Thursday, July 30, 2009

Drive for Parental Rights Amendment Picks Up Over 110 Co-Signers |

A constitutional amendment to ensure the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit has recruited over 110 co-sponsors in the House so far, according to the grassroots movement behind the effort.

"More and more members of Congress are recognizing the threat from government and foreign interference into the parent-child relationship," commented U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who introduced the Parental Rights Amendment.

"Just about every member of Congress agrees with the legal principle that parents have the fundamental right to make decisions for the upbringing of their children," added Michael Farris, president of, an organization that was created to secure a constitutional amendment that defends the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

If passed, the Parental Rights Amendment would state explicitly in the U.S. Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, while protecting against abuse and neglect.

Supporters of the amendment say threats to the parent-child relationship presently include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the erosion of fundamental parental rights in today’s federal courts.

"Because of international law and shifting judicial philosophies, the right is being steadily undermined,” commented Farris.

“We now have 110 members of Congress with the foresight to say that we need to protect this long-standing right before the erosion goes too far,” he added Tuesday, before at least four more signed on. “We appreciate the leadership of Pete Hoekstra and the 109 other members of Congress who believe that it is important to secure the rights of American families for generations to come."

Organizations that have allied with on the issue include the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Liberty Counsel, and the Traditional Values Coalition, among others.

The House version of the bill is H.J. Res. 42.

Drive for Parental Rights Amendment Picks Up Over 110 Co-Signers |

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Culture Wars - Why Is Government Destroying Families?

Why Is Government Destroying Families?

By Mike McManus
July 22, 2009

Frank Hatley was released from a Georgia jail after more than a year for failure to pay child support even though a DNA test nine years ago proved that he was not the father, reported columnist Phyllis Schlafly this week.

Judge Dane Perkins acknowledged in an August 21, 2001 court order, that Hatley was not the father, but ordered him to pay child support anyway. Although he was freed from making future payments in 2001, Judge Perkins forced Hatley to continue making payments on the $16,000 that he owed.

Why? Because a 1986 federal law prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged child support, even if a DNA test proved he was not the father. Also, when a man is sent to jail for five years, his child support arrearages continue to pile up while he is in prison, when he is incapable of paying.

This law, known as the Bradley Amendment (after then Sen. Bill Bradley), refuses to allow a person who owes back child support to declare bankruptcy, like GM was allowed to do, paying only a fraction of the debt it owed to bondholders.

The Bradley Amendment also forbids judicial consideration of a person's clear inability to pay. In Frank Hatley's case, he paid $6,000 he did not owe before being laid off from his job of unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers. Although he ended up living in his car, he made another $3,500 of payments from his Unemployment Insurance.

Neither Republican nor Democratic Administrations have proposed to repeal the patently unjust Bradley Amendment. Why? The $28 billion collected from largely non-resident fathers, reimbursed the government for $24 billion of its cost of welfare payments to mothers.

They are a source of revenue from an avaricious government, who views every father who falls behind as a "dead-beat dad."

Child support payments are reasonable. If a man fathers a child, he has an obligation to pay for it. And nine out of ten fathers are current in child support if they have joint custody, as are eight of ten with visitation rights.

Relatively few are deadbeat dads.

However, if DNA proves the man is not the father, not only should all child support payments cease, but any past debt should be waived, and past unjust payments should be returned.

A judge should have the freedom to decide whether a man is too poor to make back payments. Certainly, no one's child support arrearages should mount up if he is in prison.

Furthermore, if the parent without child custody is making child support payments, the parent deserves regular access to children. I know of one father who has only seen his child five times in a year. He went to court to get regular access, but lost.

The heavy hand of the law targets the presumed "deadbeat dad," but never lands on the deadbeat mom who refuses dad's access to his children. As Frank Hatley, 50, put it, "Out of it all, I just feel like justice should be served for me in this case," he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution after his release. "I shouldn't have to keep being punished for a child that is not mine."

Admittedly, Hatley's case is extreme in that his DNA proved him innocent. However, it is not extreme that he was sent to jail for non-payment. Students of American history think debtors prison was abolished in America before slavery was abolished.

However, there are 30,000 to 50,000 fathers in jail for non-payment of child support, according to Mike McCormick, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

Dr. Michael Ross, an emergency room physician in Detroit who created the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan to fight for fairer laws, charges "The American dream has been aborted...Our laws and systems have been jerry-rigged to destroy our family lives in the name of individual freedom.

"It is time to proclaim the vision of our founders and reestablish mankind's biological institutions: marriage and parenting.

"Marriage is the answer for America and for the world."

He notes that only 44 percent of U.S. teenagers live with both married parents. The marriage rate has plunged 50 percent since 1970. Divorce has terminated 44 million marriages shattering the lives of 42 million children. Nearly 40 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock.

Why? Often government programs subsidize cohabitation, not marriage. No Fault Divorce laws reward the destruction of marriage, not its preservation. In four out of five divorces, one spouse wants to preserve the marriage, but is not given an equal voice in court to preserve it.

