Author: Super User

Frankfort, KY–James Rhoades had an affair with a married woman, from which a child resulted. For three months, the married mother allowed Rhoades to visit the child secretly, and he wanted to help raise the child. Then she cut him off, and he went to court. Near the end of April, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided that he had no parental rights, despite DNA proof of his fatherhood.  Thus, he will have no custody rights, or visitation, or even knowledge about the child, nor will he have to pay child support. To read the full news article, click here.

The Court struggled with this case, deciding it by a mere 4 to 3 vote in which 5 of the 7 justices wrote separate opinions. That”s not surprising, as the case will fracture the opinions of readers here as well.

This case is like a hologram, which looks entirely different depending on the angle from which you view it.

One way to look at gender-related law is to ask yourself, “How would this decision look if the sexes were reversed?’ From that angle, imagine that a married man had an affair with a single woman, who bore a child as a result. Can you possibly imagine that the Court would order the child to be taken from the hospital, given to the married father, and that the single mother would be given no parental rights to the child? Somehow, I just don”t think so.

But before we get hot with indignation, here are some other viewpoints that may or may not have merit.

Justice Bill Cunningham wrote that married couples have a right to “be left alone’ from the intrusions of “interloper adulterers.’ He further wrote, “The severely wounded institution of marriage surely protects the parties from unwanted interlopers claiming parenthood of a child conceived and born’ in the marriage.

But Justice Lizabeth Hughes Abramson wrote, “Our world is full of inconvenient truths. We accomplish nothing for families, the broader community, and our justice system when we deny those truths.’ She believes the Court had made a serious mistake in holding that the father of the child is “the man married to the mother’ rather than the man who “provided half the child”s genetic makeup.’ While Judge Cunningham felt that a ruling in favor of Rhoades would weaken marriage, Judge Abramson felt it would strengthen marriage. She wrote that if men had parental rights in such cases, it would discourage women from straying outside of marriage.

(In fact, 33 states allow a man in Rhoades” situation to pursue parental rights, although such a man might not always win, even when DNA evidence shows he is the father.)

Rhoades” lawyer wrote, “The law is supposed to be a search for the truth, and here, the Supreme Court put its head in the sand.’

Diana Skaggs, a Louisville lawyer who is President of the Kentucky chapter of the American Academy of Trial Attorneys, said that Judge Cunningham calls the man an “interloper’, but “declines to judge the wife”s infidelity.’

Glenn Sacks wrote, “…the case is one reason why I sympathize with family law judges and the position they”re put in–people make an absolute mess of their lives and then come to court and expect the courts to solve them.’ To read this blog, click here.

There is much to be said for the point of view that marriage is sacrosanct and should be supported by law, that the baby is better off raised by the married couple, and that “interlopers’ like Rhoades should be prevented from intruding into the married family. But any such view needs to deal with the sex-switching scenario I described at the beginning.

Tell us what you think about these thorny issues below.

Los Angeles, CA–“Well, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There’s no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.”

Country singer Craig Morgan (pictured) has a powerful song about a post-divorce move-away called Every Friday Afternoon. It captures the way the move-away is often a devastating blow to the post-divorce father-child relationship.

The mom in the song gives the standard rap–she supposedly has a great new job in a different city, it’s OK that dad won’t be around any more because her parents live there, everything will be better wherever she’s going, and dad can still talk to his kids on the phone, etc., etc.

To watch the music video, click here. The lyrics are below.

The move-away issue is one I’ve often written about–to learn more, see my co-authored columns Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and No Virtue in Virtual Visitation (Boston Globe, 7/12/02). To learn more about our two campaigns over move-away legislation in California, click here.

We’ll put Every Friday Afternoon in our divorced dad song collection, along with Trace Adkins’ I’m Tryin’, Doug Supernaw’s I Don’t Call Him Daddy, Toby Keith’s Who’s That Man?, Tim McGraw’s Do You Want Fries With That?, and Sting’s I’m So Happy I Can’t Stop Crying, which was also later recorded by Toby Keith.

Craig Morgan’s Every Friday Afternoon

She called me up this mornin’,
Said: “There’s somethin’ you should know.
“There’s a job back home in Boston,
“And I think I’m gonna go.
“My parents are in Cambridge,
“An’ I’ve got some old friends there.
“An’ I know you think this isn’t fair.”

