Typical media antimale bigotry
Read Wife guilty of harboring deadbeat dad by Peter Farrell at The Oregonian. Farrell is biased and paints a very one-sided picture in favor of the prosecution's case.
Charlie Hill (the "deadbeat dad") claims that 20 years ago his ex-wife left him, saying that he wasn't the father of their children, and that she was going off to marry the real father, which she did. Hill's understanding was that her new husband was going to adopt the children which they claimed were his. Then 20 years later, after never having heard from his ex-wife, he finds himself supposedly owing nearly $350,000 in child support and interest.
Also, when Mr. Hill left for Mexico, he wasn't under indictment for any crime, so the reporter's use of the term "fled" is yet more evidence of his bias. The best way to get a handle on all the facts of the case is to read the transcript of the hearing held previous to Patricia Hill's conviction.
ACFC President's Report
There is good news and bad news for families as this is written. The good news is that the importance of fathers in their children's lives is increasingly acceptable to discuss publicly, after so many years of suppression. The harmful effects on children of father absence that we have been talking about for years, are becoming
increasingly a matter of public common knowledge.
The bad news is that most of government and the family court system is still lost in the dark ages of family policy. Although now forced to pay lip service to the importance of fathers, most of the solutions to the crisis of families proposed by politicians, bureaucrats, and their legions of fellow-traveler consultants and "experts", amount to thinly veiled attempts to simply continue or intensify the same empire building bureaucratic mentality that has already destroyed half of the families in America.
It is truly astounding to sit in hearings in Congress and watch the parade of witnesses pandering to the status quo with rosy colored reports of "progress" in this, and "progress" in that, while Rome continues to burn around us. Most witnesses are professional-looking young women fresh from women's studies college programs spouting the same fantasy land rhetoric about women and children as eternally helpless victims, and the need to "force fathers to be more responsible." It is amazing that advocates who appear so concerned with their "self-esteem", talk about themselves as if they were wallflower victims in a Gothic novel, waiting for Prince Charming (read Big Brother government), to come rescue them from their helplessness. No self-respecting real woman would ever talk this way, and it is even more amazing that this kind of victimology rhetoric is taken so seriously in the halls of Congress.
If thirty years of such policies have only made the situation of millions of families unbelievably bad, it is hard to see how even more draconian child support collection, and "streamlined" procedures for throwing fathers out of their homes and their children's lives without due process of law on often frivolous restraining order charges, will help fathers remain part of their children's lives, but this is a mystery that I leave to the reader to ponder.
Older professional-looking women on the Committees appear to sagely consider this testimony, while plotting to squeeze more money out of the Federal Treasury for their political constituency. Most of the men on these Committees look like scared rabbits, who when they dare to speak, usually utter no more than mealy-mouthed obeisance to the blatantly obvious "power structure." The few legitimate representatives of the fatherhood movement who are allowed to speak at all, are almost totally ignored. How these people expect to solve the crisis of fatherhood without listening to fatherhood representatives, is a mystery that I also leave to the reader to ponder.
Based on his experience with the spectacle of ancient Athens, Aristotle believed that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny. All too aware of this tendency of democracy, the Founding Fathers instituted a Constitution to try to prevent this in America. The current power structure has almost completely forgotten the Constitution, and until supporters of the fatherhood movement get organized, the feeding frenzy of pigs at the trough of Federal dollars will undoubtedly continue, despite its obvious devastating effects on American families. Fathers will not achieve equality in the home that women have achieved in the workplace, until this power structure learns to exercise power responsibly, and they are a very long way from that. Instead of all this talk about the need to make fathers more responsible, many of these people should look in a mirror, and pull the plank out of their own eye.
What ACFC is doing
ACFC believes that the best way to deal with the fantasy land of Federal and state family policy, is to continue its mission of public education through the media that are willing to deal with reality, and to continue our grassroots organizing. Until public attitudes shift decisively, and until the fatherhood movement is represented by organizations with larger membership, little progress should be expected. Once these goals are achieved, we believe that the politicians will follow like the herd of sheep that they are. This is simply the reality of politics.
ACFC has been consistently in the media representing our members with the word that children need both parents. This doesn't happen by accident but only by hard work, dedication and persistence. ACFC puts out frequent press releases to get our message out to the media, and then works with media who call with requests for information in an effort to educate the public on our issues and to help create positive change for our children and families.
