N.O.W. Running Scared In Michigan

Started by richar', Oct 02, 2006, 11:05 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

richar'

And The Truth Continues.....


    Read This!

             http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1159387804110900.xml&coll=1

          and Remember First They Laugh At You, Then They Fight You
                        Then You Win!!!
rightsRadio - And The Truth Continues...

stands2p

As expected, the article is not especially balanced; the "anti" voice gets more than equal time and the privilege of the last word.  But the following information comes through nicely:

Quote
The legislation would affect only those cases where custody is disputed, about 5 percent of the cases, according to Kent Weichman, of the Family Law Section of the State Bar. Since 1980 Michigan judges have been required to consider joint custody when a parent requests it.
"Under this bill, one parent would have to be found unfit by the courts in order to have any kind of custody arrangement other than 50-50," Weichman said. Ultimately, "the bill prohibits the court from considering what's best for children ... by imposing one solution on all families."
Supporters of the legislation, including Fathers-4-Justice, Moms of Michigan and the Children's Rights Council, argued in a statement that Michigan families are "being micromanaged by the family court system with disastrous consequences to our children, families and the state economy."
They say the bill would result in a presumption of joint custody for fit parents, adding that equal parenting is a civil rights issue "whose time has come."


And this line is priceless:
Quote
Women might avoid divorce  
(Reporter summarizing why the law should not be changed.)

Sometimes the most effective way to embarrass your opponent is to let them do it themselves.
The Lord works in strange ways; and with strange people.

Mr. Bad

I liked this line the best:
Quote
"This will eliminate child support -- there won't be any support orders," said Renee Beeker, president of the Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women.


The NOW's true agenda shines through.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

scarbo

Quote
Opponents disputed the notion of court bias in favor of women, noting that in 50 percent to 75 percent of custody disputes women lose.


If this were true, then why do women file for divorce 80% of the time?

Gluttons for punishment? Trying to get away from the husband AND the kids? "Just kidding, didn't really mean it?"  :roll:

VK

Quote
If this were true, then why do women file for divorce 80% of the time?


They assume the men won't contest for custody?

If true, the figure is encouraging - rather than fight the system directly, we could concentrate on encouraging men to seek custody of their children and supplying the support they need to present their case.

SIAM

Quote
If true, the figure is encouraging - rather than fight the system directly, we could concentrate on encouraging men to seek custody of their children and supplying the support they need to present their case.


Why is it encouraging if men 'win' 50-75% of custody 'battles'?

I doubt the figures anyway, but custody shouldn't be about winning and losing (unless one parent is an obvious danger to the children) - it's about children still being able to have a decent relationship with both parents.

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "scarbo"
Quote
Opponents disputed the notion of court bias in favor of women, noting that in 50 percent to 75 percent of custody disputes women lose.


If this were true, then why do women file for divorce 80% of the time?

Gluttons for punishment? Trying to get away from the husband AND the kids? "Just kidding, didn't really mean it?"  :roll:


This is spin.  What really happens is that most of the time the men don't dispute custody because they can't afford the massive amounts of cash needed to fight Cupcake and her publically-funded attorney.  Further, even if the man has enough money to contest, the lawyer has to accept the case and most (?) will tell the father to forget it unless they have a rock-solid chance of winning.  Therefore, what we have here is a non-random, biased subset of "contested" divorces where only the men with loads of cash and an airtight case actually proceed to trial.  Therefore, of course you'll have lots of winning cases for the men - the system has selected for only winning cases to make it to court.  Sheesh, under those rigged conditions I'm surprised that the rates are so low for men winning.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

K9

Quote from: "scarbo"
Quote
Opponents disputed the notion of court bias in favor of women, noting that in 50 percent to 75 percent of custody disputes women lose.


If this were true, then why do women file for divorce 80% of the time?

Gluttons for punishment? Trying to get away from the husband AND the kids? "Just kidding, didn't really mean it?"  :roll:


Notice for every other statement, the author provides a source; this one is left open ended; who said it?
Explaining misandry to a feminist is like explaining "wet" to a fish.

Beste

I should point out that  Renee Beeker, president of the Michigan Conference of the National Organization for Women.  Used to be the Michigan Director of NAFCJ (National  Alliance For Family Court Justice)

This is the same group that supplied CA NOW with dodgy information claiming that the fathers rights activists were nothing but abusers, child molesters and were engaging in criminal activity. CA NOW used this info for their 2002 family court report.

Some of you may remember that Wendy McElroy heavily criticized CANOW for the report.

For those that don't remember.... check out these links.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0702.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57209,00.html

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0806a.html

Beste

Quote from: "K9"
Quote from: "scarbo"
Quote
Opponents disputed the notion of court bias in favor of women, noting that in 50 percent to 75 percent of custody disputes women lose.


