What
is an ex-father?
An ex-father is a man denied the opportunity to raise his child.
Fathers are routinely stripped of their children directly or indirectly
by the family courts without any finding of fault. The former father is
then further victimized by being ordered to pay the mother who has
abducted his child.
Do
fathers have rights?
The usual statements of human rights such as the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights of the United Nations gives rights to everyone. Those
rights are to ensure that every individual is treated on the basis of
equality. It does not assign responsibilities to individuals for the
care others. The courts in the western world have generally defined
equality in the substantive sense to ensure that rights are given to
individuals who are members of definable groups. Unfortunately, the
courts do not apply the rights and freedoms to fathers, and they do not
apply their own self-created principle of substantive equality to
fathers. Knowing that rights can only be removed in a criminal
proceeding, or a showing that the person is a danger to themselves or
others, or voluntarily relinquishes their rights, how do courts get
away with removing fathers from their homes and families against their
wills in a civil proceeding? In the western world fathers do not have
rights, instead they are stripped of their children and sold into
slavery by the family courts.
Surely the
primary caregiver should get custody of the child?
There is no question that the presumption in law must be that the
parents should decide for themselves how to deal with their child's
care after separation. One of the major problems we have with family
law is that the situation is not amenable to reaching agreement. The
fundamental injustice of the winner take all presumption of the courts
leads to bitter fighting. Once we establish that the courts will
enforce equality of post separation parenting (rather than the
indentured servitude they dish out now), the issues of custody, access,
and payments will simply die (just as the other issues related to
divorce and separation have died). The term "primary caregiver" was
invented after the "the tender years" doctrine was discredited and, in
fact, outlawed in most jurisdictions of the western world. This new
term permitted the misandric courts to continue to give women custody
of children. No sooner had the concept of equality become entrenched in
the marital relationship and in particular in divorce with the 50-50
split of "community property" did the concept of 'primary caregiver "
arise to deprive fathers and children of their post marital rights.
Who is the primary caregiver?
The primary caregiver of most children today is the School Board.
Children learn their socialisation, their morals and ethics, their
politics, their sexuality, their history, their skills, their work
ethic, and their goals in school. The school Board already has custody
of our children for the most formative time of their young lives. The
idea that mothers are the primary caregivers of our children is
balderdash. Now, you might say, “okay the Svchool Board does that, but
what about the time outside of school, the home life – who is the
primary caregiver?” Well that’s easy – cablevision. In the home most
children spend far more time watching television than they spend with
their parents. The owner of your local cablevision provider is the
primary caregiver in the home. Fathers and mothers alike, spend time
doing various activities in the mornings, evenings, weekends, holidays,
and vacations with their children.
Should custody and
payments be based on the “Best Interests of the Child”
Legislation based on the concept of the “Best Interests of the Child”
violates fundamental human rights. Human rights are based on the
principle that no one has a right to override someone else’s rights. It
is contrary to the concept of human rights to break or interfere with
the parent-child relationship. In case after case judges decide based
on personal opinion what they "feel" is "in the best interests of the
children" with no regard to the rights of the children to continued
access to both parents or each parent's equal rights to continue to
actually BE a parent. Assigning a ‘child’ (in fact the child’s mother)
rights over his ex-father’s pay cheque is a gross violation of human
rights. Children (or mother’s) in intact families have no such right
and there is no standard of care which works that way. The universal
community standard of care for children is that the person in charge of
the child must ensure the child is in an environment free of abuse and
free of neglect. No one else is responsible for the child’s care
giving. The principle of the “Best Interests of the Child” is simply a
means to ensure the family courts continue their arbitrary and
misandric practices without any accountability. Any court that can not
come up with a fair and equal resolution of a dispute between two
parents over a child is not competent.
What
is a father’s financial
responsibility for his child?
The idea that the child has a right to financial support is not
supported in any way. The only right children have under our community
law is the freedom from abuse and from neglect (neglect is a recent
liberal addition). There never was any obligation, let alone formula,
of financial support to children or for any standard of living. The
maternal welfare formulae are a fabrication of the Divorce Industry
backed by the 'apparatchiks', the bureaucrats who run our governments.
The only responsibility has been that that person who is in care of a
child in whatever capacity (teacher, baby-sitter, Scout leader, parent
etc.) does not abuse or neglect the child. These responsibilities
include providing essential medical care, seeing the child receives
some education, and keeping the child from harms way. When the courts
take a child from a parent and give the child to another person (in the
absence of abuse or neglect) the fair and reasonable requirement on the
court is to compensate the parent who loses the child (as well as
compensating the child for loss of parent). That's the only right
involved – the right to a parent-child relationship, and that’s the
fair and just and predictable response to the flesh trade in our
children that is going on day-in-day-out in our family courts.
What
is “child support”?