These efforts have resulted in the following media stories. The June 21st, 1999 issue of Time magazine mentioned ACFC in a story about "Deadbolted-Dads" and their access and visitation problems. "Deadbolted Dads" was also the topic of the Montel Williams show where we appeared talking about fathers who are locked out of their children's lives with no way to get back in. ACFC was quoted on the front page of the New Orleans Times Picayune newspaper objecting to a new law that passed 36-0 in the Senate, and 99-0 in the House, that allows fathers behind in child support to be publicly shamed by putting their names, addresses, and birth dates on a web-site and on television. As a result of the newspaper article featuring our quote, ACFC Executive Director, Dianna Thompson, appeared on a large Louisiana radio station debating the state of Louisiana's Child Support Enforcement Director. The following day she appeared on a large radio network debating the sponsor of the new law.
Earlier she had appeared on national television on FOX News Now to discuss the National Child Support Registry that recently went into effect nationwide. CNN listed ACFC as a reference for the story they did on the Massachusetts gender bias lawsuit. More recently, the October issue of Redbook lists ACFC as a fatherhood resource. Our legal spokesperson, Attorney Jeffery Leving appeared on the Leeza Gibbons show objecting to custodial parent move-always. Stuart Miller represented ACFC on MSNBC, a national cable television network talking about fatherhood issues. A Fathers Day article written by Dianna Thompson and Stuart Miller ran in a Virginia newspaper and was picked up on the Knight Ridder news wire.
ACFC has written numerous letters to legislators and policy makers on behalf of our affiliate organizations who are out there working hard on supporting or opposing legislation that will affect our members. ACFC was a speaker in Los Angeles before 31 judges and commissioners for LA County discussing Access and Visitation Denial.
As a result of these media efforts, ACFC is now recognized as the place the media turn to for the fatherhood perspective on national issues. These efforts have had significant impact on the changing climate of public opinion about our issues. And ACFC has grown rapidly in the past two years, now with 92 chapters and affiliate groups across the country. There is much more work to be done, but as a result of this coordinated plan, fatherhood issues finally have a voice on the national stage.
ACFC needs your support
The establishment of a National Family Law Center is the biggest thing that is currently lacking in this movement, and we need to get one up and running. We have several top-notch attorneys itching to dig their teeth into the massive abuses of fathers, children and second families, but first we need to establish reliable funding. For this, and other worthy projects, we need your support.
We recently completed a new contribution section for the ACFC website. Check out the Memorials section and participate. Each year, we will send the Memorials to each Member of Congress as a reminder of the damage being done to families by a draconian and misguided family court system. Get your Memorial on that page, we need tens of thousands of them. Take a look at the Fathers Walk of Fame, and put a brick there, as a permanent commemoration to your favorite Dad. The Doctors for Dads program is where dedicated professionals can show their support for needed social change. If your business would like to become a corporate supporter, the corporate key program is for you. As individuals, we invite everyone to become a Hero of the organization. ACFC will permanently recognize YOU on our web site. We know the horrors of the divorce and custody wars that you have been through, but we need to get your story out to the public, and this is how you can do it.
Any contribution you can make helps ACFC promote the cause of fathers and shared parenting around the country. An easy way you can help is to specify ACFC as the organization that you want your United Way donation to go to. If you value the work of ACFC, support the effort with an additional direct donation.
All contributions are tax deductible and your support will make a positive difference. If you would rather send your contribution by check, simply indicate the program you want to support and mail your contribution to ACFC at 22365 El Toro Road, Suite 335, Lake Forest, CA 92630. If you would like participate by credit card you may do so either directly through the web site or over the phone by calling (800) 978-3237. Our Development Office has experts who can assist you to maximize tax savings through gifts of stock or property, or by remembering ACFC in a will.
ACFC needs all the help we can get. We are always looking for volunteers to help in many tasks, particularly in the California Membership office. If you are in California and have talents that you can contribute to ACFC, contact us by phone or email. But there also a lot of things that can be done from anywhere in the country, both for ACFC and for our many local affiliates, so if you have talents to contribute, contact us wherever you are.
We also need contributions such as computers, programs, copiers, phone systems, office supplies, etc. Right now we have a particular need for a recent computer able to go to the web and pull up articles, so that one of our volunteers doesn't have to go to the library every time she needs to get to the web. All contributions are tax deductible, and will be put to work for the movement somewhere, so if you have any spare equipment or supplies, consider donating them to ACFC.
