BBC: Agony of the Frozen-out Fathers

This documentary sounds worthwhile. It would be good to acquire and share
these programs.

Quote #1: The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are
bleak, according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less
well. They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse
drugs and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships.
If Broken Britain ­ that over-used moral call to arms ­ has roots, they
lie in broken homes. A third of children are now growing up without
parents living under the same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000
separations per year is a source of sadness for the children involved,
children who yearn ­ however unrealistically ­ for mummy and daddy to live
together happily ever after.

Quote #2: Not only did these women want total control of the children ­
believing their love was enough ­ they also expected their exes to keep
them in the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived
in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own
home to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: "OK, so I can book
a holiday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rwnsk

------------------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html

The Telegraph
27 March 2010

Agony of the frozen-out fathers
By Cassandra Jardine

A new BBC series explores the reasons why fathers lose touch with their
children post-separation. Cassandra Jardine investigates.

Watching a preview of next week´s BBC series Who Needs Fathers?, I felt
ashamed to be a woman. The men on the programme appeared to be loving,
attentive fathers ­ not extremists in Batman costumes. All they wanted was
to play their part in the upbringing of their children. But, at every
turn, it seemed, vengeful, short-sighted women were selfishly trying to
thwart them.

These mothers cancelled contact arrangements, scuppered telephone calls,
made false allegations of abuse, and prevented the men taking their
children on holiday. "Honestly, I feel like throwing in the towel," said
one tearful father, who sat in his car outside his ex´s front door,
waiting in vain for the children to come out. Only an emergency court
order won him the day.

Not only did these women want total control of the children ­ believing
their love was enough ­ they also expected their exes to keep them in the
style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived in cramped
bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own home to keep a
working mother in hers, her response is: "OK, so I can book a holiday."

The programmes not only seek to explain why 40 per cent of fathers lose
touch with their children within two years of divorce ­ the figure is
likely to be even higher when unmarried parents separate ­ but also why
this matters. Looking at the confused faces of children being fought over
by parents like favourite toys, it was not difficult to imagine what might
happen when they grew into teenagers, unsure about their loyalties and
identities. Indeed, in the third programme, we see fatherless teenagers
behaving appallingly.

The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are bleak,
according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well.
They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs
and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If
Broken Britain ­ that over-used moral call to arms ­ has roots, they lie
in broken homes.

A third of children are now growing up without parents living under the
same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is a source
of sadness for the children involved, children who yearn ­ however
unrealistically ­ for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after.

But those partings can be handled more or less well. "The emotionally
healthy 18 year-olds," says Judge Nicholas Crichton, who works in the
family courts, "are those who can say, 'Whatever happened between my
parents, I knew I was loved and that I was free to love both parents
without feeling guilty.´?"

Too few children are growing up with that balance. Ninety three per cent
of children live with their mother after a separation, and half then lose
touch with the non-resident parent. That´s a tragedy not only for the
fathers, but for the grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins who would
otherwise provide a support network for those children.

Acrimony is unavoidable when relationships end, but some couples, such as
Chris and Angela in the first programme, succeed in suppressing their
irritation with one another for the sake of their children. Why then do so
many children lose a parent to this game of bitterness and revenge?

"Henry" (not his real name), who is seen in the second programme, tells me
he blames a court system that is biased against fathers, as well as being
expensive, slow and ineffectual. When his daughter was born, Henry wanted
to be involved, even though he had subsequently married. In return for
maintenance, he saw his daughter alternate weekends and took her on
holiday. "She was a massive part of my life," he says. "Then her mother
decided to live abroad."

He fought the move but, as in 99 per cent of cases, the mother won in
court. "All a woman has to say is that refusal will psychologically damage
her. There´s a view that whatever is in the mother´s interests is also in
the child´s interests, even though nine out of 10 non-resident parents
then lose touch."

Henry did not wish to be one of them, but despite a "mirror order" giving
him visiting rights and regular contact, he has had to fight for every
glimpse and chat, at a cost of £70,000, putting considerable strain on his
marriage. "When we meet it´s wonderful, but it´s hard to slot into a role
if you haven't seen a child regularly."

During the whole court process he felt "like the puppet in the hands of a
puppeteer". He says: "I can understand why mothers use whatever power is
at their disposal, but there was an imbalance." Many fathers feel the
same. "In order to be considered equal, you have to be twice as good,"
says Simon Ramet, who has fought for half his child´s time.
"The courts are still stuck in a 1950s paradigm of mothers doing the
caring, and fathers doing the earning," says John Davies, chief executive
of Families Need Fathers.

Women are also more likely to get legal aid than fathers, who have to
weigh up the cost of pursuing a case against the fear that the longer they
go without seeing a child, the weaker their case for maintaining contact
becomes. "As few parents with young children can afford it, access to the
law often depends on having wealthy parents. It tends to be a middle-class
privilege," says Sara Feilden, producer for Films of Record, who made the
BBC series.

Despite fears that speaking out will harm participants´ contact
arrangements, Fielden is glad to have found the brief window of
opportunity in which to tell their stories. Last year, it became legal to
report on the family courts, but a Bill is going through Parliament that
would make it impossible, once again, to film people who have been
involved in family legal disputes. "It´s unlikely that we would ever again
be able to make a programme about this important issue," she says.

The men filmed are eager to highlight the shortcomings of an overburdened
legal system. Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support
Service), which appoints guardians to represent the child´s interests, is
so stretched that it can take nine months to produce a report. When
allegations of misconduct are made, contact is rightly refused until they
have been investigated. But sometimes they are purely vexatious.

Families Need Fathers is fighting for a number of changes on behalf of all
non-resident parents, mothers as well as fathers. These include
publication of judgments so parents know what to expect (and may therefore
avoid court), sanctions for those who make false allegations, and
financial recognition that non-resident parents also have to maintain a
home suitable for their children to visit.

The current system finds favour with few, least of all those whose lives
are dominated by endless hearings and court orders. "You should be
reasonable when splitting up," says Juliette Thomas, who was brave enough
to defend on air her reluctance to allow Alex, her ex, his share of their
four sons´ time: she claimed lack of clarity in his plans. Unable to
agree, the court process has made the gulf between them wider and Alex
resentful.

Family breakdown is not unique to the UK, but some countries seem to
handle it better. In Australia, an assumption of shared parenting was
introduced four years ago, backed up by family centres where separating
couples could be given information and counselling on sharing their
children. More children are now staying in contact with both parents as a
result.