Real child support is looking after your child - by sharing your
roof, sharing your meals, sharing love and activities, providing
discipline, guidance and attention. Real child support is not a
financial payment. Taking away real child support and replacing it with
a financial payment is a human rights abuse. Doing it on the massive
scale it is done in our family courts is a crime against humanity.
Does the child
have a right to financial support?
The idea that the child has a right to financial support is not
supported in law. The only right children have under our community law
is the freedom from abuse and from neglect (neglect is a recent liberal
addition). There never was any obligation, let alone formula of
financial support to children or for any standard of living. The
maternal welfare formulae are a fabrication of the Divorce. That person
who is in care of a child in whatever capacity (teacher, baby-sitter,
Scout leader, parent etc.) Must not abuse (or more recently neglect)
the child. When the courts take a child from a parent and give the
child to another person (in the absence of abuse or neglect) the fair
and reasonable requirement on the court is to compensate the parent who
loses the child. That's the only right involved, and the only "fair and
just and predictable" response to the flesh trade in our children that
is going on day-in-day-out in our family courts.
Does refusal
to pay constitute child abandonment?
Would you equate "abandonment" with having your children, that
were taken from you in spite of every legal effort available on your
part, living in the house you paid for (that you can not live in),
wearing the clothes you bought them, using the entertainment systems
you provided? What strange kind of a definition of abandonment would
this be? The "duty to support" is indeed common law. In deals with the
obligation to care for relatives in need, if you are able to. However,
the duty to support has to do with care-giving, not paying. When you
offer to look after your aging mother in your own home, her wish to
live in Porto Paradiso instead is her problem, not yours. As far as
children are concerned the child is the responsibility of the guardian,
whoever that might be. The guardian has to care for , i.e., 'support',
the child. A child who is not in dire straights is not in need of
'support'. Leaving a child with a willing caregiver like the ex who
asked for custody is not abandonment.
What
is child abandonment?
So what is abandonment? In New York State (and other US States) they
provide drop off centres where a mother can leave her unwanted child.
No question of "child support", just dump and go. And then there is
giving the child up for adoption. No question of "abandonment' there.
The expectant mother can rid herself of a major inconvenience by having
an abortion. No choice for the father. If he makes the heartbreaking
decision to not be a father, he's accused abandoning the poor child and
will pay for it. Leaving a child with a willing caregiver like the ex
who asked for custody is not abandonment.
What
is the father’s financial obligation to his child?
As far as we have been able to ascertain, fathers have NO financial
obligations to their children (and neither do mothers, as we are all
aware). On the other hand, parents are generally expected to look after
their children. Fathers (not the ex-fathers) look after their children
by sharing the roof over their heads, sharing their meals, sharing love
and activities, providing discipline, guidance and attention. Money is
not part of their obligation. Fathers do not write out cheques to their
children (unless they are adults). For too long good men have suffered
the denial of their rights as fathers and citizens of this land.
Children have been the pawns while the bagmen (i.e. the social workers,
court appointed child psychologists, judges, and lawyers -- generally
referred to as the Divorce Industry) have lined their pockets on the
backs of the misery of these poor souls.
Why do you say
ex-fathers live in slavery?
Consider first what slavery is: a) The work of a slave benefits a
particular individual (the slaveholder); b) the slave is enslaved
involuntarily (i.e., coerced); c) the status of a slave is enforced by
the society's institutions, that is, it
is enforced by the law (otherwise, a slave merely runs away and is
free). The simple reality (and I hope this truth is not too shocking)
is that our children are being sold down the river, and their
ex-fathers are now in indentured servitude to their former partners
through the support payments fraud. These men are slaves. And, unlike
the slaves of the Old South there is NO underground railroad to freedom
in Canada.
Who
wants to be a wallet?
Men want families. Most men are happy to work hard for their families.
Many work under deplorable conditions risking their lives on daily
basis in construction, mining, farming, and the other death industries.
If they are part of a family they contribute as best they can. If they
have their family taken from them then they at least expect to be left
alone to re-build they own lives. They don’t work to support the
abductor of their children. They don’t accept indentured servitude.
They don’t work to pay a baby-sitter they don’t want. Men don’t have
children so they can be wallets.
Why do ex-fathers want
restitution?
Here's the story -- fathers have had their children stolen from them.
Then, the father’s money is taken fraudulently. Fathers have been
robbed. It was not necessary, and it was not right. The law says where
there's a wrong, there's a remedy. Here's the remedy -- restitution.
Restitution of family, of finances, and of dignity. Join with all the
other fathers, mothers, step mothers, step fathers, grandfathers,
grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, associates and
civic-minded individuals who are fighting the family court system to
end the separation of all parents and children. The loan is due and
payable now, with interest and damages for the loss of family,
finances, and dignity.
What is the social impact of family courts
removing fathers from
families?
We have reached the point where a majority of children will spend at
least some of their childhood growing up without a father in the home.