When will political leaders of either party fight unjust laws that are destroying marriage, and enact laws to restore it?

---Michael J. McManus is a syndicated columnist writing on "Ethics & Religion". He is President & Co-Chair of Marriage Savers. He lives with his wife in Potomac MD.

VirtueOnline - News - Culture Wars - Why Is Government Destroying Families?.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Parental Alienation Syndrome

What is Parental Alienation Syndrome?

By Cathy Meyer,

Question: What is Parental Alienation Syndrome?

Parental Alienation Syndrome is the deliberate attempt by one parent to distance his/her children from the other parent. The motivation is to destroy the parental bond between his/her children with the other parent. The alienation process develops over time and some of the symptoms of the syndrome include some or all of the following:

A parent will speak badly of or criticize the other parent directly to the child or children. Negative statements about the other parent may be direct or indirect.
  • For instance, the parent may say, “We can’t afford a new dress for the school dance because your father/mother decided to spend the money on vacation with their new friend.” A more direct comment would be, “your father/mother left because he/she didn’t care enough about you to try and make the marriage work.” Either statement is meant to cause the child to feel anger toward the other parent. It is an attempt to use the child to get back at the other parent for causing emotional pain.
  • A parent will speak badly of the other parent within the hearing range of the child or children. There are parents who say they would never say anything negative to their child or children about the other parent. They don’t seem to have any problem saying negative things to other people though and if their child or children happen to be within hearing distance the better. These people hold themselves up as a “good person.” They want to instill anger in their children toward the other parent without looking bad. It’s easy to say they had no idea the child was listening so they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. I like to say they are being very aggressive in a passive way.
  • A parent will make the child privy to the details of the divorce and the ongoing conflict between the parents. They discuss financial problems brought on by the divorce. Make the child aware of legal issues that are ongoing and make it appear that if it weren’t for dad or mom their life would be easier.Not only can this cause the child to feel anger toward the other parent it can also cause the child to feel responsible for your situation and want to take on responsibilities that are not theirs.
  • A parent will use body language to communicate their dislike of the other parent. The child may witness dad/mom roll their eyes or shake their head at something the other parent did or said. Such body language sends a negative message without a word being spoken. Children are smart and know that a roll of the eyes is a dismissive gesture. One clearly meant to send the message that the other parent is stupid or wrong in some way.
  • Refusing to be around the other parent or to co – parent with them sends the child a negative message also. Children may be told that their dad/mom is always angry and the other parent doesn’t want to be around the anger. The other parent might not be angry at all but, such accusations can cause a child to have unfounded hard feelings toward the other parent.
  • A parent may go as far as accusing the other parent of sexual, physical or emotional abuse. If you have, small children who are not yet able to communicate exactly what has happened such accusations can be very dangerous to the child/parent relationship. They may also have severe legal consequences. If a child is too small to talk and communicate what happened you should insist on a medical examination and an evaluation by a psychiatrist is you suspect abuse. If the child is old enough to speak for themselves and communicates to you that they have been abused then it is your responsibility to help them hold the other parent responsible.

Children who have to live with the unresovled conflict and anger of their parents suffer tremendously. Add to the normal stress of separation and divorce the feeling that the child should choose between the parents and you can cause damage that lasts a lifetime. A child is powerless when it comes to ending the conflict he/she is witnessing. They may feel that if they make a choice it will lessen the conflict they have to live with. One parent can cost their child the other parent and their only motivation is revenge, fear, anger or jealousy. It’s a terrible price for children to have to pay in an attempt to assuage a parent’s feelings.

It is imperative that parents be willing to parent cooperatively, that they put their child’s needs first and that their only concern is their child’s sense of security.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Parental Alienation - From A Child's Perspective

Parental Alienation - through the eyes of a child.

If you ever doubted if Parental Alienation exists or don't understand how it could happen, you need to see this video. It will be life-changing!

Friday, July 3, 2009

Child Custody: Does A Mother Make A Better Parent?

Child Custody: Does A Mother Make A Better Parent?

It's time that family court judges and child welfare social workers realized that for the best interest of a child, that all children need both parents to develop in a healthy and stable manner.

California Democratic Senate Majority Leader Darrell STEINBERG Runs from Attorney Richard Fine Question

Darrell STEINBERG Runs from Attorney Issac Fine Question

Darrell STEINBERG, Democrat Majority Leader of the California State Senate, who ignored the "Fatherless Day" Rally by Fathers - 4 -, on June 19, 2009, Friday, gets caught by William Wagener, in a gorilla interview as he re-enters the California State Capitol, at the end of the day. Steinberg, pretends he does NOT know the bill he was the PRIME sponsor of to LEGALIZE the Tortious and Criminal conduct of the 450 State Superior Court Judges of L.A. County whom all took OPEN BRIBES from the County of Los Angeles, and by strange Co-Incidence, the County of Los Angeles, did NOT lose a single LAW SUIT for almost 2.5 years, while giving ~ $46,000 in annual "Bribes" , which Sen. Steinberg calls "benefits", in addition to their STATE SALARY.