Dr Mandy Bryon, chief psychologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, tells
parents: "Whether you like it or not, you will remain in a relationship
with one another as parents of your children." To prepare for that, she
believes couples need to acknowledge the errors in thinking that occur
when people are angry and upset, and to anticipate the problems that cause
flare- ups ­ late delivery back, changes of plans, and so on.

"If parents are living together and a child comes back from a visit to the
park with the father in tears, the mother will try to reassure both
parties. If they are separated she will say, 'Never again.´ The father
might ask the child not to tell Mummy. Then, when the child blurts out
what Daddy said, the mother thinks something sinister is going on."

Judge Crichton already sends many parents on courses to learn about
sharing. If we adopted a system similar to the Australian one, that would
be compulsory before a couple go to court. "A good thing too," he says,
"as the courts are not the best place to sort these matters out."

Both the Labour and Conservative parties have reviewed the family-law
system. Henry Bellingham, shadow justice minister, talks of introducing
automatic shared contact, if the Conservatives are elected, and using Sue
Start centres for counselling. Looking at the worried eyes of children
caught up in disputes that they don't understand, change can't come too
soon.

'Who Needs Fathers´ starts on BBC Two at 9pm next Wednesday (31 March
2010).

cassandra.jardine@telegraph.co.uk

31 Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html#comments

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

 

BBC: Agony of the Frozen-out Fathers

This documentary sounds worthwhile. It would be good to acquire and share
these programs.

Quote #1: The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are
bleak, according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less
well. They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse
drugs and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships.
If Broken Britain ­ that over-used moral call to arms ­ has roots, they
lie in broken homes. A third of children are now growing up without
parents living under the same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000
separations per year is a source of sadness for the children involved,
children who yearn ­ however unrealistically ­ for mummy and daddy to live
together happily ever after.

Quote #2: Not only did these women want total control of the children ­
believing their love was enough ­ they also expected their exes to keep
them in the style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived
in cramped bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own
home to keep a working mother in hers, her response is: "OK, so I can book
a holiday."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rwnsk

------------------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html

The Telegraph
27 March 2010

Agony of the frozen-out fathers
By Cassandra Jardine

A new BBC series explores the reasons why fathers lose touch with their
children post-separation. Cassandra Jardine investigates.

Watching a preview of next week´s BBC series Who Needs Fathers?, I felt
ashamed to be a woman. The men on the programme appeared to be loving,
attentive fathers ­ not extremists in Batman costumes. All they wanted was
to play their part in the upbringing of their children. But, at every
turn, it seemed, vengeful, short-sighted women were selfishly trying to
thwart them.

These mothers cancelled contact arrangements, scuppered telephone calls,
made false allegations of abuse, and prevented the men taking their
children on holiday. "Honestly, I feel like throwing in the towel," said
one tearful father, who sat in his car outside his ex´s front door,
waiting in vain for the children to come out. Only an emergency court
order won him the day.

Not only did these women want total control of the children ­ believing
their love was enough ­ they also expected their exes to keep them in the
style to which they had become accustomed, while the men lived in cramped
bedsits. When one man finally manages to remortgage his own home to keep a
working mother in hers, her response is: "OK, so I can book a holiday."

The programmes not only seek to explain why 40 per cent of fathers lose
touch with their children within two years of divorce ­ the figure is
likely to be even higher when unmarried parents separate ­ but also why
this matters. Looking at the confused faces of children being fought over
by parents like favourite toys, it was not difficult to imagine what might
happen when they grew into teenagers, unsure about their loyalties and
identities. Indeed, in the third programme, we see fatherless teenagers
behaving appallingly.

The prospects for children who don't see their fathers are bleak,
according to a Unicef report in 2007. Educationally, they do less well.
They are more likely to get in trouble with the police, and to abuse drugs
and alcohol. They also find it more difficult to form relationships. If
Broken Britain ­ that over-used moral call to arms ­ has roots, they lie
in broken homes.

A third of children are now growing up without parents living under the
same roof. Each of the 150,000 to 200,000 separations per year is a source
of sadness for the children involved, children who yearn ­ however
unrealistically ­ for mummy and daddy to live together happily ever after.

But those partings can be handled more or less well. "The emotionally
healthy 18 year-olds," says Judge Nicholas Crichton, who works in the
family courts, "are those who can say, 'Whatever happened between my
parents, I knew I was loved and that I was free to love both parents
without feeling guilty.´?"

Too few children are growing up with that balance. Ninety three per cent
of children live with their mother after a separation, and half then lose
touch with the non-resident parent. That´s a tragedy not only for the
fathers, but for the grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins who would
otherwise provide a support network for those children.

Acrimony is unavoidable when relationships end, but some couples, such as
Chris and Angela in the first programme, succeed in suppressing their
irritation with one another for the sake of their children. Why then do so
many children lose a parent to this game of bitterness and revenge?

"Henry" (not his real name), who is seen in the second programme, tells me
he blames a court system that is biased against fathers, as well as being
expensive, slow and ineffectual. When his daughter was born, Henry wanted
to be involved, even though he had subsequently married. In return for
maintenance, he saw his daughter alternate weekends and took her on
holiday. "She was a massive part of my life," he says. "Then her mother
decided to live abroad."

He fought the move but, as in 99 per cent of cases, the mother won in
court. "All a woman has to say is that refusal will psychologically damage
her. There´s a view that whatever is in the mother´s interests is also in
the child´s interests, even though nine out of 10 non-resident parents
then lose touch."

Henry did not wish to be one of them, but despite a "mirror order" giving
him visiting rights and regular contact, he has had to fight for every
glimpse and chat, at a cost of £70,000, putting considerable strain on his
marriage. "When we meet it´s wonderful, but it´s hard to slot into a role
if you haven't seen a child regularly."

During the whole court process he felt "like the puppet in the hands of a
puppeteer". He says: "I can understand why mothers use whatever power is
at their disposal, but there was an imbalance." Many fathers feel the
same. "In order to be considered equal, you have to be twice as good,"
says Simon Ramet, who has fought for half his child´s time.
"The courts are still stuck in a 1950s paradigm of mothers doing the
caring, and fathers doing the earning," says John Davies, chief executive
of Families Need Fathers.