ACFC runs exclusively on donations and member support. The major foundations are dominated by the same mentality as the government and most of the major media, and have shown little interest in supporting the real reform that is needed to reverse the social catastrophe that misguided government policies have caused. It is astounding that half of the families in America have been destroyed by family policies worse than any natural disaster, war, or plague in human history, but you hear almost nothing in the major media about it, and the major foundations seem to have their heads buried in the sand as deeply as most of the rest of society. The plain fact is that if this situation is to be changed, it will be as the result of millions of individual efforts and small contributions, one person at a time, and that means YOU.
One of the most important things you can do, if you have not done so already, is to simply become a MEMBER of ACFC. It does cost us money to provide services from our office, keep up the ACFC web site, the ACFC list serve, and support other worthy activities by state and national organizations. About half of the people on the ACFC list serve are NOT members. We well understand that many fathers have been reduced to a desperate struggle for survival, and simply cannot afford to contribute anything. The ACFC list serve will continue to be a free service, but if you can possibly afford to, you owe it to your children and grandchildren to become a member of ACFC.
The search for peace in the gender wars is a frustrating and often lonely task, but we are gratified by encouraging messages we get from many members. Even if you are unable to contribute financially, materially, or with volunteer effort, as so many fathers who are in situations of personal desperation simply cannot, a kind word often means more to us than anything, and keeps us going when nothing else could do the same. On behalf of all of us at ACFC, I thank everyone for whatever support you can give. Together we can make a difference, and protect and preserve America as an inheritance for our children and grandchildren.
Massachusetts Discrimination Suit
The hearings are over, and as expected, it was one-sided (with the exception of Fagan, who asked for more comprehensive incidence reporting which would include incidence statistics from men and children.)
The Republicans were "nervous nellies" in the room full of mostly white college age women's studies types. The Democrats praised the virtues of VAWA and reasserted the federal government's need to be in the individuals homes of every citizen in America.
Afterward, the media only interviewed the battered women's advocates and refused to accept any studies or comment that did not support the "need" for more VAWA money. One advocate testified that the funding needed to be increased a minimum of 10X. One reporter rolled her eyes at the thought that any men have been deprived of their children because of false allegations...and sneered at the men who suggested such "an absurd proposition."
High-ranking aides confirmed that there will be no more hearings, now that the need for VAWA and VAWA funding has been so clearly established.
However, one ranking member did indicate that he wanted one of people to testify before the full Judiciary Committee. But, when this opportunity will present itself is another question.
You can now access the following witnesses' testimonies:
- Violence Against Women Act Oversight Hearing:
List of Witnesses
- H.R. 1869, the Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999 Oversight Hearing
ACFC Analysis - Massachusetts Discrimination Suit
ACFC supports the recent lawsuit by six Massachusetts fathers against the booming restraining order industry, but we believe that it is better understood as a civil rights issue, than a gender issue, as many people might think. Typical of this misunderstanding is the fact that in a story CNN ran on this case on September 7, 1999. CNN listed two sources for comment, ACFC and NOW, as if the alternative sides of the story were fathers versus mothers.
There are many reasons why understanding this case as a "gender issue" is a poor way to understand it. Probably the most important reason is that it leaves the interests of children almost entirely forgotten. It is noteworthy that the comments of the NOW spokesperson do not even mention children. In the story below, children are only mentioned in the context of one of the claims of the lawsuit itself, that fathers are "often prohibited from contacting their children." On the surface it appears that the fathers have more concern for the civil rights of children of access to both parents, than NOW does. The deeper you look at it, the more true this becomes.
We also note that although NOW always claims to be "speaking for women", half of the membership of ACFC are women why fully understand the importance of fathers maintaining contact with their children. NOW is certainly not speaking for the women members of ACFC, nor are they speaking for the majority of women who believe that NOW had gone too far on many issues, including this one.
NOW does not even claim to be "speaking for children", except perhaps when they falsely pretend that only fathers abuse children, even though every responsible study shows that most child abuse is committed by mothers and/or the boyfriends that so often arrive on the scene once the father has been displaced. Reality is that throughout all of human history, fathers have been the best protectors of their families and their children, and natural fathers are by far the least likely to abuse their children. Reality is that removing fathers from their families without normal due process, as all too happens under the current system, poses grave risks to children, whose best interests NOW appears to be overlooking.
