Category: Blog

Fairfield, KY–Several days ago I shared this outrageous story with you–Father Jailed Because His Adult Daughter Fails to Get Her GED. In the case, father Brian Gegner was ordered to see to it that his daughter gets her GED, but she has not done so, in part because she struggles with math. The daughter’s problems in school came at a time when she lived with her mother. The daughter herself–now almost 19-years-old–says that she alone is responsible for her own problems and that her father shouldn’t be blamed. Nevertheless, the father is in jail on a six month sentence, and Butler County Judge David Niehaus said he would only release him if the daughter passed her GED.

In my Wednesday morning blog post Protest Ohio Outrage: Father Jailed Because His Daughter Didn’t Get Her GED!, Michael Robinson of the California Alliance for Families and Children and I urged all of you to call Niehaus and also the Governor of Ohio to demand Brian Gegner’s release. We have just received some excellent news–the judge in the case has backed down, and has released the father. He will remain free as long as his daughter merely attends GED classes, as opposed to having to pass the GED.

While this is still an abuse of judicial authority, it is also a big step forward for father Brian Gegner, and a reasonable face-saving measure for Niehaus. Apparently the bad press and the many phone calls demanding Gegner’s release–some of which came from you, our readers–had an effect. I thank all of you who participated in this campaign, and give special thanks to Robinson for his fine work on the case.

From the story Judge Says He Will Release Father If Daughter Attends GED Class (Kentucky Post, 5/16/08):

“The Fairfield father who was put in jail after his daughter failed to obtain her General Equivalency Diploma (GED) will be released from jail on Friday.

“After a heated hearing, Butler County Judge David Niehaus told Brian Gegner he will let him out of jail if his daughter attends a class to prepare for the GED test.

“Gegner’s daughter must also schedule the test before the next court date.”

Syndicated columnist Amy Alkon discussed our campaign today in Fail Math? Daddy Goes To Jail.

To learn more about the case, including some interesting details Robinson uncovered, see my blog post Protest Ohio Outrage: Father Jailed Because His Daughter Didn’t Get Her GED!

Los Angeles, CA–“You’ve never heard complaints about paying child support until it’s a woman who has to pay it.”–Seattle Family Law Attorney Lisa Scott

“Courts almost never allow men to get downward modifications on their child support. I represented a guy who earned $33,000 a month and paid $12,000 in child support. His company went bust and his income crashed down to zero.

“We went in and asked for a downward modification–not an elimination of child support, but a downward modification. The judge said ‘no,’ and told him ‘tough luck–you’re capable of earning $30,000 a month, so go do it. I don’t care if you live under a highway underpass in the meantime, just pay your support as ordered.'”–Los Angeles family law attorney Adam Sacks

Anne Heche (pictured) is having a hard time paying her child support and it’s a good thing she’s a woman, so she gets preferential treatment. Apparently Heche has had some career troubles and bad luck and the court is allowing her to skip an upcoming payment. The court is probably correct–I don’t know the details–but were the genders reversed, I doubt the court would be so accomodating.

The full article is Anne Heche Doesn’t Have to Pay for July (EOnline, 5/14/08).

I’ve previously discussed Anne Heche’s divorce in A Fathers’ Rights Perspective on Anne Heche’s Divorce/Custody Settlement and A Crucial Point Missed in the Anne Heche/Coleman Laffoon Custody Battle. On the subject of women paying alimony, see From WomenPayingSupport.com–‘Be a Man…Don’t Ask for Spousal Support.

[Late note: Vote for shared parenting in the Detroit News’ reader poll by clicking here. The News asks readers the question “Should kids’ time be divided equally between separated parents?”]

Michigan–Michigan shared parenting groups have been fighting to pass HB 4564, a shared parenting bill, and have gained considerable support in the process. The bill was heard in the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on May 7 in a testimony-only hearing, and Jim Semerad of Dads and Moms of Michigan, an affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, told me this morning that he would like your assistance in getting the Committee to bring the bill to a vote. He asks that my readers, including readers who do not reside in Michigan, do the following:

1) Call Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Paul Condino (517) 373-1788 and Michigan Rep. Glenn Steil Jr. (517) 373-0147 and tell them you support HB 4564.

2) Write Condino and Steil a 250-400 word letter explaining why not having shared parenting has negatively impacted your children. To email Condino and Steil, click here.