Women are also more likely to get legal aid than fathers, who have to
weigh up the cost of pursuing a case against the fear that the longer they
go without seeing a child, the weaker their case for maintaining contact
becomes. "As few parents with young children can afford it, access to the
law often depends on having wealthy parents. It tends to be a middle-class
privilege," says Sara Feilden, producer for Films of Record, who made the
BBC series.

Despite fears that speaking out will harm participants´ contact
arrangements, Fielden is glad to have found the brief window of
opportunity in which to tell their stories. Last year, it became legal to
report on the family courts, but a Bill is going through Parliament that
would make it impossible, once again, to film people who have been
involved in family legal disputes. "It´s unlikely that we would ever again
be able to make a programme about this important issue," she says.

The men filmed are eager to highlight the shortcomings of an overburdened
legal system. Cafcass (the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support
Service), which appoints guardians to represent the child´s interests, is
so stretched that it can take nine months to produce a report. When
allegations of misconduct are made, contact is rightly refused until they
have been investigated. But sometimes they are purely vexatious.

Families Need Fathers is fighting for a number of changes on behalf of all
non-resident parents, mothers as well as fathers. These include
publication of judgments so parents know what to expect (and may therefore
avoid court), sanctions for those who make false allegations, and
financial recognition that non-resident parents also have to maintain a
home suitable for their children to visit.

The current system finds favour with few, least of all those whose lives
are dominated by endless hearings and court orders. "You should be
reasonable when splitting up," says Juliette Thomas, who was brave enough
to defend on air her reluctance to allow Alex, her ex, his share of their
four sons´ time: she claimed lack of clarity in his plans. Unable to
agree, the court process has made the gulf between them wider and Alex
resentful.

Family breakdown is not unique to the UK, but some countries seem to
handle it better. In Australia, an assumption of shared parenting was
introduced four years ago, backed up by family centres where separating
couples could be given information and counselling on sharing their
children. More children are now staying in contact with both parents as a
result.

Dr Mandy Bryon, chief psychologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital, tells
parents: "Whether you like it or not, you will remain in a relationship
with one another as parents of your children." To prepare for that, she
believes couples need to acknowledge the errors in thinking that occur
when people are angry and upset, and to anticipate the problems that cause
flare- ups ­ late delivery back, changes of plans, and so on.

"If parents are living together and a child comes back from a visit to the
park with the father in tears, the mother will try to reassure both
parties. If they are separated she will say, 'Never again.´ The father
might ask the child not to tell Mummy. Then, when the child blurts out
what Daddy said, the mother thinks something sinister is going on."

Judge Crichton already sends many parents on courses to learn about
sharing. If we adopted a system similar to the Australian one, that would
be compulsory before a couple go to court. "A good thing too," he says,
"as the courts are not the best place to sort these matters out."

Both the Labour and Conservative parties have reviewed the family-law
system. Henry Bellingham, shadow justice minister, talks of introducing
automatic shared contact, if the Conservatives are elected, and using Sue
Start centres for counselling. Looking at the worried eyes of children
caught up in disputes that they don't understand, change can't come too
soon.

'Who Needs Fathers´ starts on BBC Two at 9pm next Wednesday (31 March
2010).

cassandra.jardine@telegraph.co.uk

31 Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/7528771/Agony-of-the-frozen-out-fathers.html#comments

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

Federal Lawsuit Bethany Christian Services:Breaking news

Michigan for Parental Rights Protecting from abuse of the child welfare system

A message to all members of Michigan for Parental Rights

This is in from News Channel 8. We are also collecting stories and data on Bethany Christian services and the way they treat there clients. If you have a story please E-mail it to miparentalrights@gmail.com Or call the MPR hotline at 616-848-0664. I also have included the tv 8 video on the ning site.

Fed. suit targets Bethany Chr. Services

Family won't give up on Russian son or lawsuit

Updated: Thursday, 22 Apr 2010, 11:26 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 22 Apr 2010, 9:14 PM EDT

• By Brian Sterling

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) - Julie and Chip Harshaw were thrilled when they brought home 18-month-old Roman in early 2004. The blonde Russian boy's adoption was made possible through Bethany Christian Services.

"It was wonderful," Julie said. "I remember having tears in my eyes."

The couple, of Hampton Roads, Va., paid more than $16,000 to facilitate Roman's adoption. The Harshaws made it clear to Bethany they were only able to adopt a healthy child with a good prognosis for normal development, they said, putting their trust in the hands of the nation's largest adoption agency.

"That was very powerful to us, because in our minds, again, we sought the biggest and most extensive operation in the world and found it," Chip said.

But the couple's joy soon turned to anguish and ultimately, outright terror as they began to realize something was wrong with Roman.

"We realized things may not be going in a good direction," Chip said. "(He was) not developing like other kids."

Roman was behaving in an increasingly violent manner.

"It would happen over everything and anything," Julie said.

The child was often aggressive and out of control -- anti-social to the point of not having any friends.

The violence escalated and Roman tried to hit his little sister over the head with a 2-by-4. In another instance, the Harshaws were horrified to learn he had pried three of his teeth out at school.

"These were teeth that weren't ready to come out," Chip said. "(He) pried it out with the tip of a Magic Marker."

As outlined in a federal lawsuit, Julie and Chip say Bethany deceived them; and that unknown and undisclosed to the Hawshaws, Roman has severe developmental problems coupled with an extreme case of fetal alcohol syndrome.

"I think it's fair to say that FAS and its effects are not minor by any means," family attorney Kevin Rynbrandt said. "They did not receive the quality of care before, during or after their adoption."

But, as outlined in court documents obtained by 24 Hour News 8, Bethany consistently asserted to the Harshaws that Roman was healthy. The agency provided the boy's Russian medical records and assured the couple Roman was "on target."

That assessment, according to the lawsuit, was based primarily on the personal medical examination of Bethany doctor Michael Dubrovsky. The suit claims Bethany assured the couple Dubrovsky had reviewed Roman's medical records. However, he never reviewed the records, never visited the Russian orphanage and never even saw Roman.

Bethany officials would not talk discuss the suit, only issuing a written statement: "Bethany takes seriously all concerns that adoptive parents may have. We stand behind our legacy of quality adoption services and commitment to child welfare for more than 65 years."

But "we were misled. We were told extreme untruths," Julie said. "His health was totally misrepresented."

