|
The Fatherphobia Of Family Courts
Phyllis Schlafly -- 2/2/05
It's not just
gay adoptions that threaten the right of children to be raised in
traditional two-parent, mother-father homes. A threat also comes
from father-phobic family courts that deprive children of their
fathers.
Under no-fault
divorce, equality is the rule: Either spouse can terminate a
marriage without the other spouse's consent and without any fault
committed by the cast-off spouse or even alleged by the spouse
initiating the divorce.
When it comes to
determining child custody, however, sexism is the rule. By making
allegations of fault (true or false, major or petty) against the
male, the female can usually get the family court to grant her their
children and his money.
Despite an
extended string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the
fundamental right of parents to the care, custody and control of
their children (reaffirmed in a 2000 case), and despite a very high
standard that the government must meet in order to terminate
parental legal rights, fathers are routinely denied due process when
it comes to determining child custody after divorce.
Family courts
use a highly subjective rule called the best interest of the child
as recommended by court-appointed child-custody evaluators or
psychotherapists. There is no requirement that they have first-hand
experience with raising children, and they are allowed to use their
own personal prejudices to overrule the parents.
But why aren't
parents the ones best able to decide what is in the best interest of
the child?
Family courts
routinely rubber-stamp child-custody evaluators who recommend
maternal custody with fathers getting so-called visitation only
every other weekend. This despite the mountain of social science
research presented in Warren Farrell's book, "Father
and Child Reunion" which proves that the
best interest of the child of divorced parents is usually to give
the child equally shared parent time.
Two dozen
different measures listed in Farrell's book indicate that equally
shared custody is better for children than maternal custody alone.
Farrell's book explains how most fathers provide benefits that
mothers usually don't.
Yet, family
courts typically rule as though fathers have no value except their
money, and routinely banish fathers (who have not been proven to
have committed any misdeed) from the lives of their children, except
for every other weekend. Farrell describes how this typical custody
pattern is a loser for the child, causing intense feelings of
deprivation and depressive behavior.
In his new book
"Twice
Adopted" Michael Reagan tells
how, as the child of divorced parents, he only got to see his
father, former President Ronald Reagan, on alternating Saturdays. He
wrote, "To an adult two weeks is just two weeks. But to a child,
having to wait two weeks to see your father is like waiting
forever."
American courts
are presumed to be based on an adversarial system with each side
arguing its best case, subject to standards of due process, evidence
and proof. Somehow, that doesn't function in family courts.
Some divorce
lawyers advise wives to manipulate the process by using a three-step
technique: (1) make domestic violence or child abuse allegations,
(2) demand full custody, (3) collect large amounts of child support,
alimony, and legal fees.
If the father
objects to this process, the wife can make more accusations. The
evaluators then call it a high-conflict divorce and give custody to
the wife, declaring that shared parenting won't work.
If the husband
doesn't acquiesce, he is reprimanded by the court for "not buying
into the process." In trying to defend himself against accusations,
the father is denied the basic rights of a criminal defendant such
as presumption of innocence and the necessity that the accuser
provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Family courts
force fathers to submit to interrogations and evaluations by
court-chosen child-custody evaluators. Fathers are forced to pay the
high fees of these private practitioners whom they have not hired,
whose services they do not want, and whose credentials and bias are
suspect.
The children are
also subjected to these evaluators who attempt to turn the children
against their parents in unrecorded interviews.
One of the most
un-American aspects of family court procedure is the sentencing of
fathers to attend re-education classes and psychotherapy sessions to
induce them to admit fault and to indoctrinate them in
government-approved parenting behavior. The court-approved
psychotherapists report back to the court on the father's supposed
progress, and his attendance at these Soviet-style re-education
sessions must continue until he conforms.
A cozy
relationship exists among local lawyers and court-approved
psychotherapists who recommend each other for this highly paid work
of making evaluations, counseling, and conducting re-education
classes. The psychotherapists decline to challenge each other's
recommendations or question their competence, and lawyers decline to
cross-examine them, because they all want to continue the profitable
practice of referring business to each other and collecting fees
from fathers who are desperate to see their own children.