And the tears started fallin’,
There was nothin’ I could say.
Even if I fight it, someone loses either way.
Whoa, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There’s no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

I have him every weekend,
He’s got his own room here.
He’s all that’s kept me goin’,
These last three years.
There’s little league in Boston,
Oh, but who will coach his team.
How’s he gonna grow up without me.

And the tears started fallin’,
There was nothin’ I could say.
Even if I fight it, someone loses either way.
Whoa, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There’s no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

What about Christmas?
If I can’t get off of work?
What about his birthday?
If I’m not there, he’ll be hurt.
And I know the day is comin’,
When she’ll find someone new,
But he’ll never love him like I do.

Well, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There’s no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

The campaign against Fox”s proposed new reality television show “Bad Dads’ continues to gather momentum.

If you have not already protested the planned show, please do so now by clicking here.

If you need to know more first, click here.

By now, Fox has received over 5,000 calls, faxes and emails protesting the planned show.

In addition, we have learned that the mainstream child support collection world opposes the tactics used by the private collection companies. The mainstreamers will likely oppose any show that would glorify these companies. Read more.

Our campaign has been covered in US News and World Report. This on-line story deserves your comment. One suggested complaint: ditch the demeaning phrase “deadbeat dad.’ After all, noncustodial moms have a worse record; and “deadbeats’ are people who have the ability to pay but deliberately choose to walk away from their obligations, whereas all the studies of fathers who do not pay show that most are due to inability to pay.

Now, Kathleen Parker has written a great column mentioning Fathers & Families and supporting this campaign. Kathleen”s column will be coming out in over 300 newspapers over the course of this week, including the Washington Post and USA Today. Read more here.

Give us your comments below. And again, if you have not already done so, register your protest here.

Fox Television may have stepped into a very big hornet’s nest when it purchased a pilot episode of “Bad Dads.’ The concept of this show is a cross between “Dog the Bounty Hunter’ and “America”s Most Wanted,’ in which a private child support collector tracks down and confronts non-custodial dads who allegedly owe back child support.

Not only is this proposed show hated by non-custodial parents (see below), but Fox”s choice of a hero — a private child support collection agency — is hated by many of the very people it allegedly serves.

This industry is in such disrepute that the state of Florida has just sued one of the leading companies in the field.

It is hard to see how Fox can continue with its plan in the face of our massive protest campaign plus the longstanding hostility of the mainstream child support community to these companies.

Vicki Turetsky is Director of Family Policy for the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a Washington organization that lobbies for low-income families and supports more effective policies for collecting child support. But she has no admiration for private child support collection companies, which have a history of harassing custodial and non-custodial parents alike while diverting a whopping 30% to 40% of child support collections to their own bank accounts.

In September, 2004, she wrote “Private child support collection companies often fail to deliver any genuine services. Instead, they strip income from low and moderate-income families that could have been spent on housing, childcare, clothing and school expenses, or saved for their children”s education, and trap them in perpetual contracts. These companies exploit the child support indebtedness of low and moderate-income non-custodial parents through the use of predatory and abusive tactics that increase their debt levels and often destroy their credit histories.’

She also wrote, “CLASP has reviewed about 400 state consumer complaints and lawsuits filed by mothers, fathers, grandparents, employers, and courts around the county against some of the largest private child support collection companies. The complaints routinely allege that companies make money in four illegitimate ways: (1) promising help with back support, but instead pocketing a fee from ongoing monthly support; (2) taking a cut of support collected by state child support agencies; (3) demanding payments from grandparents; and (4) coercing payments from non-custodial parents that are not owed or authorized by state law.’

“The complaints reflect an offensive and disturbing picture of deceptive advertising, misleading contracts, fee gouging, harassment and abuse, posing as the government, dunning grandparents, inflating and fabricating debts, undermining creditworthiness, and abusing legal process.’

Fox should have known this, since Fox 7 in Miami reported on just these abuses on February 28, 2003. 

The abuses of this industry are so bad that Virginia sued one of the leading companies three months ago, charging that:

• “Supportkids, Inc. sends wage-withholding notices to employers of noncustodial parents. In these documents, the company refers to itself as “Child Support Enforcement,’ a name easily confused with Virginia”s “Division of Child Support Enforcement.’

• “Supportkids, Inc. also directs, unlawfully, the employer to send payments directly to the company”s office in Texas, rather than to Virginia”s DCSE.’