The Harshaws refuse to give up on their troubled son or the suit, they said.

The next court hearing is scheduled for May 10 in U.S. district court, in Kalamazoo.

Roman is now residing in a Virginia treatment facility. Doctors hope through medication and therapy, they can provide some semblance of a normal life for the boy.

The couple's family has suffered dearly, they said, but they still hold out hope for that smiling little child to whom they wrote a poem after meeting Roman for the first time.

They hope one day, the little boy they brought home from Russia -- now 8 years old -- will learn to love them back.

"We know that we will love you until the end, as our hearts are one," Julie said.>

Visit Michigan for Parental Rights at: http://miparentalrights.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
--
Dennis Lawrence
Child and Family Rights Advocate
www.miparentalrights.ning.com
616-848-0664

--
Regards,

Judith Faye
Child Advocate
Family Rights Coalition of Michigan
Executive Committee Chair - Western Michigan Region
Cell: 616-726-0010
Home: 616-942-4016

--
Regards,

Judith Faye
Child Advocate
Family Rights Coalition of Michigan
Executive Committee Chair - Western Michigan Region
Cell: 616-726-0010
Home: 616-942-4016

Federal Lawsuit Bethany Christian Services:Breaking news

Michigan for Parental Rights Protecting from abuse of the child welfare system

A message to all members of Michigan for Parental Rights

This is in from News Channel 8. We are also collecting stories and data on Bethany Christian services and the way they treat there clients. If you have a story please E-mail it to miparentalrights@gmail.com Or call the MPR hotline at 616-848-0664. I also have included the tv 8 video on the ning site.

Fed. suit targets Bethany Chr. Services

Family won't give up on Russian son or lawsuit

Updated: Thursday, 22 Apr 2010, 11:26 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 22 Apr 2010, 9:14 PM EDT

• By Brian Sterling

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) - Julie and Chip Harshaw were thrilled when they brought home 18-month-old Roman in early 2004. The blonde Russian boy's adoption was made possible through Bethany Christian Services.

"It was wonderful," Julie said. "I remember having tears in my eyes."

The couple, of Hampton Roads, Va., paid more than $16,000 to facilitate Roman's adoption. The Harshaws made it clear to Bethany they were only able to adopt a healthy child with a good prognosis for normal development, they said, putting their trust in the hands of the nation's largest adoption agency.

"That was very powerful to us, because in our minds, again, we sought the biggest and most extensive operation in the world and found it," Chip said.

But the couple's joy soon turned to anguish and ultimately, outright terror as they began to realize something was wrong with Roman.

"We realized things may not be going in a good direction," Chip said. "(He was) not developing like other kids."

Roman was behaving in an increasingly violent manner.

"It would happen over everything and anything," Julie said.

The child was often aggressive and out of control -- anti-social to the point of not having any friends.

The violence escalated and Roman tried to hit his little sister over the head with a 2-by-4. In another instance, the Harshaws were horrified to learn he had pried three of his teeth out at school.

"These were teeth that weren't ready to come out," Chip said. "(He) pried it out with the tip of a Magic Marker."

As outlined in a federal lawsuit, Julie and Chip say Bethany deceived them; and that unknown and undisclosed to the Hawshaws, Roman has severe developmental problems coupled with an extreme case of fetal alcohol syndrome.

"I think it's fair to say that FAS and its effects are not minor by any means," family attorney Kevin Rynbrandt said. "They did not receive the quality of care before, during or after their adoption."

But, as outlined in court documents obtained by 24 Hour News 8, Bethany consistently asserted to the Harshaws that Roman was healthy. The agency provided the boy's Russian medical records and assured the couple Roman was "on target."

That assessment, according to the lawsuit, was based primarily on the personal medical examination of Bethany doctor Michael Dubrovsky. The suit claims Bethany assured the couple Dubrovsky had reviewed Roman's medical records. However, he never reviewed the records, never visited the Russian orphanage and never even saw Roman.

Bethany officials would not talk discuss the suit, only issuing a written statement: "Bethany takes seriously all concerns that adoptive parents may have. We stand behind our legacy of quality adoption services and commitment to child welfare for more than 65 years."

But "we were misled. We were told extreme untruths," Julie said. "His health was totally misrepresented."

The Harshaws refuse to give up on their troubled son or the suit, they said.

The next court hearing is scheduled for May 10 in U.S. district court, in Kalamazoo.

Roman is now residing in a Virginia treatment facility. Doctors hope through medication and therapy, they can provide some semblance of a normal life for the boy.

The couple's family has suffered dearly, they said, but they still hold out hope for that smiling little child to whom they wrote a poem after meeting Roman for the first time.

They hope one day, the little boy they brought home from Russia -- now 8 years old -- will learn to love them back.

"We know that we will love you until the end, as our hearts are one," Julie said.>

Visit Michigan for Parental Rights at: http://miparentalrights.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
--
Dennis Lawrence
Child and Family Rights Advocate
www.miparentalrights.ning.com
616-848-0664

--
Regards,

Judith Faye
Child Advocate
Family Rights Coalition of Michigan
Executive Committee Chair - Western Michigan Region
Cell: 616-726-0010
Home: 616-942-4016

--
Regards,

Judith Faye
Child Advocate
Family Rights Coalition of Michigan
Executive Committee Chair - Western Michigan Region
Cell: 616-726-0010
Home: 616-942-4016

MI House Resolution HCR 45 Parental Rights Amendment

Dear Friend of Parental Rights in Michigan,

Through your phone calls and the diligent efforts of our allies at
Citizens Alliance for Life and Liberty (CALL), a resolution calling
for the Parental Rights Amendment has made significant progress in the
Michigan legislature. Currently, the resolution - HCR 45  - has 60
cosponsors in the 110-member House, a clear majority.

However, HCR 45, championed by Rep. Dave Agema, must pass the House
Judiciary Committee to reach the floor for a vote, and that committee
is headed by Rep. Mark Meadows. As the chairman, Rep. Meadows has the
authority to decide whether the resolution will receive a hearing, and
whether or not it will be put to a committee vote.

We believe HCR 45 will pass if we can get it to a vote, so we need
your help to pursuade Rep. Meadows to give it that chance.

Next Thurs., April 29, at 11:30 Director Steven Dennison of CALL has a
30-minute appointment with Rep. Meadows to discuss this issue. April
29 is also Rep. Meadows' birthday.