Please be polite, leave rhetoric and name-calling out of it, and stick to the negative impact that the win/lose custody system has had upon your children. Semerad says that letters from children of divorce explaining how shared parenting would have helped them during their childhoods are particularly important, as are letters from noncustodial mothers, stepmothers, and grandmothers.

Again, to email Condino and Steil, click here. Feel free to post the letters you send as comments in this blog post.

Michigan shared parenting activists got a nice media write-up today with a front page article in the Detroit News about shared parenting and HB 4564. The article discusses the pros and cons of HB 4564 and also discusses Michigan shared parenting activist Robert Petersen’s annual shared parenting bike trip from Michigan to Washington DC. The article is Kim Kozlowski’s Michigan father fights for joint custody law: Parents’ equal access to children called a civil rights issue; critics say policy may hurt kids (Detroit News, 5/18/08). Kozlowski writes:

“…child custody is perhaps the most heated issue between parents when they split up and try to restructure their lives with their children.

“Michigan hasn’t kept reports on custody arrangements for several years, but the latest information, in 2003, shows that the Friend of the Court recommended physical custody of the children for mothers in 68 percent of the 14,470 cases that year, while fathers were recommended 12 percent of the time. Joint custody was recommended in 2,717 cases — about 18 percent…

“Since the 1990s, Michigan fathers have been trying to get the laws changed to force the courts to immediately presume equal joint custody.

“A hearing was recently held on the fourth bill introduced in the Michigan Legislature, but it was not voted out of the House Judiciary Committee. It includes an exception for unfit parents…

“Michigan dads say their effort is growing — four new state organizations support the issue, and their ranks have grown from 5,000 to 20,000 people, said Lake Orion resident Jim Semerad, one of the leaders in Michigan’s movement.

“The growth appears to be eclipsing grass-roots groups headed by custodial mothers.”

The full article can be seen here. To learn more about the shared parenting bill, also see my recent co-authored column, Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan”s Kids, Overburdened Court System (Oakland Press, 5/5/08)

Again, Michigan shared parenting activists ask that you call and write Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Paul Condino (517) 373-1788 and Michigan Rep. Glenn Steil Jr. (517) 373-0147 and tell them you support the shared parenting bill. Condino’s and Steil’s phone #s, fax #s, and email addresses are below. To email Condino and Steil, click here.

Rep. Paul Condino
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Phone: (517) 373-1788
Fax: (517) 373-5880
Toll-Free
(866) 864-PAUL
(866) 864-7285
Email: paulcondino@house.mi.gov

Rep. Glenn Steil Jr.
District 72
Phone: 517-373-0147
GlennSteil@house.mi.gov

Sacramento, CA–Some of you are grumbling about the recent decision of the California Supreme Court (Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco) that legalizes gay marriage in California. You are grousing, “I don”t have anything against gays, but I don”t see why a loving, uncontroversial father can”t get jack in the way of rights, while the elites are falling all over each other giving rights to a controversial segment of society.’

Glenn and I see it differently. We see this decision, and the similar one four years ago in Massachusetts, as proof positive that the family court reform movement can and will win its goals. “If they can do it, we can do it.’

The victories by gays and lesbians prove that a small minority who are determined and committed will win their civil rights. How did they win?  The answer is simple — they organized, they sacrificed, and they fought for what they wanted.

What do we have going for us in our struggle that gays and lesbians don”t have?

1) Gays are maybe 2% or 3% of the overall population. Fathers are around 40% of the overall population.

2) Gays probably have around half the population on their side. We have 86% of the voting public on our side, as judged by the voting results in Massachusetts in 2004.

3) Gays have faced centuries of  prejudice, some of which continues today. Fathers, by contrast, historically have been a central part of both their families and society.

4) Yes, fathers seeking equality in family court face well-funded, organized opposition in the form of feminist groups and bar associations. At the same time, gays face well-funded, organized opposition from religious and social conservative groups.

Whereas many in the family court reform movement are under the delusion that our movement can succeed without money and without donors, gays have effectively and consistently raised money to promote their issues and their agenda. Whereas most fathers” rights rallies draw a few dozen people, gays have mobilized hundreds of thousands of demonstrators when needed.Whereas gays have understood the importance of having well-funded advocacy organizations and paid, professional staff, some in the fathers” movement expect its organizations to survive on air and to thrive without their personal involvement.