• “It then charges the custodial parent a 34% fee before forwarding the remainder of the payment to the custodial parent, regardless of whether it has undertaken any work on behalf of the parent to collect such payments.’

Several years ago, this industry tried to take advantage of the Bush administration”s admiration for privatizing government and introduced legislation in Congress that would have vastly increased their powers of collection. The legislation was adamantly opposed by:

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
National Women”s Law Center
Children”s Defense Fund
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support
National Organization for Women (NOW)
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers Union
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
National Consumer Law Center
American Public Human Services Association
National Council of Child Support Directors (the heads of state child support collection agencies)
Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association
American Payroll Association

Flash-forward to the present: the protest campaign against Fox”s “Bad Dads,’ coordinated by Fathers & Families, Glenn Sacks, and ACFC, has already netted over 4,000 fax and email protests, and we”re not done yet. The outpouring of opposition reflects the passion of non-custodial parents who are tired of being demonized in the media.

Now, organizations such as those above are also likely to oppose the show. They do not want impressionable viewers to sign up for the services of such companies, who will be portrayed on the show as heroes.

Fox has stepped into a hornet’s nest. Stay tuned to this story.

As a final note, if you are a noncustodial parent, beware the tricks of these companies. Many of them have assumed names and designed stationery to make them sound and look like government agencies. If you are contacted by an agency claiming that you owe child support, verify that they are indeed a government agency, not a private company.

And beware of some of their techniques, as described by Turetsky:

“The company pursues decades-old debts barred by the state”s statute of limitations, and inflates those debts by charging tens of thousands of additional dollars as ‘interest,’ even when state law does not authorize the interest charges. The company continues to harass the parent even when non-custodial parents say they do not owe the money, and provide documentation (such as a zero-balance account statement from the state child support agency, adoption papers, or cancelled checks). Even though the company knows they do not owe the money, it continues to pursue them, and will not respond to calls or letters. The company makes no effort to verify debt, but instead tries to extort a settlement. They also may try to shake down your parents, embarrass you with your neighbors, or seize your assets.’

Fathers & Families, Sacks, and ACFC Launch Campaign – Your Protest Needed

Based on past campaigns, we expect thousands of protests to pour into Fox in the next 48 hours, so join in!

If you have read enough, and you know you want to take action now, just click HERE.

If you want to know more before taking action, just keep reading.

If you want to comment on our blog, scroll to the bottom.

Let”s look at each of the show”s offenses more carefully:

First:  Harming Some of Society’s Most Vulnerable Citizens–Children of Divorce & Broken Families

‘Bad Dads’ publicly humiliates children of divorce and family breakdown by depicting their fathers as not loving or caring for them. How is a child to feel when he or she sees their dad being vilified on TV because he allegedly doesn’t love or provide for them? How is the child to feel when he or she is reminded of this by friends or teased about it on the schoolyard?

Most of these children love their fathers, even the ones who deserve criticism. Many of the children fantasize about their dad, imagining him as caring, loving and protective, and often their fantasies are true, even among those dads who do not pay. These children will be exposed to ridicule and shame, and their dreams of a “good dad’ will be trashed, rightly or wrongly.

Yes, reality shows do sometimes intrude on people’s privacy, but most reality show participants are volunteers. These children did not volunteer to be humiliated on national television.

To send a protest letter to the leading executives at Fox, click here.

Second:   The Truth About ‘Deadbeat Dads’

“Bad Dads’ will insult and offend the large number of families in which fathers are working two and three jobs to pay their child support. Fox will be surprised at the volume of criticism it will receive not only from fathers, but from mothers and grandparents too. These families know that the vast majority of dads ordered to pay child support are paying as much as they can.

They also know that when fathers do fall into arrears, it is usually for reasons beyond their control, and they are sick and tired of being treated like criminals despite doing their best. For instance, the California Department of Child Support Services itself recently reported that the overwhelming majority of “deadbeat dads” are the product of problems and abuses within the child support system.

David Engle, director of the Washington County Department of Social Services in Maryland, recently acknowledged this reality. He said

“The No. 1 reason why people can’t pay their support is they’re not able to find a job, or a job doesn’t give them sufficient funds to pay the support.”

National studies have shown identical results.

To send a protest letter to the leading executives at Fox, click here.