Whether our concern is teenage pregnancy, crime, violence against
women, educational failure, or child poverty, no social trend of our
generation is more dangerous than the family-law removal of fathers
from families. Although it is a problem that drives many of our worst
social ills, fatherlessness is a problem that is ignored or denied. In
spite of the problems, the family courts continue their reckless
practices of tearing fathers from their children.
What
are the seven R’s and how do
they relate to fathers and children?
Ex-fathers want Recognition of the special and unique characteristics
of the fathers-child relationship; Respect for their human rights;
Redress or restitution for the loss of family, finances, and dignity;
Representation in the highest levels of government and of the courts;
Responsiveness to needs of fathers and children; Reconciliation with
government, the courts, and the community through a comprehensive
inquiry to determine the origins, methods, and perpetrators of the
Divorce Industry; and Relationships to be renewed on the basis of human
rights which include the special and unique characteristics of the
fathers-child relationship.
What
is Equal Parenting?
Equal parenting is a joint parenting arrangement in which children of
divorce are given the right by the courts to have both of their parents
share in the most equitable manner as possible the responsibilities of
caring and raising the children. By having both parents play an active
role in the caring of a child, both parents feel like they are a part
of the child’s life and that neither one of them feels treated like a
distant relative. Equal Parenting maintains the balanced input from
both parents that is needed for proper development. Children, as they
grow, must learn perspectives from both genders to develop a normal
balanced view and to be able to interact with both genders when they
reach adulthood. Equal parenting has been shown to be in the best long
term interests of the child. Psychologists agree that it is important
for children to maintain meaningful contact with both their parents
whenever possible. Wherever possible, parenting time should be equal on
a 50/50 basis. The child develops his own future parenting role on a
model that validates both mothers and fathers. Parents are much happier
knowing that they can spend time with their children in an equitable
manner. In a equal parenting arrangement, each parent has his own
child-care expenses for which they are responsible, so both parents
feel like they are giving directly to the child rather than the other
parent. The children see both parents providing for their care.
What are the benefits of
Equal Parenting?
Equal Parenting:
o Promotes true gender equality. Both parents are recognized as equal
contributors to the child’s development.
o Significantly reduces conflicts in court. Neither parent need to feel
that they are being treated as a visitor with their own children.
o Creates less financial hardship for separating families. The high
cost of fighting in court is removed as both parents know that equal
parenting will be awarded by the courts.
o Reduces the financial incentive for families to break up. Fights to
get control over the children in order to get support payments is one
of the largest single factors in court custody battles today.
o Reduces child access problems. When both parents know that they have
a reasonable share of the time with their children, then they are not
so motivated to fight. The best way to achieve peace is to have a fair
agreement.
o Respects the child. The child is not separated from any parent just
because the parent’s are no longer together. The child’s future as a
parent is more secure seeing the parental role being validated for both
mothers and fathers.
Equal parenting solutions will also significantly reduce the abuse of
legal system through the use of false allegations.
What
is Ex-fathers?
Ex-fathers is a volunteer, non-profit community group which provides
support to and advocacy for fathers who have been separated from their
children through family breakdown and family law. Ex-fathers know that
men need to parent their children. We know that children need their
fathers' parenting. We know that the courts have failed to give justice
to fathers and children. We do accept that fathers can be treated like
wallets. We do not accept the indentured status created by maternal
welfare payments. Working in our communities we will conquer the forces
trying to keep fathers from families. Our group is based on three
principles:
o no father should lose his children because he is separated from his ex
o no father should pay for a baby sitter he doesn't want or need
o restitution of family, finances and dignity to fathers and children
separated by the misandry of family law
We do not shirk from our responsibility to bring these principles
forward; we work in the open and we have no hidden agenda; we strongly
oppose the Divorce Industry. Ex-fathers supports equal parenting of
children as the binding legal alternative to mutual agreement between
parents.
Are men and boys a
disadvantaged minority?
Men suffer discrimination under family law. Men almost never get child
residency decisions in family separations, even in cases where there
are no accusations of child abuse or domestic violence made against
them. Almost all orders for support (indentured servitude, or slavery)
are made against and paid by men. Men are discriminated against in
education and employment. Men have the highest rates of on-the-job
accidents and deaths. Men account for majority of criminal cases and
the bulk of the prison population. Men have a shorter life expectancy
by several years than the general population. Men pay higher car
insurance rates than the general population. Only men are conscripted
into military service. There are no shelters for men and children. Only
men do not have the right to be free in the case of an unwanted
pregnancy for any subsequent responsibility for the child.
Are men a historically disadvantaged group?
Men have always been held responsible for the maintenance of their
families, often working under the most inhumane situations while women
were protected by laws from those work environments. Men have been held
responsible of the actions of their families and were punished for the
actions of their wives and daughters. Men were required to defend their
female family members including defending their reputations. Only men
and boys were forced into military service.