Here, then, is what we need you to do:

Send a card as soon as possible wishing the Representative a happy
birthday;
Include in it a cordial request that he grant HCR 45 a vote in the
Judiciary Committee
Forward this email to as many friends and family members in Michigan
as you can and ask them to join you.
Please send your cards to:

The Honorable Representative Mark S. Meadows
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514.

Rep. Meadows may not be your local representative, but he represents
all of Michigan as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, especially in
deciding on matters like HCR 45. Your efforts are invaluable in
helping Michigan to pass this resolution in support of parental rights.

Sincerely,

Jason Heki
Regional Coordinator

MI House Resolution HCR 45 Parental Rights Amendment

Dear Friend of Parental Rights in Michigan,

Through your phone calls and the diligent efforts of our allies at
Citizens Alliance for Life and Liberty (CALL), a resolution calling
for the Parental Rights Amendment has made significant progress in the
Michigan legislature. Currently, the resolution - HCR 45  - has 60
cosponsors in the 110-member House, a clear majority.

However, HCR 45, championed by Rep. Dave Agema, must pass the House
Judiciary Committee to reach the floor for a vote, and that committee
is headed by Rep. Mark Meadows. As the chairman, Rep. Meadows has the
authority to decide whether the resolution will receive a hearing, and
whether or not it will be put to a committee vote.

We believe HCR 45 will pass if we can get it to a vote, so we need
your help to pursuade Rep. Meadows to give it that chance.

Next Thurs., April 29, at 11:30 Director Steven Dennison of CALL has a
30-minute appointment with Rep. Meadows to discuss this issue. April
29 is also Rep. Meadows' birthday.

Here, then, is what we need you to do:

Send a card as soon as possible wishing the Representative a happy
birthday;
Include in it a cordial request that he grant HCR 45 a vote in the
Judiciary Committee
Forward this email to as many friends and family members in Michigan
as you can and ask them to join you.
Please send your cards to:

The Honorable Representative Mark S. Meadows
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514.

Rep. Meadows may not be your local representative, but he represents
all of Michigan as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, especially in
deciding on matters like HCR 45. Your efforts are invaluable in
helping Michigan to pass this resolution in support of parental rights.

Sincerely,

Jason Heki
Regional Coordinator

RADAR ALERT: A Weird Story Gets Weirder -- Ever-Expanding Definitions Of Abuse

RADAR ALERT:

A Weird Story Gets Weirder -- Ever-Expanding Definitions Of Abuse

Last month England's Daily Mail reported that New Jersey resident Donna Simpson was determined to become the world's fattest woman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1257850/Super-sized-mother-determined-worlds-fattest-woman-years.html).

Already 600 lbs at the age of 42, the stay-at-home mom of a three year old girl wants gain 400 lbs in the next two years, reaching her goal weight of 1000 lbs and thereby breaking the Guinness World Record for female fatness. He husband, a 150lb "belly man," is completely supportive of her pursuit.

On March 20, 2010, an outraged Renee Martin blogged that Simpson's husband isn't just a chubby chaser, he's an abuser. "Abuse can take many forms and it often goes unremarked upon, or else wrongly labelled. The nature of the power dynamic between the feeder/feedee removes agency and therefore eliminates culpability. Just as it is highly unreasonable to blame the victim of domestic violence for their bruises, so too is it unconscionable to blame the feedee for over eating."

Ms. Martin's take on the story is wrong for three reasons. First, and most importantly, by stretching the definition of domestic violence to include the encouragement of overeating, she diminishes the suffering of real victims of domestic violence. Secondly, she infantilizes Donna Simpson, that is, she treats her as an unconscious automaton who has no role to play in her efforts to gain weight. Lastly, she places Simpson's husband in a no-win position. What if he chastised her for wanting to gain more weight, or was simply indifferent? Wouldn't that make him an unsupportive bastard? Isn't that abuse under an expansive definition of domestic violence?

The story of one woman's quest to become the fattest woman in the world and the accompanying question of whether her husband is an abuser for encouraging her to reach her goal is perfect for talk radio, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum. Please contact your favorite radio talk show and tell them about the controversy. If you can, please send them a copy of our report,

Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Vanishing-Rule-of-Law.pdf).

Thanks for your help.

---

Date of RADAR Release: April 20, 2010

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://mediaradar.org

RADAR ALERT: A Weird Story Gets Weirder -- Ever-Expanding Definitions Of Abuse

 

RADAR ALERT:

A Weird Story Gets Weirder -- Ever-Expanding Definitions Of Abuse

Last month England's Daily Mail reported that New Jersey resident Donna Simpson was determined to become the world's fattest woman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1257850/Super-sized-mother-determined-worlds-fattest-woman-years.html).

Already 600 lbs at the age of 42, the stay-at-home mom of a three year old girl wants gain 400 lbs in the next two years, reaching her goal weight of 1000 lbs and thereby breaking the Guinness World Record for female fatness. He husband, a 150lb "belly man," is completely supportive of her pursuit.

On March 20, 2010, an outraged Renee Martin blogged that Simpson's husband isn't just a chubby chaser, he's an abuser. "Abuse can take many forms and it often goes unremarked upon, or else wrongly labelled. The nature of the power dynamic between the feeder/feedee removes agency and therefore eliminates culpability. Just as it is highly unreasonable to blame the victim of domestic violence for their bruises, so too is it unconscionable to blame the feedee for over eating."

Ms. Martin's take on the story is wrong for three reasons. First, and most importantly, by stretching the definition of domestic violence to include the encouragement of overeating, she diminishes the suffering of real victims of domestic violence. Secondly, she infantilizes Donna Simpson, that is, she treats her as an unconscious automaton who has no role to play in her efforts to gain weight. Lastly, she places Simpson's husband in a no-win position. What if he chastised her for wanting to gain more weight, or was simply indifferent? Wouldn't that make him an unsupportive bastard? Isn't that abuse under an expansive definition of domestic violence?

The story of one woman's quest to become the fattest woman in the world and the accompanying question of whether her husband is an abuser for encouraging her to reach her goal is perfect for talk radio, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum. Please contact your favorite radio talk show and tell them about the controversy. If you can, please send them a copy of our report,

Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Vanishing-Rule-of-Law.pdf).

Thanks for your help.