Insofar as many of the proponents of the booming restraining order abuse industry are members of NOW, and much of the legislation such as VAWA that this industry was based on, was drafted at NOW headquarters, this case is far better understood as a "VAWA versus fathers and children" issue, as a "man versus women issue." VAWA is the "Violence Against Women Act", which is discriminatory on the face of it, and one of the most misguided laws ever to come out of Congress, based as it is on the paranoid fantasy mythology of radical feminism, that all men are violent brutes and all women are helpless victims because of their gentle nature.
Another reason that this should be understood as a civil rights issue, instead of a gender issue is that technically most of VAWA is written in "gender neutral" terms, and could just as easily be used to drive a mother out of her home and her children's lives based on trumped up charges with no due process protection. With most of American still in the grip of man-hating propaganda of NOW, this rarely happens, but some of the strongest supporters of ACFC are mothers to whom this has happened, and who have come to understand how unfair this system is to fathers and children.
ACFC opposes domestic violence in all its forms, but the truth is that most men are no more violent that most women. Domestic violence is a problem of a small minority of both men and women in controlling their violent impulses, often associated with drug or alcohol abuse, and should be dealt with as such, instead of as the blatant and overwhelming discrimination against men by the restraining order abuse industry, that is precisely the subject of this Massachusetts lawsuit.
In the CNN article, VAWA advocates are quoted as saying that "the lawsuit is a disturbing attempt by angry men to reassert control they lost after the state's anti-abuse laws grew tougher in the late 1980s." By making this bizarre comment, these advocates have exposed the real issue -- shall men have an equal right to be in the family, or will we continue to allow half of the fathers of America to be driven out of their families without due process, based the free-floating fear of men that characterizes so much of the propaganda of VAWA?
Have men lost control of their lives? You bet they have under the mentality of VAWA. With billions of Federal dollars now flowing into VAWA "women's shelters" and related programs, any man can be driven out of his home and his children's lives based on nothing more than "fear" engendered by VAWA propaganda. From where we sit, any man who imagines that this "can't happen to him" is just an accident waiting to happen. Our files are full of letters from men whose story is "you won't believe what just happened to me!" Reality for all too many fathers in America today is that Constitutional protection of their right to be in the family has simply been abolished under the VAWA mentality. At fathers group meetings all over the country any day of the week, you can hear the same story over and over and over again.
Do many men react badly to loss of control and being thrown out of their homes and their children's lives? You bet they do, various studies show between 76% to 96% of serious domestic violence takes place in broken families, usually after a break-up has begun. But even here reality is that a minority of women are just as likely to react violently as a minority of men. Reality is that loss of the relationships of family is can be just as emotionally threatening to women as to men, even when women initiate the break-up.
In this regard, a serious question arises as to exactly what is the cause of domestic violence - clearly it is not simply men, because a minority of women are equally prone to violence. There is a strong case to be made that by instigating family break-up, by throwing a father out of his home on the flimsiest of pretexts in a situation that might have been amenable to counseling, the misguided "bull in a china shop" mentality of VAWA can actually be a cause of much of the violence that it is meant to prevent.
Husbands are usually not the problem -- the institutionalization of family break-up under the misguided VAWA program is often a far greater problem. ACFC believes that NOW would far better serve the true interests of women and children by de-escalating the gender wars instead of continuing to intensify them. Despite their insinuation that this lawsuit is motivated by "angry men" the fact is that it is an entirely proper legal remedy to the blatant discrimination of the VAWA program. The mature fathers movement that is now emerging in America has learned the hard way that they need to "get even", not "get angry."
The answer to domestic conflict has little to do with barring husbands from their families and denying children the right to parental love and guidance. It has nothing to do with inflaming the situation by enacting Federal legislation telling fathers that they can't be fathers from the day that a VAWA advocate lodges an allegation of abuse, unless there is clear evidence of an immediate threat of serious bodily harm. Nobody should be subject to domestic violence. We should act appropriately to protect men, women and children equally when such evidence exists, but otherwise the rule should be, "first, let us do no harm." Under the current system, all too often what we do is shatter the family unit first, and ask questions later, if we ever bother at all to ask the extremely serious questions that need to be asked about current family policy under the VAWA program.
We anticipate this lawsuit will be the first of many such actions nationwide. The experiences of fathers in Massachusetts are no different than fathers elsewhere. This group of fathers have launched an historic quest for equal civil rights for fathers to be in the family, that is comparable to the quest that women have rightly sought for equality in politics and the workplace. It is our hope that this lawsuit will lead to a new birth of freedom from domestic violence for fathers, mothers and children everywhere once the blatant discrimination and anti-father bias of the current misguided system is overturned.
Children Need BOTH Parents!
|