There are many, many civil rights and social movements that have succeeded over the past century despite facing far more problems than our movement does. The African-American civil rights movement is one example. The trade union movement — which was largely built during the Great Depression, when massive unemployment made cheap labor plentiful and undercut efforts to organize unions — is another example.

To those we can now add the gay marriage movement. The family court reform movement will achieve the same types of successes.

Addendum:

Fathers & Families has no official position on gay marriage. While most of our members have a “live and let live’ attitude on the matter, it is nevertheless divisive in this movement just as in society at large. We DO have an opinion on parenting after parental separation or divorce: that when children have come to feel that certain people are their parents, those adults should be allowed to continue as their parents, regardless of sexual preference. (If you think you disagree with this point of view, consider the following scenario: a man married to a woman has a divorce and wins joint physical custody of his children. Later he comes out of the closet and becomes the committed partner of another man. Would you deprive him of the custody of his children? If so, what effect do you think this would have on the children?

Fathers & Families supported the parenting rights of a lesbian mother who was not the biological mother of a child in an amicus brief I authored for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It can be viewed here.

By the way, this brief has plenty of information and arguments in it that are useful to heterosexuals seeking joint custody of their children.

Michigan–“Michigan family law courts are facing a crisis. As Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan explains, two-thirds of all the cases filed in circuit courts are family law cases. At least three million of the state”s 10 million people are currently involved in cases with open family court files. Corrigan warns that this has greatly expanded Michigan”s role in its citizens” private lives. Moreover, the huge caseload prevents courts from handling these weighty and complex duties in anything but an assembly-line manner.

“There are two main reasons for Michigan”s problem–the state”s high rate of family breakdown, and the way family courts adjudicate child custody.”

My new co-authored column, Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan”s Kids, Overburdened Court System (Oakland Press, 5/5/08), supports a bill to institute a shared parenting presumption. The bill will be heard by the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on May 7.

HB 4564 could help solve the family court crisis Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan has detailed. The Michigan National Organization for Women and the Michigan State Bar”s Family Law Section have come out in opposition to the bill.

The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, is below. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Oakland Press, one of Michigan’s largest newspapers, click on vop@oakpress.com.

New Column: Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan”s Kids, Overburdened Court System
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Michigan family law courts are facing a crisis. As Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan explains, two-thirds of all the cases filed in Michigan circuit courts are family law cases. At least three million of the state”s 10 million people are currently involved in cases with open family court files. Corrigan warns that this has greatly expanded Michigan”s role in its citizens” private lives. Moreover, the huge caseload prevents courts from handling these weighty and complex duties in anything but an assembly-line manner.

There are two main reasons for Michigan”s problem–the state”s high rate of family breakdown, and the way family courts adjudicate child custody. HB 4564, a bill which will be heard by the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on May 7, addresses the latter issue.

Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan”s Best Interest of the Child Test. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children”s relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents, usually (but not always) their fathers. Moreover, the custody decisions based on the 12 factors are often subjective and arbitrary.

By declaring the losing party a “noncustodial parent’ with little role in his or her children”s lives, Michigan family courts are generating contentious litigation. HB 4564 will help clear overcrowded court calendars by instituting a presumption of shared parenting in divorce or separation.

Los Angeles, CA–Background: J. Michael Bone (pictured) is an eminent authority on Parental Alienation, and I’ve often quoted his work in my newspaper columns on the issue.

Starting in late April Michael is going to be doing a four-part Teleseminar on how targeted parents can overcome Parental Alienation. The 4 week telewebcast series begins Tuesday April 29 from 8:30 – 9:30 p.m. EDT, and runs each Tuesday through 5/20. To register, click here or go to www.overcomingparentalalienation.com.

Below is Part II of my Q & A with Dr. Bone. Part I can be seen at ‘Mental health professionals who don’t understand Parental Alienation will find small imperfections in the targeted parent as an explanation for the child”s alienation…’

Glenn Sacks: What are the key things that a parent who is the target of Parental Alienation needs to do in order to get their judge to understand what is really happening in their case?

Dr. Bone: I believe that the most important issue to keep in mind pertains to the history of the relationship between the child and the alienated parent. In these cases, this relationship will be dramatically different before and after the separation, or soon thereafter. The audience (the Judge) must be repeatedly reminded that the relationship between the child and the parent deteriorated during the time when the child had little or no contact with that parent. This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if the child had become resistant to seeing a parent who had, let’s say abused them. Therefore the historical picture, one that clearly and vividly conveys the relationship between the child and the targeted parent, and how quickly it fell apart, for reasons that do not justify the child’s reaction, is the issue that the judge must be made to wrestle with.