---

Date of RADAR Release: April 20, 2010

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence. http://mediaradar.org

F & F Bills Moving Rapidly--CA. Assembly Passes AB 2416, AZ Gov. Signs HB 2348; Shared Parenting Supporter Wins MA. Primary

 

If you can't see the images in this email, click here. Be sure to add glenn@glennsacks.com to your address book or safe sender list so our emails get to your inbox.

F & F Bills Moving Rapidly--CA. Assembly Passes AB 2416,  AZ Gov. Signs HB 2348; Shared Parenting Supporter Wins MA. Primary April 20, 2010 Top Stories Success---CA. Child Custody Bill AB 2416 Passes Assembly by Unanimous Consent, Moves to Senate At Fathers & Families we receive many letters from divorced or separated military servicemembers with painful but preventable family law problems. California AB 2416 will help protect the loving bonds that servicemembers share with their children. Fathers & Families has worked closely with Assemblyman Paul Cook, the American Retirees Association, and others on AB 2416, and earlier this month thousands of you responded to our Action Alert in support of the bill. We are pleased to announce that this week the bill passed the Assembly by unanimous consent. The bill will now go to the Senate. To learn more about the bill and to read Fathers & Families’ official support letter, see our AB 2416 Campaign page here. Bills don’t pass by unanimous consent by accident—this victory was achieved because Fathers & Families’ legislative representative Michael Robinson and assistant legislative representative Nicole Silverman have spent months lobbying legislators and gathering support for AB 2416. We’ve been at the forefront of this issue, successfully working to help pass military parent legislation in dozens of states. The first major success occurred in 2005 under Robinson’s direction with the passage of California SB 1082, which helped address servicemembers’ custody and child support problems. Fathers & Families organized a campaign in support of the bill, and the Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis of SB 1082 made specific note of your calls and letters. We’ve also had some success with federal legislation on this issue–to learn more, click here. F & F is creating real, tangible family court reform today, but our deep, professional involvement in Sacramento requires money–contribute to the organization which fights for you by clicking here. Together with you in the love of our children, Glenn Sacks, MA Executive Director, Fathers & Families Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S. Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families Melissa Hodgdon Deputy Director, Fathers & Families Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Signs into Law Bill to Protect Disabled Parents from Family Court Financial Abuses Although federal law is clear, judges are often ignoring it and calculating veterans’ disability compensation into divorce settlements as a divisible asset. Very often these payments are the only assets a veteran has. When judges include it as income, it creates great hardship for those veterans, who rarely have the resources to hire legal help to contest the taking of their benefits. Arizona HB 2348, a bill to protect disabled parents from these family court abuses, was just signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (pictured).  Thanks goes to Arizona House Member Frank Antenori, who sponsored the bill, as well as Mark Beres of the American Retirees Association and the ULSG, and Fathers & Families’ legislative representative Michael Robinson, who worked with Beres. Robinson was also instrumental in the passage of a similar bill, SB 285, in California last year. F & F is also working with advocates and legislators on similar legislation in numerous other states. The abuses being committed in family court concerning disabled parents’ VA benefits remind many F & F supporters of their own experiences in family court–a lack of respect for the law, violations of due process, fathers (and sometimes mothers) being financially plundered and shook down for money they don’t owe, and similar abuses. Many of you participated in Fathers & Families‘ January Action Alert in support of HB 2348–thanks again for your participation.       Join Fathers & Families Fathers and Families is a family court reform organization with a comprehensive strategy, an impressive history of legislative and fundraising success, and the largest reach of any advocacy group of its kind: Get Involved Give a Gift Become an F & F Activist/Supporter by Filling out Our Volunteer Form     Become an F & F Activist/Supporter by Filling out Our Volunteer Form Missed an E-Newsletter? Read Them All Here What's Happening Pro-Shared Parenting Candidate Wins Massachusetts State Senate Primary Everett City Councilor Sal DiDomenico has won a six-way primary in a special election to replace former Senator Anthony Galluccio. Fathers & Families’ shared parenting bill was an issue in the campaign. DiDomenico, who worked in the State House as Chief of Staff to Former Senator Galluccio, supported HB 1400 and was well-versed in the details of the issue. We congratulate him. Being a proud father himself, DiDomenico (pictured) mentioned his young sons in his victory speech, telling local media: We knew this was going to be a close race, but we prevailed in many cities across the district, and our message got out to the people…“My sons can finally say ‘daddy’s going to be a senator.’” To read more about this race, please see Smulowitz, DiDomenico declare wins in primaries (Boston Globe, 4/13/10). Baby Emma Disappears into Utah Adoption Black Hole Letter to the Editor: 'My father taught me core values that have sustained me through tough times.' Guess Who's Unhappy About the Decline in Maternal Deaths  Letter to the Editor: 'Fatherhood & DNA--Let's flip the tables about 90 degrees.' Legal Defense: It's not Racial Discrimination, Just Sex Discrimination  In Australia, Duped Dads Starting to Recoup Child Support Payments Urban Prep: A Small Revolution in Boys' Education  'She just doesn't want my son to see his daughter and she will do anything she can to stop him.' Slower Than The Rest, NYT Gets the Male Studies Debate Equally Wrong  Israeli Researcher: Female Terrorists 'Never' Attack 'of Their Own Free Will'  'While I was so busy hating men, I failed to notice that their lives were actually much more restricted than mine.'

© 2010. Fathers & Families. All Rights Reserved.

This message was sent from Glenn Sacks to darricksf@achildsright.net. It was sent from: Fathers & Families, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 628, Boston, MA 02116. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. Email Marketing by

 

Manage your subscription

[FAMI] House Standing Committee Meeting: Adoption Records

Standing Committee Meeting

Families and Children's Services, Rep. Mary Valentine, Chair

Date: 04/21/2010

Time: 10:30 AM

Place: 326 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Agenda:
HB 4006 (Liss) Records; adoption; issuance of certified copy of original
certificate of live birth to certain adopted individuals; allow.

HB 4015 (Liss) Children; adoption; access to certain adoption records;
allow unless a denial is on record.

HR 220 (Spade) A resolution to memorialize Congress to reauthorize the
funding for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Emergency Fund
program.

HCR 46 (Durhal) A concurrent resolution to memorialize the Congress
and President Obama to use all means necessary to immediately stop the
inhumane and illegal kidnapping of children in Haiti.

