Supreme Court Rules Rights Violated in Jailing Over Child Support - NYTimes.com http://ping.fm/LPJWz

Candidates Pawlenty, Huntsman Tell F & F Activists 2 Parent Involvement After Divorce Is Crucial

Candidates Pawlenty, Huntsman Tell F & F Activists 2 Parent Involvement After Divorce Is Crucial

F & F member Jeff Oligny (right, near cameras) asks popular presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty (left) about family court reform at June 12 campaign event.

 

F & F member Lorraine Corbeil (left), a grandmother, tells Pawlenty (right) 'all parents should have shared parenting.'

A contingent of Fathers and Families' Election 2012 Campaign activists attended New Hampshire GOP events over the weekend and asked presidential candidates Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman about shared parenting.

F & F member Jeff Oligny asked Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a popular presidential candidate, about family court reform. Oligny, a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, told Pawlenty:

In today's family law system, most non-custodial parents only get to spend a few days a month with their children. This is devastating for a lot of children who love both of their parents and want to spend time with them. How do you plan on fixing it?

F & F activist/NH House member Jeff Oligny (left) with Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman (right) at June 10 event.

Pawlenty replied:

[O]ne of the most significant determining factors of how children are going to do in school and more broadly in life is the degree of involvement and engagement of their parents in their lives. We want to encourage that to the fullest extent possible. And so the laws…as they relate to the relative balance between custodial and non-custodial [should reflect] that we want both parents engaged and productive…in their children's lives.

Pawlenty, who finished tied for 2nd in a recent New Hampshire GOP Straw Poll, was also questioned on the subject by F & F member Lorraine Corbeil, a grandmother. Corbeil told Pawlenty, "We feel that all parents should have shared parenting. Mothers and fathers," to which Pawlenty replied "Right," and noted "a lot of states have made some progress about that." He also explained:

I know you [have to] make sure you have the best interest of the child, first. In some cases one of the parents has some other life issues that you have to put into the equation, too.

We Want YOU for Fathers and Families' Election Campaign 2012—Click Here to Volunteer

Pawlenty's response is reasonable–certainly we acknowledge that there are situations in which shared parenting is not appropriate, particularly if there's solid evidence that one of the parents is abusive or is unfit due to substance abuse problems, mental illness, etc.

F & F activists also took family court reform to another Republican presidential hopeful, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (pictured). At a June 10, event Oligny asked Governor Huntsman:

I think we would all agree that children value their parents probably more than anything in the world. And unfortunately, non-custodial parents in this country only get a chance to see their children a few days a month. And this is devastating for a lot of children who love and want to spend time with their family…what do you think you might be able to do about it?

Huntsman replied:

I totally agree with your assessment on the need for children to be able to bond and interact with their parents. When they're there, they do better. And when they are estranged, they do worse. There is something about a parent figure that is so critically important and indispensable in the lives of families.

I'm somewhat familiar with some cases that have played out in Utah where fathers in particular were estranged from their children. Unfortunately, caught up in the legal system, caught up in bureaucracy, we did what we could do. But I understand where you are coming from and if you have any specific solutions on how we ought to be looking at this issue, I'd love to hear them.

Pawlenty and Huntsman certainly stopped short of specifically calling for family court reform, in contrast to what Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Gary Johnson told F & F activists over the past couple weeks. However, we commend both of them for publicly recognizing the importance of two parent involvement in children lives after divorce or separation, and expressing interest in how to reform the system to promote it.

To learn more, please visit Fathers and Families' Election 2012 Campaign.

To watch videos of the various candidates' remarks, visit http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=78374271&msgid=1012426&act=YLE9&c=386094&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Ffathersandfamilies.

MI: Comment on Opinion Page on Fathers

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/06/viewpoint_2.html

Viewpoint: Legal system forces divorced dads out of kids' lives
www.mlive.com

By Keith Ledbetter It's often been said that nothing is more American than
motherhood, apple pie and Chevrolet. This commonly used phrase reflects the
reality that even in an era of inclusion, acceptance and equality in
American culture, fatherhood can't compete with the sanctity of motherhood.
As w...