Click
for more info on Phyllis Schlafly's website
Children Made Fatherless By Family Courts
by Phyllis Schlafly, January 12,
2005
One impressive
vote last November second has been overlooked by the media. By 85 to
15 percent, a ballot initiative in Massachusetts approved equal
legal and physical custody of children whose parents are divorced.
That ballot
initiative is nonbinding, but it certainly is indicative of the will
of the people and the growing recognition that children are best off
under the care of both parents. The initiative came out of the
grassroots with a massive signature-gathering effort during the
summer.
The proposition
appeared on the ballot as follows: "Shall the State Representative
from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation
requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving
minor children, the courts shall uphold the fundamental rights of
both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their
children and the children's right to maximize their time with each
parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or
the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing
child support and abuse prevention laws?"
This initiative
was sponsored by a fathers' rights group whose members believe that
fathers are systematically discriminated against by family courts
which nearly always award physical custody to the mother even when
the father has committed no fault. Family courts typically deny
faultless fathers their equal parental rights even when state law
appears to require equal custody.
California
Family Law, for example, states (Sec. 3010(a)): "The mother . . .
and the father . . . are equally entitled to the custody of the
child." The only specific examples the statute gives for denying
custody to a parent are child abuse, false accusations of child
abuse, abuse of someone else with whom the person has a domestic
relationship, substance abuse, and conviction of certain felonies.
State laws about
custody rights vary, and only about a dozen states specify a legal
presumption in favor of equal custody. Iowa's new law says that if a
court denies a request for joint physical custody, the judge must
explain why it's not in the best interest of the child.
Whether or not a
state law mandates equal rights to both parents, family courts
appear instead to rely on a concept called "the best interest of the
child." Since that notion is wholly subjective, an undefinable rule
with no standards or accountability, in practice it rests on the
personal whim or bias of the family court.
Family court
judges find unwelcome the task of rendering a judicial decision
detached from the law and from any due-process finding of fault, so
they call on a court-appointed psychologist to provide his opinion
of who should have custody. But the issue before the court is not
psychological (except in rare cases of mental illness), and the
psychologist's credentials no more qualify him to determine what is
"the best interest of the child" than the judge -- or the father or
mother.
The social ills
that are caused by the lack of a father role-model and
discipline-dispenser in the home have been voluminously reported.
We've been led to believe that the plight of fatherless children is
caused by husbands walking out on their wives, fathers abandoning
their children, and deadbeat dads.
That may be a
primary cause in the matriarchal welfare system, but no evidence
supports a claim that large numbers of non-welfare fathers are
voluntarily abandoning their children. Thousands, perhaps millions,
of middle-class children are growing up fatherless because the
family courts have deprived them of their fathers.
One of the
best-kept secrets in American society today is that two-thirds of
divorces are now sought by wives, not husbands. The feminist
movement has taught wives that they can seek "liberation" by walking
out on the marriage contract and marital duties and still reap the
benefits of marriage, i.e., their children and his money.
Some 80 percent
of divorces are involuntary, over the objections of one spouse. Very
few of these divorces involve grounds such as desertion, adultery,
or abuse.
We urgently need
a comprehensive study of how many family court decisions deprive
fathers of their parental rights, and deprive children of their
fathers, when that awesome punishment is not based on any finding of
fault. Information is difficult to gather because most of what
family courts do is not available to public scrutiny.
How many
children are separated by judicial fiat from involuntarily divorced
fathers who have done nothing wrong? How many children are separated
from their fathers because of questionable child abuse accusations
without any evidentiary hearing or due process of law?
Fathers are
starting to fight back. During 2004, federal class action suits were
filed against 46 states on behalf of an estimated 25 million
non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, claiming violation of
their right to equal custody of their children.
The gay-rights
lobby has a national strategy based on federal "equal protection" to
get their day in court to demand marriage licenses. What we really
need are laws ensuring that children of broken homes have equal
access to their fathers and mothers.
Supreme Court Wrestles With Title IX
December 8, 2004
by Phyllis Schlafly
Not content with forcing colleges and universities to eliminate
hundreds of male athletic teams, the radical feminists are now
trying to persuade the Supreme Court to create a private cause of
action so that activist judges can make personnel decisions about
who should coach the teams.
Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in
educational institutions and sets forth the remedy for violations,
does not expressly authorize individuals to bring lawsuits, and the
Court made clear in a 2001 case that private causes of action can
only be created by Congress, not by bureaucrats or judges.
Nevertheless, the feminists have gone all out to try to reinterpret
Title IX in ways never intended by the 1972 law.
The male plaintiff in this Title IX case heard by the Supreme Court
on November 30, Roderick Jackson, was never "subjected to
discrimination under any education program or activity" on the basis
of his sex. His lawsuit merely claims that he was retaliated against
by the school because he complained about the way the girls' team
was treated (even though he retains his teaching job), and he wants
the judges to make the Birmingham Board of Education reinstate him
as coach of the girls' team.
Nothing in Title IX gives an employee job protection if his boss
doesn't like his attitude or comments, and nothing in Title IX
mentions retaliation. President Bush has repeatedly said that he
"will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating
from the bench," but his lawyers are now asking the Supreme Court to
legislate a brand new right.
Jackson could have sued because of a government employee's free
speech rights, or if he had a legitimate job discrimination claim he
could have taken action under our employment laws. But, no, this
case is an appeal to activist judges to rewrite Title IX to make it
even more powerful as a tool to punish men and all things masculine.
Jackson properly lost his case in the lower federal courts. Then,
out of the blue, the Bush Administration intervened, asked the
Supreme Court to take this case, argued strenuously on Jackson's
side, and sought and received permission to address the Court in the
oral argument even though the federal government is not a party to
the case. Bush's nominee for Secretary of Education, Margaret
Spellings, should be interrogated during her confirmation hearing as
to the role she played in these most unusual actions.
The feminists in the Carter and Clinton administrations converted
Title IX into a weapon to enforce gender quotas, thereby abolishing
as many men's college athletic teams as possible. Long forgotten
were the words of Title IX's author, Rep. Edith Green, who stated
that the law is "exceedingly explicit so that the establishment of
quotas would be prohibited."
Gender quotas are created by the invention of an informal regulation
called the "proportionality test," which means that the
male-to-female ratio on competitive sports teams must equal the
male-to-female ratio of college enrollment. About 56 percent of
college students today are women, yet only a fraction seek to
compete in intercollegiate sports.
The senseless numbers game called proportionality has resulted in
the elimination of hundreds of male teams: 171 colleges dropped
wresting, 37 colleges dropped football, 27 dropped outdoor track, 25
dropped swimming, and 10 abolished ice hockey.
The abolition of wrestling teams proves that Title IX enforcement
has nothing to do with equalizing funding or scholarships, since
wrestling is one of the cheapest of all competitive sports.
Eliminating wresting does nothing for women; it simply feeds the
anti-masculine animus of the feminists.
President Bush had the chance to remedy this nonsense when he
appointed a commission to study the problem. But he put feminists on
the commission, and then chickened out, because the commission's
report was not unanimous, and allowed the proportionality rule to
remain.
The feminists assert that proportionality is only one part of a
three-prong test. But proportionality is the only prong that matters
because the college attorneys warn that the bean-counting approach
is the only safe way to protect themselves against expensive
feminist lawsuits.
It is an incontrovertible fact that men are more interested in
competitive sports than women, and it is typical for colleges to
have difficulty finding women to meet their quota targets. Despite
the claim that Title IX helps women athletes, the numbers game has
actually caused the elimination of traditional girls' teams such as
gymnastics (100 teams have been abolished) in favor of
large-squad-size sports such as rowing or horseback riding.
In ridiculing the senselessness of gender quotas, the University of
Kansas college newspaper published this ironic comment. "College
sports for women should be compulsory. Granted, many women may
insist they don't want to play sports, but after generations of
patriarchal oppression, it isn't realistic to think women really
know what they want. The goal of perfectly equal gender ratios is
more important than what anybody 'wants.'"
|
Phyllis Schlafly Bio
Phyllis Schlafly has
been a national leader of the conservative movement since
the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice
Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family
movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer
organization now called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle,
Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over
the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists,
called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and
successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, she
appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than
any other conservative. She was named one of the 100 most
important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home
Journal.
Additional
Information on Phyllis Schlafly |
|
|
