it's true that 80% of cases are resolved without going to court.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Oh and I agree that whether the "responsible fatherhood" bit is warranted or not is irrelevant...Father's Day is not the time to do it. Father's Day should be about honoring dads, not beating them up.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Barbara you forgot to add to your unreal numbers the fact that abusive fathers get custody of their children 75% of the time and that men are financially better off after divorce.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
What is it with Obama? He's got 364 other days of the year to diss fathers, but he still can't let it go on the one day that's set aside to honor them. He's starting to sound like he's carrying a chip.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Good question Barbara. If fathers are willing to bankrupt themselves, risk false accusations, psychological testing and the tactics divorce attorneys can force them to encounter they can be successful. Off the top of my head, four friends and family members who wanted custody received threats that any fight to gain custody would result in a financially ruinous battle. My younger brother in Wisconsin's wife had an affair and chose to leave him, but he did not to fight because he thought it would do more damage to the children based on his ex-wife's threats His attorney coached him not to fight because of the threats and the system would bankrupt him and he could be targeted at work. He was also advised it would could permanently harm his relationship with his children if he made a fight out of it. My older brother in Illinois chose to fight but regrets what his child had to go through. He faced false accusations, had to submit to psychological testing and spent tens of thousands of dollars. His wife had been arrested for possession, had a DUI and was fired from her employment and was not required to establish that she was a fit parent. He had to to. At first he got supervised custody of his daughter, and had to continue to fight for unsupervised custody. There were more transgressions by the mother and he now has full custody, but that took seven years. So he is a statistic of a father who got custody, but the statistic does not show the economic or emotional cost. Fathers have to spend more and clear hurdles that mothers do not. It is hard to challenge and limit mothers custody even with criminal behavior or proof of unsuitable living conditions. It's harder for innocent fathers to get little custody without a long fight if the mother wants to fight. My brothers main concern was their children and decided based on risks, not justice and fairness because those are missing from the family court system. Mothers are allowed to get away with things in courts that fathers are not, and those risks are unfair and many fathers do not like to see their children hurt that way. It is better to pack up and pay support with a hope that they will be allowed some kind of access at the mothers discretion. In the cases where it is the father who files for no fault divorce or committed the act that leads to divorce, based on what I have seen with my family and friends the hurdles are even higher. Negotiating outside the court seems to be the best case scenario unless the system changes.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
It's sounds to me like Barbara is just asking for some real information.
Barabara, I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, or where you got yours from, but I would be interested as well in knowing what some of the legitimate statistics are in this arena.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Because mothers can get away with murder, literally, like Mary Winkler, and still get custody, but father's cannot. Any negative character flaw in a father means the uphill battle to gain custody is not always worth the journey. The message sent to fathers is do so at your own peril. If father's take that kind of risk the courts do see a father who is serious about his children. If the system treated fathers equally, custody would not be an issue.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I only replied the way I did because those stats that Barbara has stated are so untrue it is laughable except it isn't funny.
Women get custody of the children anywhere between 90% of the time to 85% of the time. If these have changed then I missed my ride on the Titanic.
NOW would have us believe that abusers have a better chance of getting custody over good parents.
The truth is Barbara a women would have commit murder not to get custody of the children oops Mona beat me to it, thats not even true anymore
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
hey i'm for equality...start cutting all the govt programs women get...
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Right on target! Reform is so greatly needed. I still can't believe what happened to me and what is going on and it gets no attention it is unreal.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 am
To Barbara,
Fathers don't think of divorce as something to "win", and they don't believe they have equal rights. Some courts are slowly changing to apply the letter of the law, but holding back that progress is women and feminists who remain stuck in the dark ages with troglodyte attitudes about fathers, and see any gain by men as a threat. Overcoming that attitude will take time and women changing their backwards mindsets. There is little evidence that most women are ready to join the 21st century on custodial rights. A custody victory for a father in the 50% category is one weekend a month. The test of custody is not how many get it but is it equal? The attitude to divorce is usually different between men and women. The links are examples of how divorcing mothers are advised. There are hundreds of sites and articles like this which encourage clinging to the 1950's ideal of divorce.
http://www.divorcestrategiesforwomen.com/
"We've all heard the rumors that the legal system favors women in a divorce. Guess what? It does! "
http://www.divorcedefense.com/
Make him pay...
http://divorcetipsforher.com/how-to-win-a-divorce-settlement-agreement
The key to winning a Divorce settlement agreement...
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 am
Barbara, I'm not sure what the exact figures are for the United States, but in Australia I have heard before that fathers win custody in cases that go to court about 40% of the time.
The problem with these types of statistics is that they don't really prove anything, as they don't tell you anything about the merits of cases that do actually make it to court versus those that don't.
In practice, a lot of fathers don't contest custody because they know they have little chance of winning and most lawyers would tell them that. It is only worth contesting custody for a father if they have sufficient money or can prove that the mother is not a fit parent.