Third:  Studies Show Child Support Enforcement’s Claims of Fathers’ Arrearages Are Often Erroneous

The records of the child support agencies are wrong so often that they cannot be relied upon. As many studies have shown, the child support arrearages which are claimed against alleged “deadbeat dads” are often–if not usually–erroneous. Child support enforcement agencies are notorious for their incompetence, waste, and the incessant computer errors which lead to the persecution of innocent citizens.

“It”s extremely sloppy. It”s just a total inattention to making sure these numbers are right.”–Missouri Child Support Auditor Susan Montee

According to the Kansas City Star (10/19/07):”Missouri”s child-support record-keeping is so bad that in an estimated 51,000 cases where back payments were owed, parents owed far more or less than records show.

When the State Auditor of Massachusetts examined child support records in that state, it found that the official arrearages were incorrect in 92% of the cases it examined. (Report No. 99-0142-3). The Auditor concluded, “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Enforcement and Tracking System (COMETS) Does Not Maintain Accurate Arrears Balances.’

Bruce Walker, the former head of the Oklahoma child support enforcement program, wrote in the Christian Science Monitor, “The bookkeeping in child support offices is atrocious.”

To send a protest letter to the leading executives at Fox, click here.

Fourth: Anti-Father Media Bias

The proposed show is discriminatory. It perpetuates a climate of dad-bashing on television by focusing on the sins of dads  — and only dads.

Imagine a show called “African-American Crime Scene,’ or “Murderous Moms.’ Such shows would not be tolerated because their very existence implies that a certain group of people should be singled out for blame. There is absolutely no reason to name the show ‘Bad Dads’ when the average noncustodial father is more likely to pay his child support than the average noncustodial mother.

For instance, noncustodial mothers–so-called “deadbeat moms” fare worse in the child support system than noncustodial fathers do. According to US Census data, noncustodial mothers are 20% more likely to default on their child support obligations than noncustodial fathers.

This is despite the fact that noncustodial mothers are less likely to be required to pay child support, and those with support obligations are asked to pay a lower percentage of their income in child support than noncustodial fathers. These facts were reported by Fox itself in the Fox News article “Moms Can Be Deadbeats, Too.”

Anti-father media bias is a big problem, and it is drawing increasing scrutiny and mainstream media attention. As syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon recently wrote about Fox’s ‘Bad Dads,’ “I’m tired of the demonization of men.”  

To send a protest letter to the leading executives at Fox, click here.

Fifth: Fox’s ‘Bad Dads’ Glorifies the Role of Private Child Support Collection Agencies, Even Though These Agencies Often Exploit & Deceive Custodial Mothers

The show glorifies profiteers. These people are getting rich by diverting child support payments from children to themselves.

The tactics of private child support collection agencies are so abusive that many leading feminists and women’s advocates–including the National Organization for Women–have condemned the agencies and urged limiting or eliminating their role in child support collection.

Geraldine Jensen, founder of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, whose members are custodial parents seeking child support, says: “We have all sorts of people who have gone to private agencies and feel ripped off and lied to…[the firms] are preying on people.”

To send a protest letter to the leading executives at Fox, click here.

What We Want

Fathers & Families, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and Los Angeles journalist/radio commentator Glenn Sacks are partnering in a campaign to ask Fox to cancel ‘Bad Dads.’ In general, the Fox network has usually been fair to fathers. This show is an unfortunate exception, and we hope Fox will soon understand this.

But this time, we have given Fox the opportunity to resolve this matter quietly, and they have turned their backs on us. A representative of the True Equality Network says that when they recently contacted a leading Fox executive to express their concerns about ‘Bad Dads’, the executive was “very rude” and “hung up on them.” Dr. Ned Holstein”s three calls to a key Fox executive have not been returned.

To learn still more about this campaign, click here.

To take action right now, click here.

Discuss this campaign on our blog below.

Los Angeles, CA–Jeana, a reader, recently wrote me about the new movie Nim’s Island. She says:

“I wanted to tell you to take your daughter to see Nim’s Island. It’s about a widower scientist who lives on a deserted island with his 10 or 11 year old daughter and who becomes separated from her and tries (and succeeds) in finding his way back to her.

“It shows a great father image, a wonderful relationship between a father and daughter, and a strong, resourceful girl (who is that way because of the unconventional life her dad and her live).

“It’s a great movie, and I think it would get 2 thumbs up from Father’s Rights Activists.”

Have any readers seen it?

