What is an ex-father?
Do fathers have rights?
Surely the primary caregiver should get custody of the child?
Who is the primary caregiver?
Should custody and payments be based on the “Best Interests of the
Child”
What is “child support”?
Does the child have a right to financial support
Does refusal to pay constitute child abandonment?
What is child abandonment?
What is the father’s financial obligation to his child?
Why do you say ex-fathers live in slavery?
Who wants to be a wallet?
Why do ex-fathers want restitution?
What is the social impact of family courts removing fathers from families
What are the seven R’s and how do they relate to fathers and children?
What is Equal Parenting?
What are the benefits of Equal Parenting?
What is Ex-fathers?
Are men and boys a disadvantaged minority?
Are men a historically disadvantaged group?
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 socialization, 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 School Board does that, but what about the time outside of school, the home life – who is the primary caregiver?” Well that’s easy – cable-vision. In the home most children spend far more time watching television than they spend with their parents. The owner of your local cable-vision 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. The “Best Interests of the Child” has been used for generations to destroy fathers. How can it be in the best interests of the child to put that child in a few years hence in the same situation as victim, or worse still perpetrator, of the worse human rights abuse of our time? Ex-fathers rejects the notion that fathers have rights in family law that are less in any respect than any other person’s. 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. 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. On the contrary, 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 ere 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 children from their fathers.
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 see fathers 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.