In other words, the cases that actually make it to court are not really representative of most cases. They are more likely to be cases where the father has a stronger case.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:13 am
Almost 90% of the divorced children are lifelong traumatized mistreated and abused due to their mothers and not because of their fathers. Divorce is not normal, and, childabuse, also defathering is yet an unwritten crime off the century, governmentviolence&mothermob, a amoral rotten (western) system and also Obama stinks like hell!
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:22 am
Would like to see Barbara's statistics. Many feminists mislead the public by saying the man gets joint legal custody. Joint legal custody means you are entitled to see their school and medical records. It does not mean joint physical custody.
Joint legal means he gets every other weekend and pays child support so it is very misleading.
As for cases- Have a friend in the last year who was awarded emergency custody of his girls due to his ex's suicide attempt. She promptly accused him of molestation after he was awarded emergency custody. Health and Human Services found these to be false allegations and documentation was provided to the courts. She also had moved her new boyfriend in, the same one she cheated on my friend with. She quit her job, had her car repossesed, and declared bankruptcy. He spent $20,000 to try and keep custody. After a year in the care of my friend the courts decided to give the mother back primary physical custody!!!. She cherry picked a counselor that said she is okay.
She has borderline personality disorder and is not okay.
Have another friend that was just blind sided by a supervised visitation order last week. 4-weeks before this he had his kids down at his cabin all weekend including over nights with the soon to be ex nowhere around. She was totally cool with the kids being with him. All of a sudden before they go to court he has to have supervised visitation.
Barbara- I'm not sure where you live but it must be different than where all the guys I know live because I don't no of anyone having the experience you describe in your comments.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 am
If men where as bad as society, women, and media made them out to be, there would be violence of epidemic proportions against the feminist lobby, unjust judges, vindictive mates and crooked politicians. Instead men, until recent times, have suffered in silence.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
What's that old quote that goes something like "It's not what we don't know that hurts us, it's the things we 'know' that are wrong." Maybe this is one of those cases.
I have read the statistics numerous times about the majority of custody disputes being settled out of court and fathers being as likely as mothers to be awarded custody in court. I've got a migraine right now and two preschoolers wanting to play so I can't dig too deep at the moment but a cursory google search is not turning up much so maybe it is one of those things that "everyone knows" that isn't true.
I have found several places that say between 80-95% of custody disputes are resolved without going to trial. Of course, based on my own experience with mediation, I don't think that cases that are decided in mediation are necessarily "agreed" to...mediators can be more pushy than judges. I also have some experience with lawyers who agree or pressure clients to agree to things they otherwise wouldn't have. Here's one site that breaks down how cases are decided...I have no idea how reliable it is though: http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm. According to this one, of cases that go to trial, 44% wind up with sole custody to the mother and 40% joint custody. I don't think that's accurate around here because it's next to impossible for either parent to get sole custody here, but joint custody doesn't necessarily mean 50-50 parenting time. I'm in GA, by the way. Here the "standard" is joint physical and legal custody with one parent as the primary and the normal schedule breaks down to about 65-35 or so. It's still considered joint custody though.
The logic that men give up their custody battle before going to court because they assume they won't win or don't want to rock the boat makes some sense. It also makes some sense that if only the men with the most rock-solid cases actually go to court, you would expect to see higher numbers of fathers getting primary custody.
Thanks!
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Barbara,
People like you are priceless. You ask a fair question, stand back to let some of the inevitable emotional shrapnel pass by without letting it compromise your ability to hear the answers when they come through, and then you take those answers and think them over.
Take care of that migraine.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Barbara,
My husband has 50/50 joint custody with his ex. This is probably largely due to my involvement and the fact that he did not move out of the marital home.
It cost us about $50,000 in legal fees and bills she was supposed to pay and didn't for the first 2 years. And his case didn't go to trial. The ex was able to get a free lawyer.
Fortunately the Gardian-ad-litem (GAL) was in favor of joint custody. The GAL recommended Bird's nest JC. The children stay in the marital home and the parents move back and forth. Supposedly more stable for kids.
Parents are supposed to split expenses for the marital home. She didn't pay anything. She didn't leave on his weeks.
Eventually the landlord evicted them because my husband (and I) was paying his half of the rent (and no longer worked for the company that allowed him to renew the lease, he was laid off for about year during this time).
We had to go back to court (about 2 years later) and they settled for more traditional joint custody.
But no punishment or restitution for the ex not living up to the agreement that she signed.
We were largely happy that at least we were no longer contributing to her support.
There was no way my husband could have afforded that without me. I'm not sure he would have any clue to his rights if it weren't for my help and probably would have agreed to what the ex wanted (him moving out, paying CS, but coming over every day to take care of the kids, so she didn't have to, which I realize is still better than a lot of people's situation, though once he lost his job he would have been labeled a deadbeat).