To learn more about the movie, see the trailer here, the Wikipedia write-up here, or the theatrical trailer here or below.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6KzKraJBWw&feature=related]

Detroit, MI–“A son’s thirst and a father’s oversight at the ballpark turned an otherwise fun outing into an ordeal for one family.

“Christopher Ratte of Ann Arbor recently took his 7-year-old son, Leo, to a Detroit Tigers game and stopped at a Comerica Park concession stand to buy him some lemonade. But it wasn’t until the top of the ninth inning, when a security guard asked the University of Michigan classical archaeology professor about the bottle in his son’s hand, that Ratte learned what puts the hard in Mike’s Hard Lemonade.

“‘I’d never drunk it, never purchased it, never heard of it,’ Christopher Ratte told Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson for a story published Monday.

“Ratte said he told the guard he had no idea that the $7 lemonade contained alcohol. But when he tried to look at the bottle, the security guard snatched it — and his son was taken to a ballpark’s medical clinic. The mistake three weeks ago began a two-day stay for Leo in state custody and nearly a week before his father would be able to move back into his home.

“Leo was taken by ambulance to Detroit’s Children Hospital because clinic officials said he reported feeling a little nauseated after drinking about 12 ounces of the drink with a 5 percent alcohol content. But a blood sample taken at the hospital detected no trace of it.

“Ratte said the workers from the state’s Child Protective Services unit told him that day the intervention was unnecessary but they were just following orders.

“Child protection officials cannot by law discuss a specific investigation. But Mike Patterson, Child and Family Services director for the Wayne County district that includes Comerica Park, said his agency’s discretion is limited once police obtain a court order to remove a child from the home.

“An assistant state attorney general said the state had no interest in aggressively pursuing the case, so a juvenile referee on April 7 agreed to release Leo to his mother as long as his father relocated to a hotel. Three days later, the complaint was dismissed and Christopher Ratte was allowed to go home…”

This dad could/should have been smarter, but I hardly see why this calls for a big Child Protective Services action, complete with seizing the kid for two days and booting the father out of the home for a week. Were he a divorced dad, God knows how long it would be before he’d be able to see his son again…

The full story is Ann Arbor man gives 7-year-old son alcoholic beverage during Tigers game–thanks to Lloyd, a reader, for sending it.

Los Angeles, CA–One of the unfortunate types of letters I often receive this time of year is the move-away letter. That’s when the custodial parent has decided to move the child away from the noncustodial parent–often ending that parent’s meaningful role in their children’s lives. The noncustodial parent writes, seeking a way to keep his or her children from being moved away.

Since parents usually like to move during the summer so they don’t interfere with schooling, the move-away requests are often made and fought out in the late winter and early spring. In many, many cases, noncustodial parents (usually fathers) who were spending 10 or 12 days a month with their children are reduced to short, once a month visits–if they’re lucky.

Move-aways are an issue we’ve devoted a lot of attention to. We worked with the California Alliance for Families and Children in running two successful campaigns to preserve the California Supreme Court’s 2004 LaMusga move-away decision. That decision affirmed that courts have the power to restrain moves which run counter to children’s best interests, and several thousand of you participated in those campaigns. To learn more, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and click here.

Steven Carlson is the author of How to Win Child Custody, and has devoted a lot of time to the move-away issue. He has an interesting article which recaps the various move-away cases and provides an updated overview of the situation with move-aways.

The “Move-Away” Case
By Steven Carlson

Parents who share custody of their children face a difficult dilemma when one parent wants to relocate or move away to a relatively distant location thereby effecting a Move-Away Case. Recent California cases indicate that in custody situations, if one parent is functionally the primary parent and the children have been living primarily with that parent, that parent is likely to be permitted by the courts to move away and take the children along, even if he or she agreed earlier not to move away or relocate.

California Family Code section 7501 provides, “A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child.”

Although this statute appears to be straightforward, the interpretation of it has not been.

Los Angeles, CA–Obviously, being the father of a little girl, I can relate to the dad in this ad for being a pushover at times. Daughters can be very convincing, and my wife often makes fun of me for this.

On a larger note, it’s nice to see an ad which portrays fathers not only as doting but also as caring, responsible parents.

What more accurately portrays your relationship with your daughter–“man-as-idiot” commercials or this?

To watch the ad, click here or see below.

[youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=vhJ8aVpu2t0]