The Big Lie: “We don’t lock up parents who can’t pay. We lock up parents who won’t pay. There is a big difference.”

According to the article (in the Sun News from Macon,Georgia on Macon.com, see below), David Cooke, a senior assistant district attorney in (Houston County) Georgia who leads the county’s child support division said the court works with parents and only jails those unwilling pay. “We don’t lock up parents who can’t pay. We lock up parents who won’t pay. There is a big difference.” Of course Cooke is ignoring the fact that only non-custodial parents who “won’t” pay get locked up.

Across the western world, innumerable custodial parents don’t pay to care for their child themselves but instead receive every imaginable help, including of course “child support” from their victim in (in our opinion) an undeniable child abduction under color of law. The only “big difference” that matters is that the people getting locked up are by and large fathers. This is a shakedown of fathers. The misandry of the family law system is undeniable. The separation of fathers and children is the worst human rights abuse of our time.

Attention David Cooke: it’s time to end the fatherhood shakedown and start a shakeup in family law that restores the rights and dignity of fathers.

www.macon.com/2012/01/30/1884381/local-opinion-divided-on-jail.html
Local opinion: jail time for failure to pay child support?
By BECKY PURSER – bpurser@macon.com
Monday, Jan. 30, 2012
WARNER ROBINS — Whether parents should be locked up for failing to pay child support is debated in Houston County.
Houston Public Defender Nick White is opposed to locking up people who don’t pay, equating it to a debtor’s prison. …

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9058018/Children-win-legal-right-to-see-both-parents-after-divorce.html

Is restitution possible?

Where there is a wrong there is a remedy. Restitution of the family finances and dignity of fathers is the remedy for the systematic destruction of fatherhood in the western world. But is it possible? Examples of governments providing redress, including paying damages, and restoring dignity to previously persecuted persons abound. Classic examples are the WW II interned national citizens of Japanese descent in Canada and the USA., German reparations to Israel, apology and compensation to Chinese laborers for the ‘head tax’; and the recent apology to Canadian POWs by the Japanese government (see link).

Japanese government apologizes to Canada’s World War II POWs:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/08/japanese-government-apologizes-to-canadas-wwii-pows/

“What has become of my sacred rights” Abraham Lincoln

The fact of being a non-custodial or non-residential father (an ex-father) as a result of parental separation makes that man less than the man who has not been separated.

I insist that whether I shall be a whole man, or only the half of one, in comparison with others, is a question in which I am somewhat concerned, and one which no other man can have a sacred right of deciding for me.

If I am wrong in this—if it really be a sacred right in the judge in family court to decide whether I will be the equal of the unseparated father, then, after the judge shall have exercised that right, and thereby shall have reduced me to a still smaller fraction of a man than I already am, I should like for someone, deeply skilled in the mysteries of sacred rights, to provide himself with a microscope, and peep about, and find out, if he can, what has become of my sacred rights. They will surely be too small for detection with the naked eye.

Finally, I insist that if there is anything which it is the duty of the whole people to never intrust to any hands but their own, that thing is the preservation and perpetuity of their own liberties and institutions. (With apologies to Abe Lincoln)