Let's get HB 4778 a hearing in the Michigan Judiciary Committee.

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth
FB: A Child's Right Equal Parental Rights
Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287
Fight the Collective: Individual Life, Liberty and Property Rights

IL: Equally Shared Parenting Bill in Trouble

Father's groups argue court system biased against dads
The State Journal-Register Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:29 PM PDT
Keith Sergent of Springfield has been fighting for eight months for the right to be a father to his 16-month-old daughter, Avery. He says he's dealing with what many father’s rights advocacy groups argue is a court system that is biased in favor of mothers.

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth
FB: A Child's Right Equal Parental Rights
Fight the Collective: Individual Life, Liberty and Property Rights

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

Fathers, children benefit from shared custody - Washington Times

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/17/fathers-children-benefit-from-shared-custody/#.TfvaCNBB5QA;email

 

Given that most Americans believe children should have a relationship with both their mother and their father, one has to wonder why state legislators and family court judges think children need only a mother and a check following divorce ("Dad, mom in home is essential, Americans say," Nation, Friday).

The answer, basically, is that legislators and family court judges follow feminist jurisprudence, mothers' wishes, the money from divorce lawyers and the domestic violence industry rather than the best interests of the child. Research indicates that having parents divorce is stressful for children but that having the government intervene to divorce children from their fathers makes developmental outcomes even worse.

Specifically, social-science research clearly shows that the children of divorce fare best when the structure of the post-divorce family resembles most closely the structure of the intact, married family, which is divorce law based on the presumption of equal, shared parenting, and fare worst when the father-child relationship is severed or marginalized by family court awards of physical custody to the mother with visitation to the father. This scenario represents 85 percent to 90 percent of divorces. Most critically, the children of divorce want equal shared parenting following divorce.

Taxpayers have a vested interest in shared, equal custody following divorce. Research demonstrates that fathers have a far greater impact on attenuating negative adolescent and young adult developmental outcomes and high-risk sexual, drug, alcohol and criminal behaviors than do mothers. Attenuating negative outcomes not only saves taxpayer dollars but also saves children emotional pain.

I urge all Americans to take a moment to think about the children of divorce, think about contacting their elected officials and consider asking them to serve children, not special interests.

GORDON E. FINLEY

Emeritus professor of psychology

Florida International University

Miami

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

 

 

 

Bad Science by Oxford Group on Equal Parenting

This ARTICLE uses old information and traditional biases to come to the
conclusion that equally shared parenting legislation is not needed because
fathers don't really want to be equal parents and those that do are abusive
and the fight in court causes to many issues with the children.

Shared parenting legislation 'not in the interests of children'
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-parenting-legislation-children.html

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth's comment:
Bad science on child custody.

Group v Individual Rights

Another individual liberty that the collective claims to have power over is our individual right to parent our child. People, please start looking at what your politicians are saying about protecting your children from you and think about how they are willing to do this without clear and convincing evidence. After pondering this I’d like you to question yourself on why it is that you keep voting for these people who make laws that violate the right of others to their property and then violate our right to parent our children. Does it not follow, these people think that the collective has the right to “excess profits” why not the right for them to determine “the best interest of the child”?

*Op Ed: Group rights are a dangerous illusion *

"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more
justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be
justified in silencing mankind."- John Stuart Mill

*By R. Lee Wrights*

BURNET, Texas (June 12) - It is popular and expedient in politics to
champion taxpayer rights, state's rights, patient rights, gay rights,
people-with-disabilities rights, even animal rights. Name any group, or make
one up, and undoubtedly someone will advocate for that group's "rights." The
problem is - there is no such thing as "group rights." Group rights are an
illusion conjured up by politicians and special interests to increase their
influence and power.

The simple, basic truth is that all rights belong to the individual. You are
born with your rights and no power on earth can take them away from you. You
cannot give your rights away. They end only when you die, and not a
split-second sooner. Individual rights cannot be divided or multiplied; and,
individual rights are superior to any other claimed rights.

