The panel looking into the severe riots that ravaged British cities has failed to recognize the contribution to the riots of the the British family courts and the divorce industry. Once again the establishment has turned its blind eye on the real problem while advocating for ever greater interference with families and wasting ever greater amounts of money on unnecessary or useless approaches including “involvement of ‘communities’, ‘community volunteers’ and ‘mentors’.” The linked article by Robert Franklin, Esq tells how the panel actually reported on the extensive data they received on the problem of separated fathers and children yet failed grasp the root cause and to recommend meaningful corrective action. Yet another opportunity lost for British, its children and its fathers.
Ex-father – the $100 Billion Man
The Government programs to drive fathers out of their families presently cost American taxpayers $ 100 Billion per year in direct costs alone according to the National Fatherhood Initiative. These costs do not include any indirect costs such as the cost to society of fatherless children. This is the tip of the iceberg of the Government’s patrophobic neurosis. The Government aided by its minions in the Divorce Industry and the bullies of the Shelter Racket are systematically destroying fatherhood, replacing it with the indentured servitude of ex-fathers. Every rational person knows that the governments and the Nation would receive an enormous financial benefit by giving that money to fathers to allow them to raise their children (rather than using it against them) but the government cannot overcome its issues created by an unresolved Mommy complex. Indeed, simply stopping the funding for the father-hate programs and implementing family law guaranteeing equal parenting for fathers would not only save the $100 B, but would also permit the re-unification of fathers and children, and stop the social decline. Unfortunately, Ex-fathers is of the opinion that the future is bleak as these hate programs simply continue to grow and spread into all aspects of family life. Intensive therapeutic treatment is required.
www.fatherhood.org/
The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man: The Costs of Father Absence
The Annual Public Costs of Father Absence
The federal government spends $99.8 billion dollars every year on programs – such as child support enforcement and anti-poverty efforts – to support father-absent homes …
Don’t let the Pros set family law
Family Law is a growth industry. At the trough, gorging on the lost futures of our children, are the family-law lawyers, attorneys, judges, court staff, politicians, the child-support Tonton Macoute, and of course the feminista child-abduction centres, as well as a plethora of apparatchiks running the government programs designed to amputate fathers from families.
The Canadian Equal Parenting Council (CEPC) is right to point out that Children’s Issues are Parenting Issues and that parents need a voice to provide balance to media coverage of children’s and family issues. In the coverage of children’s issues, the voice of parents is often missing, and too often denigrated or dismissed as self-serving or self-interest. The “professionals” and “experts” so often quoted have their own agendas and financial interests involved. Without the viewpoint of parents, who do successfully the vast majority of child-raising, the issues are one sided and incomplete.
Parents are stereotyped unfairly as “deadbeat dads” or “lazy welfare moms”. Often, governments refer to professionals in law and social agencies as the only “stakeholders”, while neglecting or refusing equal consultations with parents. It’s the parents (in particular, the fathers) and children who are the victims of the misguided and selfish actions of those stakeholders who are so clearly in a conflict of interest through their industry profit objectives.
Calls and Emails Needed Now
Minnesota has state legislation for presumption of shared physical custody before the House. Let the legislators know that expect them to support Minnesota families by voting in favor of this legislation. Contacts are given below. Please call or email any or all of these legislators and tell them that you support House File 322, the presumption of shared physical custody. Show the House that their voters and the whole world is watching them. When you contact them, let them know where you live and that you support MNFamilyLawReform and Ex-fathers.
Your feedback from them is welcome here.
Appreciation to CH of MN Family Law Reform. This organization is posts at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MNFamilyLawReform/
Minnesota House Judiciary Policy and Finance Committee:
Ron Shimanski (R), Committee Chair 651-296-1534 rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
Pat Mazorol (R), Vice Chair 651-296-7803 rep.pat.mazorol@house.mn
Sheldon Johnson (DFL), DFL Lead 651-296-4201 rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn
Susan Allen (DFL) 651-296-7152 rep.susan.allen@house.mn
Diane Anderson (R) 651-296-3533 rep.diane.anderson@house.mn
Bobby Joe Champion (DFL) 651-296-8659 rep.bobby.champion@house.mn
Tony Cornish (R) 651-296-4240 rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
Glenn Gruenhagen (R) 651-296-4229 rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn
Debra Hilstrom (DFL) 651-296-3709 rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn
John Kriesel (R) 651-296-4342 rep.john.kriesel@house.mn
Carolyn Laine (DFL) 651-296-4331 rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn
John Lesch (DFL) 651-296-4224 rep.john.lesch@house.mn
Tina Liebling (DFL) 651-296-0573 rep.tina.liebling@house.mn
Joe Schomacker (R) 651-296-5505 rep.joe.schomacker@house.mn
Steve Smith (R) 651-296-9188 rep.steve.smith@house.mn
Chris Swedzinski (R) 651-296-5374 rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn
Bruce Vogel (R) 651-296-6206 rep.bruce.vogel@house.mn
Doug Wardlow (R) 651-296-4128 rep.doug.wardlow@house.mn
Tell-tale lie: “child’s welfare is the paramount consideration”
According news, Britain is about to ‘enshrine’ parents’ right to their child in the child welfare law. Oops, no, it’s actually the child’s right to both parents. Well, that’s one big difference. It means that someone can decide for the child that the child does want to exercise that right. So bring on the lawyers. That’s the first issue. Then we see that Mr Loughton, one of the select ministers working on the new law, says (according to the linked article in the Telegraph by Christopher Hope), “Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible, and undesirable, in all but a small minority of cases.” So, with that flip of the lip, equal parenting is gone. Bring on the lawyers. Then, as a ‘coup de grace’ to the long maligned fathers of Britain, said minister adds, “the most important thing remains the principle that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and this must not be diluted.” So we must still decide precisely how child’s welfare is best achieved — bring on the lawyers. We see then that the minister throws out any sense of changing the mantra “the best interests of the child” that has destroyed fathers and families ‘en masse’ for generations, and effectively announces “Divorce Industry as usual”.
Here’s what the select ministers including Mr Loughton need to know and understand:
Parental rights: parents do have rights including equality rights just like everyone else in every other aspect of modern society;
Equal parenting: 50-50 parenting is easy to arrange in all but the most unusual cases because it does not have to be on a daily, or a weekly, or a monthly, or even on a yearly basis — it just has to work out that the parents share the child equally over time (no need to chop the child in two as proposed by King Solomon);
Welfare of the child: the community standard for the welfare of the child across the western world is protection of the child from abuse and neglect. It is a matter between the child-protection agency and any remiss parent. Child welfare has no business being discussed in family separation arrangements unless the child protection agency is engaged in the matter. Family law should encourage diversity in parenting (subject to the community standard) just as we encourage diversity throughout modern society, including our schools. Applying different standards for child welfare to parents in separation is arbitrary and unfair to both parents and to the child and it must be defeated in the best interests of a just society.