Pending introduction and referral:
A concurrent resolution to memorialize Congress to take urgent steps to
expedite the reauthorization of the funding for the Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families Emergency Contingency Fund.

To view text of legislation go to
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=Bills

Individuals who wish to bring written testimony need to supply a minimum of
thirty copies for distribution.

Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting may
contact the Chair's office.

Committee Clerk: Patricia Tremblay
Phone: 517-373-5795
e-Mail: ptrembl@house.mi.gov

Schedule changes or cancellations available at www.legislature.mi.gov or 24
hours at (517) 373-8140.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe to electronic notices at
www.house.mi.gov/Committee_Subscribe.asp

Subject: Herald Palladium: Deny visitation? You could lose your license(s)

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2010/03/28/local_news/1307403.txt
Deny visitation? You could lose your license(s)
Law allows judges to suspend driver's, occupational, even hunting and
fishing licenses for violating court-ordered visitation
By SCOTT AIKEN - H-P Staff Writer
Published: Sunday, March 28, 2010 1:09 PM EDT
ST. JOSEPH - A parent who refuses or neglects to allow an ex-spouse to spend
time with their children could lose his or her driver's or occupational
licenses.

A new state law allows judges to suspend those licenses, as well as hunting
and fishing licenses, for violations of court-ordered parenting time.

Laws that go into effect this month also allow a court to order a parent's
car immobilized by "booting" for such violations.

Tom Watson, director of Berrien County Friend of the Court office, said the
provisions are among nine new laws enacted in late 2009 pertaining to
children of divorced or separated parents.

The Friend of the Court office is responsible for making recommendations to
Berrien County Trial Court about child support, custody and parenting time
arrangements. The office also enforces court orders for those matters.

Speaking to Berrien County commissioners Thursday, Watson said Michigan is
one of a handful of states that require parents who divorce or don't live
together to allow former spouses to have designated time with their children


The times are spelled out in court orders, and for violations, judges now
have the discretion to suspend licenses and "boot" vehicles.

License reinstatement requires payment of a $45 fee and a certificate from
the FOC stating that the parent is in compliance with the court order.

Other law changes

Another change in the law reduces the maximum income withholding for child
support from 65 percent to 50 percent of a payer's net disposable income.

Legislation also eliminated an automatic assessment of surcharges for unpaid
child support. Starting Jan. 1, 2011, courts will have the authority to
assess surcharges on a case-by-case basis if there's a finding of willful
noncompliance with a court order.

Watson said a law that went into effect in 1996 assessed an 8 percent
surcharge twice a year to any unpaid support.

The idea was to give non-custodial parents an incentive to pay support,
Watson said, "but it's buried people."

The surcharge amount was reduced in 2006 to tie it to the five-year average
of interest rates on treasury notes.

Aside from the impact on individual payers, Watson said, the high interest
rate and frequent compounding created a huge statewide total of IOU money
that is unlikely to ever be paid.

At the end of 2009, the statewide total of unpaid child support was more
than $9 billion, and half of the amount is surcharges. Surcharges totaled
$250 million in 2009 alone.

Many people who pay court-ordered child support earn low wages and, for them
the surcharges are particularly burdensome.

Watson said 54 percent of child support payers in Michigan report income of
less than $10,000 annually. They account for 77 percent of the total past
due support payments.

saiken@TheH-P.com.




Copyright © 2010 - Herald Palladium

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

 

MI Court of Appeals: Affadavit of Parentage Reversal

More rulings like this will help children actually have relationships with their true biological fathers. Mothers and their coercive cohorts in the legal and medical communities are going to be more likely to be more diligent in discovering who the real father is rather then who is the most convenient.

 

From: Darrick Scott-Farnsworth [mailto:darricksf@achildsright.net]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:21 PM
Subject: MI Court of Appeals: Affadavit of Parentage Reversal

 

TAWAS CITY, Mich. (AP) -- The Michigan appeals court says a man who mistakenly believed he was the father of his girlfriend's son cannot be pursued for child support.

The ruling this week overturns a decision by Iosco County Judge John Hamilton, who had agreed with the prosecutor's office and ordered child support in 2009.

Tal Peters ended nearly all contact with the boy in 2006 when the child was 3 years old. An earlier DNA test showed he wasn't the dad. Nonetheless, the judge refused to allow him to rescind a written acknowledgment of fatherhood.

The appeals court says the boy's mother has long known that Peters wasn't the father. They no longer live together.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MI_CHILD_SUPPORT_OVERTURNED_MIOL-?SITE=MILUD&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Brancher v Peters (COA 294998)

Before: Davis, P.J., and Donofrio and Stephens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right the trial court’s denial of his motion to revoke his acknowledgment of parentage. We reverse and remand.

On April 16, 2003, plaintiff gave birth to a son, Colton Peters. At the time, plaintiff was living with defendant. Believing Colton to be his biological son, defendant and plaintiff executed an acknowledgment of parentage. In September 2004, when the relationship between plaintiff and defendant began to sour, defendant obtained a DNA test that confirmed he was not Colton’s biological father. In spite of this, defendant remained with plaintiff and Colton. Approximately one year later, defendant broke off his relationship with plaintiff, moving out of the home. There was conflicting testimony as to whether defendant made a clean break, cutting off contact in approximately July or August of 2005, or whether he attempted to remain a part of Colton’s life for a short time. In whichever case, by spring 2006 at the latest defendant had cut nearly all contact with plaintiff and Colton. Occasionally, Colton’s uncle, who worked with defendant, would bring
Colton to their place of work. Eventually, defendant asked Colton’s uncle to stop bringing the boy to work, and the uncle complied.

On January 26, 2009, plaintiff, represented by the Iosco County Prosecutor’s Office, brought an action against defendant for child support. Relying on the DNA test results, defendant moved, pursuant to MCL 722.1011, to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, concluding that revocation was not equitable under the circumstances. Noting the four-and-a-half-year delay between defendant having learned that he was not the biological father and moving for revocation, the court found that the delay prejudiced plaintiff, making it inequitable to allow revocation. The court then found that defendant was Colton’s father, granted the parties joint legal custody, gave plaintiff sole physical custody, and ordered defendant to pay child support.

In equitable matters, we review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error, but “whether equitable relief is proper under those facts is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo.” Sinicropi v Mazurek (After Remand), 279 Mich App 455, 462; 760 NW2d 520 (2008).