If this were true, then why do women file for divorce 80% of the time?

Gluttons for punishment? Trying to get away from the husband AND the kids? "Just kidding, didn't really mean it?"  :roll:


Notice for every other statement, the author provides a source; this one is left open ended; who said it?


Good question

>>Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70% of contested cases.  Lynn Hecht Schafran, Gender Bias in Family Courts, American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol 17, No. 1, p.26 .<<<

Teri

Everyone seems to think this is all about divorce.  It isn't.  Forty percent of all American births are to unmarried parents.  Those fathers don't have a chance in hell of getting joint physical custody unless the mother agrees.  And even then, sometimes judges are against it.  I saw it with my son's case.  The bias was astounding, especially in a state with joint physical custody for 25 years.

woof

This is the comment I sent in about this article. I think that people in general don't see the whole picture because they ownly hear the propaganda, and if they got the big picture more people would be on our side.
Quote
RE:Fathers demand joint custody
Thursday, September 28, 2006
By Sharon Emery  

Just wanted to pass along some information that you won't hear from NOW, about custody,"rights", and "children's best interest".


Some Supreme Court rulings:

The rights of parents to the car, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14.  Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247: U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs.  Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982)

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections.  Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538. D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect.  Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NF. 2d 858; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence -live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution - No state can deprive an person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws. Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).


Effects of Fatherlessness (US Data)

1) BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS/CHEMICAL ABUSERS/ SUICIDES

 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children.)
 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

2) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS

 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)


 Juveniles have become the driving force behind the nation's alarming increases in violent crime, with juvenile arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault growing sharply in the past decade as pistols and drugs became more available, and expected to continue at the same alarming rate during the next decade. "Justice Dept. Issues Scary Report on Juvenile Crime," San Francisco Chronicle (9/8/95). "Crime Wave Forecast With Teenager Boom," San Francisco Chronicle (2/15/95).
 Criminal behavior experts and social scientists are finding intriguing evidence that the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the two-parent family. "New Evidence That Quayle Was Right: Young Offenders Tell What Went Wrong at Home," San Francisco Chronicle (12/9/94).

3) TEENAGE PREGNANCY

 "Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency." Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Atlantic Monthly (April 1993).
 Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. The Good Family Man, David Blankenhorn.
 71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

4) CHILD ABUSE

 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents' to monitor the children's health and welfare and to protect them.

5) POVERTY

 "The National Fatherhood Institute reports that 18 million children live in single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two-parent families will experience poverty." Melinda Sacks, "Fatherhood in the 90's: Kids of absent fathers more "at risk"," San Jose Mercury News (10/29/95).
 "The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle."  David Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993).

6) KIDNAPPING

 Family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family abductions of 200-300. The parental abductions were attributed to the parents' disenchantment with the legal system. David Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993), citing a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice (May 1990).

Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.

woof

Quote from: "Mr. Bad"
Quote from: "scarbo"
Quote
Opponents disputed the notion of court bias in favor of women, noting that in 50 percent to 75 percent of custody disputes women lose.


If this were true, then why do women file for divorce 80% of the time?

Gluttons for punishment? Trying to get away from the husband AND the kids? "Just kidding, didn't really mean it?"  :roll:


This is spin.  What really happens is that most of the time the men don't dispute custody because they can't afford the massive amounts of cash needed to fight Cupcake and her publically-funded attorney.  Further, even if the man has enough money to contest, the lawyer has to accept the case and most (?) will tell the father to forget it unless they have a rock-solid chance of winning.  Therefore, what we have here is a non-random, biased subset of "contested" divorces where only the men with loads of cash and an airtight case actually proceed to trial.  Therefore, of course you'll have lots of winning cases for the men - the system has selected for only winning cases to make it to court.  Sheesh, under those rigged conditions I'm surprised that the rates are so low for men winning.
It's worse than spin, it's just not true.
"Standard custody" is mom is the primary caretaker, dad gets visitation every other weekend, and one evening during the week. This is the default judgement in the majority of divorces.
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.

Sir Jessy of Anti

What is important to remember is that the structure is what allows these grievances.  What you have here is state sanctioned coercion.  Can you imagine if the structure was setup to benefit children?  LOL!  Call me a cynic but the state would sooner sell out both parents than hold itself culpable.  Can you imagine what would happen if the proxy game wasn't rewarded?

This isn't a war of fathers vs. mothers or mothers vs. the system.  It's parents against the coercive influence of the state.  Unfortunately tunnel vision is a serious problem..all of these 'editorials' are really meant to be diversions from the war the state is making on you  as an individual, every day.
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />

Teri

Quote from: "Beste"
CA NOW used this info for their 2002 family court report.


I read that report.  It was about female ATTORNEYS not the mothers in family court!  Disgusting how they twist the facts.

Go Up