Many men can't afford that. And technically why should they? Why should they have to bankrupt themselves for what most women take for granted because it costs them little to nothing. (This is not an attack...just expressing frustration.)
Those are wasted resources. A good portion of the money would have been spent on the children or contributed to their lifestyle.
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
kat12345,
That story sucks and you are a saint for sticking with it. Women like you are crucial to this movment. Jeez, you must love that guy a lot!
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
But who will buy all the Prada handbags if we can't fleece men in court?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Barbara:
I'm divorced, but I don't have children. I'll never forget what my divorce mediator told me in private:
"Make whatever kind of deal you can here. The LAST thing you want is to be a man in family court."
That answer your question?
Most men are advised to tuck their heads between their legs and take whatever's offered.
June 24th, 2009 at 9:33 am
You can always send a letter to the white house if you want. I did.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
They might ignore four or five letters, but it'll be hard to ignore a couple thousand of them. Or maybe not.
Then again, we've had impact before, haven't we?
Encourage this action to others.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Thanks Jim!
Yes, I do and I love the kids too. It was very tough.
Now, at least superficially, we all get along. Kid's birthday's and holidays together at my in-laws.
We still have issues over who pays for what...but again...there is no giving her money. I don't have any issue if we actually spend more on the kids than she does...because it our choice. I still have some issues over her lack of contribution to the kids tuition but relative to what it could have been...we have a decent situation.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
How about more and more government programs & official "days":
Responsible Bureaucrats' Day,
Responsible Bar Associations' Day,
Responsible Parental Alienators' Day,
Responsible False Accusers' Day,
Responsible Tenured Radicals' Day,
Responsible Demagogues' Day
June 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I didnt' contest in court. I was told by a mediator and lawyer my odds were slim to none in a court room. I didn't know any better at the time.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
"Would like to see Barbara's statistics. Many feminists mislead the public by saying the man gets joint legal custody. Joint legal custody means you are entitled to see their school and medical records. It does not mean joint physical custody.
Joint legal means he gets every other weekend and pays child support so it is very misleading."
THat is what i have. Join legal custody and it's exactly right. At the time I didn't even have a place to live, so I didn't even thinkt he physical custody thing meant much... I was basically stuck seeing them every 2 weeks if I was lucky.
Now however things have changed. I had gone to courses and read lots.. and spent lots of time here on the site.. and I decided to take the high road when ever possible... and just recently after a huge fight with my X over my sons school (his teacher basically said he needs allot of help and should go to school in the summer and she refuses to let me take him to a tutor a few hours a week in the summer). the kids are now spending 1 week on and 1 week off with me this summer. I am INCREDIBLY happy about this. I am in the midst of my first week now and im having a great time with the kids (although i'm at work now). Getting to read to them at night and hang out with them after work is really great and it doesn't feel so crammed and rushed as it does on the my week-ends with them.
:)
June 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Barbara,
In Canada the stats are that in 85% of the contested cases, the mother obtains primary custody. My husband was also told not to bother trying to get primary custody as we have 2 children of our own and our lawyer basically said it would be financially ruinous and we would only have a 15% chance at most of gaining custody. And the mother is a good mother (she doesn't work to support the kids and works the system for money etc. but she is still good to the kids). So, even though he is a great dad too, we were advised not to pursue it.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I'm ignoring Barbara.
Obama is quick to condemn fathers, especially black fathers. You can still view the last years condemnation on youtube. His public announcement is a simple repeat of all the other's by the National Fatherhood Initiative. No real difference in message, it was just public relations photo op.
Obama grew up without a father, but his father lived. I grew up without a father, but because my father died. I was told many great stories about what a great person my father was when he was alive. Children of divorce are told about how bad and evil their father's were. I believe that is why Obama is so negative when it comes to fathers and how he believes that it is the father's fault for being absent.
I was glad to see that I wasn't the only one who saw the insincerity of Obama's message.
The courts, the courts, the courts, the courts, Change the law and give us equality.
That is a gift for all fathers and their children.
It's ...
FatherTime
June 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
At the time of my divorce, I was the only one with a job. I had to pay both sides of the legal bill. When the other attorney handed me an estimate of $20,000 for a contested custody fight, and mine told me his would be similar, that made the decision for me. The court's opinion was that she should be subisdized at my expense to allow her to continue being a stay-at-home alcoholic until the kids turned 18, or graduated college.
It also made it clear that marriage (and the very likely divorce) are a bad deal for men.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:13 am
[...] that grinning megaphone of MedUSA, again celebrated Fathers Day by threatening and chiding American men for their faults and irresponsibility. Our mother-in-law commander, married to Mom-in-Chief. [...]
June 25th, 2009 at 2:56 am
"But who will buy all the Prada handbags if we can't fleece men in court?"
There will always be an ample supply of sugar daddy/good-digger arrangements. Plus, when any of those part ways, the ex empties out half the stores on Rodeo Drive, tiding the businesses over for the next year or more..