When asked WHY he does not sponsor a bill to get the Winning Attorney, who won at the State Appellate level, Richard FINE, out of Jail... Senator Steinberg walks away without answering... This is a must see INTERVIEW, no FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, or BBC or CBS would ever do. Note, Sen. Steinberg, asks "Where are you from" meaning what network.... [ he might want to make sure their state PRESS Credentials are revoked for asking tough questions - which the mainstream media avoids these days ] The On Second Thought Producer/ host starts with a 3 minute explaination, which helps understand the issue, since the entire public has had this issue intentionally hidden from them. Then comes the gorilla interview.

False Accusers Beware in California Divorce Court - California AB 612

False Accusers in California Divorce Courts Beware
Allegations of Abuse to Be Raised to Criminal Standards and Proceedings

For many years those who faced divorced proceedings accused a physical or sexual abuse against a child were stripped on Constitutional due process rights accorded to those accused of a crime in criminal court.

Now, for the first time, the bill that was introduced to strip the use of Parental Alienation out of the family court proceedings has gone a step further - the use of any "non-scientific" theories would not be considered in custody proceedings, but parents who falsely accuse a parent of physical or sexual abuse will be under the scrutiny of local District Attorney's offices.

The new bill reads, "This bill would provide that allegations of physical or sexual abuse against a child are to be investigated using specified methods of data collection and analysis. The bill would provide that the rules of evidence applicable in criminal proceedings shall apply whenever the court considers an allegation of physical or sexual abuse against a child in a custody proceeding."

For the section of California Evidence code, see here:

This bill would protect children from real abuse, but also protect falsely accused parents by allowing for criminal rules of evidence in court, which might also go on to include criminal rules of procedure including jury trials for those falsely accused. It would also open up malicious prosecution cases against parents and especially the attorneys for tampering with witnesses, namely children.

Accusing an individual of a felony, or enticing others (such as your children) to accuse others would subject you to criminal prosecution yourself, since most accusations are false.

For the full text of the amended bill:

California Legislation: AB 612 (Beall): Custody and visitation: nonscientific theories..

However, California Legal Codes give a free pass to false accusers, but not if "substantial evidence" is found that a false accusation was made during custody proceedings.

3027. (a) If allegations of child sexual abuse are made during a
child custody proceeding and the court has concerns regarding the
child's safety, the court may take any reasonable, temporary steps as
the court, in its discretion, deems appropriate under the
circumstances to protect the child's safety until an investigation
can be completed. Nothing in this section shall affect the
applicability of Section 16504 or 16506 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(b) If allegations of child sexual abuse are made during a child
custody proceeding, the court may request that the local child
welfare services agency conduct an investigation of the allegations
pursuant to Section 328 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Upon
completion of the investigation, the agency shall report its findings
to the court.

3027.1. (a) If a court determines, based on the investigation
described in Section 3027 or other evidence presented to it, that an
accusation of child abuse or neglect made during a child custody
proceeding is false and the person making the accusation knew it to
be false at the time the accusation was made, the court may impose
reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed all costs incurred by the
party accused as a direct result of defending the accusation, and
reasonable attorney's fees incurred in recovering the sanctions,
against the person making the accusation. For the purposes of this
section, "person" includes a witness, a party, or a party's attorney.

(b) On motion by any person requesting sanctions under this
section, the court shall issue its order to show cause why the
requested sanctions should not be imposed. The order to show cause
shall be served on the person against whom the sanctions are sought
and a hearing thereon shall be scheduled by the court to be conducted
at least 15 days after the order is served.
(c) The remedy provided by this section is in addition to any
other remedy provided by law.

3027.5. (a) No parent shall be placed on supervised visitation, or
be denied custody of or visitation with his or her child, and no
custody or visitation rights shall be limited, solely because the
parent (1) lawfully reported suspected sexual abuse of the child, (2)
otherwise acted lawfully, based on a reasonable belief, to determine
if his or her child was the victim of sexual abuse, or (3) sought
treatment for the child from a licensed mental health professional
for suspected sexual abuse.
(b) The court may order supervised visitation or limit a parent's
custody or visitation if the court finds substantial evidence that
the parent, with the intent to interfere with the other parent's
lawful contact with the child, made a report of child sexual abuse,
during a child custody proceeding or at any other time, that he or
she knew was false at the time it was made. Any limitation of
custody or visitation, including an order for supervised visitation,
pursuant to this subdivision, or any statute regarding the making of
a false child abuse report, shall be imposed only after the court has
determined that the limitation is necessary to protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the child, and the court has considered the
state's policy of assuring that children have frequent and continuing
contact with both parents as declared in subdivision (b) of Section