Individual rights mean you can adopt whatever culture you want and live any
lifestyle you choose to live. We have the individual right to worship or not
worship whatever god we want without interference from anyone else, so long
as we do not interfere with the rights of other individuals to do the same.
It is the fundamental and universal concept recognized by our nation's
Founders. As a result of this recognition, the superiority of individual
rights became the foundation of the United States government.

The view that our rights are granted to us by the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights is equally incorrect and dangerous. As important and eloquently
written as these two documents are, they grant us nothing. America's
founding documents merely recognized, and seek to guarantee the recognition,
of the individual human rights shared by all of mankind. The Bill of Rights
does not declare human rights are valid from a set date forward. The Bill of
Rights is a proclamation to the world of something that has always been… the
sanctity, superiority and supremacy of individual human rights. The
Constitution is to serve as a warrantee of those rights, not a grant of
privilege that allows us to embrace and enjoy them.

Individual rights are the "self-evident truths" Thomas Jefferson wrote about
when he penned the words in the Declaration of Independence that "all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness." He was not expressing any new ideas or concepts. He was telling
people something that had always been. Individuals have rights by birth that
cannot be given or taken away.

Two people, 200 people, 2 million people, even the world's populations
combined do not have more rights than one person. There are no such things
as "state's rights," there are only human rights possessed by people
individually from birth. A "state" may have more influence, more power, and
theoretically, a greater ability to protect individual rights. There is
certainly strength in numbers, as they say. Labor unions have proven that
numbers mean power in politics. But no group of individuals has more rights
than any one individual, nor do groups acquire special rights by being
organized.

Power and rights are simply not the same thing. The individual right to
freedom of association allows people to band together to protect their
individual rights. Such associations can become agencies designed to
control, limit, restrict or even abolish the individual rights of people who
don't belong to that group. However, even if they are successful, any law
that suppresses the rights of individuals can be nullified by the people.

As Jefferson wrote, "...law is often but the tyrant's will and always so
when it violates the rights of the individual." It makes no difference if
that tyrant is a single person or a group of people united under common
cause. The rights of the many are never greater, can never be greater, than
the rights of the few, or even the one. If we accept the illusion of group
rights, we also accept the legitimacy of tyranny. That is why when it comes
to human rights, no number is greater than one.

*R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking
the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in
2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end
he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be
spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all
50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the **Libertarian
Party< http://lp.org/ >
** and co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine **Liberty
For All <http://libertyforall.net/>**. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now
lives and works in Texas.*

*Lee Wrights for President* <http://www.wrights2012.com/>
Contact: Brian Irving, press secretary
*press@wrights2012.com*

If you’ve read down to here then you are really interested in restoring liberty for the individual.

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

FB: A Child's Right Equal Parental Rights

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

Fight the Collective: Individual Life, Liberty and Property Rights

 

[NATIONWIDE FATHERLESS DAY RALLIES] NATIONWIDE FATHERLESS DAY RALLIES:

Donald Tenn

2:58pm Jun 14

NATIONWIDE FATHERLESS DAY RALLIES:

Don't know what to do? Check out the website for the flyer here: http://www.facebook.com/l/c6d60WNZKevF1KQvqIDRVuoxk4g/f4j.com

Or, I have attached a copy for you to review

Or, we have a Nationwide Fatherless Day page on FB here:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_208842122490125&ap=1

Or, e-mail the group here:
nationwiderallies@groups.facebook.com

Don't know where your state Capitol is? Here is an video to help you:
http://www.facebook.com/l/c6d60gHHbFHo7Z8ZjQEpj4zVwLg/www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggMNUQ4Nc5U

Or, want to join another Nationwide Fatherless Day Rally Yahoo planning group?
http://www.facebook.com/l/c6d60tRkyRQGXtE6bgN__MdSdPg/groups.yahoo.com/group/nationalfatherlessdayrally/

Donald Tenn
Fathers 4 Justice

 

Michigan Country Lines Online | Articles | Strong Dads Make Strong Families http://ping.fm/0vZeY