When an unmarried woman gives birth to a child, that woman may join with a man in completing an acknowledgment of parentage form, and if they do so, that man is considered the natural father of the child, MCL 722.1003, and becomes a “legal parent” of the child, Bay Co Prosecutor v Nugent, 276 Mich App 183, 188; 740 NW2d 678 (2007). The man who signs an acknowledgment of parentage may later file a claim to revoke the acknowledgment. MCL 722.1011(1). Such a claim may be made as a motion in an existing action for child support. Id. The claim must be accompanied by an affidavit setting out facts supporting at least one of five enumerated grounds for revocation, one of which is mistake of fact. MCL 722.1011(2)(a). If the court finds the affidavit sufficient, the claimant has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the child is not his, and (2) “that, considering the equities of the case, revocation of the acknowledgment is
proper.” MCL 722.1011(3).

There is no dispute that the acknowledgment of parentage was valid, that the motion for revocation was proper, that defendant sufficiently supported his motion by showing mistake of fact (one of the five enumerated grounds), and that he proved by clear and convincing evidence that Colton is not his biological son. The parties do dispute, however, whether the equities support revocation of the acknowledgment of parentage. The trial court based its decision chiefly on the equitable doctrine of laches, holding that defendant’s delay in attempting to revoke his acknowledgment of parentage made revocation inequitable. Laches requires more than a showing of a passage of time; “there must also have been a change of conditions which would render it inequitable to enforce the claim, or a showing that the defendant was prejudiced by the delay.” Tray v Whitney, 35 Mich App 529, 535; 192 NW2d 628 (1971).

The trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s actions have prevented plaintiff from looking for Colton’s biological father makes little sense under these facts. Just as defendant has known for four and a half years that he is not Colton’s biological father, so too has plaintiff known. She was not prevented from seeking out the biological father during that time, nor was she prevented from seeking support from defendant.

 

MI Court of Appeals: Affadavit of Parentage Reversal

TAWAS CITY, Mich. (AP) -- The Michigan appeals court says a man who mistakenly believed he was the father of his girlfriend's son cannot be pursued for child support.

The ruling this week overturns a decision by Iosco County Judge John Hamilton, who had agreed with the prosecutor's office and ordered child support in 2009.

Tal Peters ended nearly all contact with the boy in 2006 when the child was 3 years old. An earlier DNA test showed he wasn't the dad. Nonetheless, the judge refused to allow him to rescind a written acknowledgment of fatherhood.

The appeals court says the boy's mother has long known that Peters wasn't the father. They no longer live together.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MI_CHILD_SUPPORT_OVERTURNED_MIOL-?SITE=MILUD&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Brancher v Peters (COA 294998)

Before: Davis, P.J., and Donofrio and Stephens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right the trial court’s denial of his motion to revoke his acknowledgment of parentage. We reverse and remand.

On April 16, 2003, plaintiff gave birth to a son, Colton Peters. At the time, plaintiff was living with defendant. Believing Colton to be his biological son, defendant and plaintiff executed an acknowledgment of parentage. In September 2004, when the relationship between plaintiff and defendant began to sour, defendant obtained a DNA test that confirmed he was not Colton’s biological father. In spite of this, defendant remained with plaintiff and Colton. Approximately one year later, defendant broke off his relationship with plaintiff, moving out of the home. There was conflicting testimony as to whether defendant made a clean break, cutting off contact in approximately July or August of 2005, or whether he attempted to remain a part of Colton’s life for a short time. In whichever case, by spring 2006 at the latest defendant had cut nearly all contact with plaintiff and Colton. Occasionally, Colton’s uncle, who worked with defendant, would bring
Colton to their place of work. Eventually, defendant asked Colton’s uncle to stop bringing the boy to work, and the uncle complied.

On January 26, 2009, plaintiff, represented by the Iosco County Prosecutor’s Office, brought an action against defendant for child support. Relying on the DNA test results, defendant moved, pursuant to MCL 722.1011, to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, concluding that revocation was not equitable under the circumstances. Noting the four-and-a-half-year delay between defendant having learned that he was not the biological father and moving for revocation, the court found that the delay prejudiced plaintiff, making it inequitable to allow revocation. The court then found that defendant was Colton’s father, granted the parties joint legal custody, gave plaintiff sole physical custody, and ordered defendant to pay child support.

In equitable matters, we review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error, but “whether equitable relief is proper under those facts is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo.” Sinicropi v Mazurek (After Remand), 279 Mich App 455, 462; 760 NW2d 520 (2008).

When an unmarried woman gives birth to a child, that woman may join with a man in completing an acknowledgment of parentage form, and if they do so, that man is considered the natural father of the child, MCL 722.1003, and becomes a “legal parent” of the child, Bay Co Prosecutor v Nugent, 276 Mich App 183, 188; 740 NW2d 678 (2007). The man who signs an acknowledgment of parentage may later file a claim to revoke the acknowledgment. MCL 722.1011(1). Such a claim may be made as a motion in an existing action for child support. Id. The claim must be accompanied by an affidavit setting out facts supporting at least one of five enumerated grounds for revocation, one of which is mistake of fact. MCL 722.1011(2)(a). If the court finds the affidavit sufficient, the claimant has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence (1) that the child is not his, and (2) “that, considering the equities of the case, revocation of the acknowledgment is
proper.” MCL 722.1011(3).

There is no dispute that the acknowledgment of parentage was valid, that the motion for revocation was proper, that defendant sufficiently supported his motion by showing mistake of fact (one of the five enumerated grounds), and that he proved by clear and convincing evidence that Colton is not his biological son. The parties do dispute, however, whether the equities support revocation of the acknowledgment of parentage. The trial court based its decision chiefly on the equitable doctrine of laches, holding that defendant’s delay in attempting to revoke his acknowledgment of parentage made revocation inequitable. Laches requires more than a showing of a passage of time; “there must also have been a change of conditions which would render it inequitable to enforce the claim, or a showing that the defendant was prejudiced by the delay.” Tray v Whitney, 35 Mich App 529, 535; 192 NW2d 628 (1971).

The trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s actions have prevented plaintiff from looking for Colton’s biological father makes little sense under these facts. Just as defendant has known for four and a half years that he is not Colton’s biological father, so too has plaintiff known. She was not prevented from seeking out the biological father during that time, nor was she prevented from seeking support from defendant.