Glenn Sacks: Dr. Bone, you warn parents who are targets of Parental Alienation not to agree to “Counter-Productive Recommendations.” What are some examples of this?

Dr. Bone: Recommendations that do not work are those that do not cause the damaged and alienated relationship to be healed and returned to normal. In many PAS cases, these recommendations are outpatient counseling.

It is not uncommon for Family Law Judges to believe, and reasonably so, that counseling could and should be helpful. However, when parental alienation is present in the PAS form, such outpatient counseling often turns into a format for the child to act out their alienation to the therapist. Under these circumstances, the child”s job becomes the convincing of the therapist as to why they should not see that parent.

If the therapist does not understand the PA dynamic, they will most likely be pulled into the alienated view of the child. If the therapist does understand the PA phenomenon, then the child will begin to protest the therapy and will begin to say things such as it “…is not helping.’

Kentucky–Background: According to TIME magazine, “For nearly two years, James Rhoades…has been fighting to establish in law what science and fact already have shown beyond any doubt: He is the biological father of the boy dubbed J.A.R…the boy’s mother, J.N.R., whom Rhoades met while taking an online graduate course…was — and still is — married to another man, who was stationed at a Pensacola Air Force base during their affair in 2005. And that’s the problem.

“[A] divided Kentucky Supreme Court told Rhoades that he could not press his paternity claim, no matter what evidence of fatherhood he might have, because J.N.R. was, and remains, a married woman…The decision has left Rhoades devastated. ‘What I wanted was not just to see my son but to participate in his life. He is my son and I love him.'”

In my recent blog post If there were ever a guy in a no-win situation, it’s James Rhoades, I explained that I “have mixed emotions about Rhoades and his case.” Ned Holstein tackles the difficult case in his recent blog post Sanctity of Marriage, or Discrimination Against Dads? Rhoades is pictured with his son above.

In a recent post, fathers’ rights activist David R. Usher called Rhoades “a predatory marital gigolo.” I quoted from Usher’s article and linked to it so my readers can see Usher’s perspective and judge for themselves. However, Usher took his article down and asked me to remove the quotes. My quotes were fair use but, as a favor, I have removed them.

Rhoades’ reply and the readers’ comments are below. As I noted earlier, I remain ambivalent about Rhoades and his case.

James Rhoades’ Rebuttal to Dave Usher

David R. Usher in his post “The James Rhoades Case: Mercenary Gigolo Does Not Make Three” has leveled many stinging accusations against me as a man and as a father. He has called me a mercenary gigolo, marital gigolo, disgusting individual, creep, redundant father, marital invader, mercenary gigolo du-jour, and marital offender. Of course I’ve never met Mr. Usher nor have I ever spoken to him, never-the-less he insists on insulting and belittling me for trying to participate in my son’s life.

Usher asserts with his diatribe that I be considered not as a father but rather as someone who should be on a “marital offenders” registry. He claims that the 2nd husband of my son’s mother is the father of my son and that I should have no rights or should not be identified to my son as his father. He also says I should be held responsible for the financial expenses and mental torture I’ve inflicted on Mr. Ricketts. He concludes his post by saying, “…save fathers’ rights for good men who did nothing wrong.”

I believe Usher has characterized me and my intentions unfairly. I have admitted that engaging in an affair was wrong and take full responsibility, however, that should not bar me nor my son from continuing the father-son relationship we had for the 1st three months of my son’s life. Why should I be stripped of a relationship with my son because he was conceived during an affair? How does that make me a non-father? The facts are undeniable, which prove I’m my son’s father. To say that I should go to jail for having an affair is very different from saying I should be stripped of my fatherhood.

According to Usher’s views there should be no blended families nor should we recognize unmarried fathers who have children. Usher has in one sweeping blow declared I don’t deserve any rights because a married woman had my son. Furthermore, he has concluded I’m a bad man and I should wear a scarlet “A” around my neck. In his diatribe he neglects to consider the implications upon my son or the value and importance of the truth. A truth my son deserves to know and will know, for one day my son will discover the truth and will discover how much I love him.

I’m not asking to be initiated into the men’s movement that Usher promotes–rather, I seek a place in my son’s life.