If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND: UNWELCOME REALITY
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...ex_html?page=1
AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND: UNWELCOME REALITY Divorced From Reality Stephen Baskerville Date published: 3/29/2009 --The decline of the family now affects virtually every American and seriously threatens not only social order but freedom and constitutional government. G.K. Chesterton once observed that the family checks government power. He was writing about divorce: Despite other threats to the family, divorce remains the most serious. Americans would be shocked if they knew what goes on in the name of divorce. Divorce today licenses unprecedented government intrusion, including the power to seize children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without trial. The full implications of the "no-fault" revolution have never been publicly debated. Divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways; 80 percent of divorces are unilateral. Under "no-fault," divorce becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by judicial officials who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, and social workers. Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long-term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails. The most serious consequences involve children. Invariably the first action in a divorce is to separate the children from one parent, usually the father. Even if he is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and does not agree to the divorce, the state seizes his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof--and financial burden--falls on him to demonstrate why they should be returned. A legally unimpeachable parent can thus be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. He can be arrested through additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even without evidence that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, regardless of the amount demanded. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist. There is no formal charge, no jury, no trial, and no record. To justify this, the divorce machinery has generated hysteria against parents so inflammatory that few dare question it: child abuse, wife-beating, and nonpayment of "child support"--all propagated by feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies, with federal funding. The accused parent loses his children and is abandoned by friends, family members, parishioners, and co-workers--all terrified to be associated with an accused "pedophile," "batterer," or "deadbeat dad." A HOAX Each of these figures is largely a hoax. There is no evidence of large numbers of fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. Divorce courts separate parents from their children, with false accusations as a rationalization. Child abuse and domestic violence have no precise definition. They are not adjudicated as assault, and accused parents do not enjoy the constitutional protections of criminal defendants. Allegations are "confirmed" not by juries but by judges or social workers. Domestic "violence" need not be violent or even physical. Official definitions include "extreme jealousy" and "constant criticizing." Child abuse is itself the creation of welfare bureaucracies. An intact family is the safest place for women and children, since child abuse overwhelmingly occurs in single-parent homes from which the father has been removed. Britain's Family Education Trust reports that children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a single-parent home than in an intact family. Domestic violence too is far more likely with the breakup of a marriage than among married couples. Yet trumped-up accusations are rampant in divorce courts, usually to eliminate fathers. Elaine Epstein of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association writes that "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" in custody cases, a trend documented in the Illinois Bar Journal, Yale Law Review, Rutgers Law Review, and others. The principal impediment to child abuse is thus the father. "The presence of the father placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse," concludes a study in Adolescent and Family Health. By eliminating fathers, officials pose as the solution to the problem they themselves create. Appalling as it sounds, we have created a massive army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse. 'DEADBEAT DAD'? The "deadbeat dad" is another creation of divorce machinery. He is far less likely to have voluntarily abandoned offspring he callously sired than to be an involuntarily divorced father who has been, as one attorney writes, "forced to finance the filching of his own children." Originally justified to recover welfare costs, child support has become an entitlement for all mothers, regardless of their behavior, and a subsidy on middle-class divorce. It allows the mother--simply by divorcing--to confiscate her husband's income. It is tax-free to the recipient, and nonpayment means incarceration without trial. The Journal of Socio-Economics notes that child support serves as an "economic incentive for middle-class women to seek divorce." Economist Robert Willis calculates that one-fifth to one-third of child support payments are used for children; the rest is profit for the custodial parent. State governments also generate revenue from child support, giving them a financial incentive to make it onerous and to encourage divorce. Federal taxpayers subsidize this family destruction scheme with about $3 billion annually. Officials have admitted that the arrearages are far beyond the parents' ability to pay. Government's divorce apparatus has become a machine for destroying families, seizing children, and incarcerating parents without trial. It is the most repressive government machinery ever created in the United States. --------------- Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House). This column is adapted from an article in the Jan.-Feb. issue of Touchstone magazine. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND: UNWELCOME REALITY
Excellent article!
-- Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have custody of such child. "Dusty" wrote in message ... http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...ex_html?page=1 AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND: UNWELCOME REALITY Divorced From Reality Stephen Baskerville Date published: 3/29/2009 --The decline of the family now affects virtually every American and seriously threatens not only social order but freedom and constitutional government. G.K. Chesterton once observed that the family checks government power. He was writing about divorce: Despite other threats to the family, divorce remains the most serious. Americans would be shocked if they knew what goes on in the name of divorce. Divorce today licenses unprecedented government intrusion, including the power to seize children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without trial. The full implications of the "no-fault" revolution have never been publicly debated. Divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways; 80 percent of divorces are unilateral. Under "no-fault," divorce becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by judicial officials who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, and social workers. Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long-term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails. The most serious consequences involve children. Invariably the first action in a divorce is to separate the children from one parent, usually the father. Even if he is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and does not agree to the divorce, the state seizes his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof--and financial burden--falls on him to demonstrate why they should be returned. A legally unimpeachable parent can thus be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. He can be arrested through additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even without evidence that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, regardless of the amount demanded. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist. There is no formal charge, no jury, no trial, and no record. To justify this, the divorce machinery has generated hysteria against parents so inflammatory that few dare question it: child abuse, wife-beating, and nonpayment of "child support"--all propagated by feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies, with federal funding. The accused parent loses his children and is abandoned by friends, family members, parishioners, and co-workers--all terrified to be associated with an accused "pedophile," "batterer," or "deadbeat dad." A HOAX Each of these figures is largely a hoax. There is no evidence of large numbers of fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. Divorce courts separate parents from their children, with false accusations as a rationalization. Child abuse and domestic violence have no precise definition. They are not adjudicated as assault, and accused parents do not enjoy the constitutional protections of criminal defendants. Allegations are "confirmed" not by juries but by judges or social workers. Domestic "violence" need not be violent or even physical. Official definitions include "extreme jealousy" and "constant criticizing." Child abuse is itself the creation of welfare bureaucracies. An intact family is the safest place for women and children, since child abuse overwhelmingly occurs in single-parent homes from which the father has been removed. Britain's Family Education Trust reports that children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a single-parent home than in an intact family. Domestic violence too is far more likely with the breakup of a marriage than among married couples. Yet trumped-up accusations are rampant in divorce courts, usually to eliminate fathers. Elaine Epstein of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association writes that "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" in custody cases, a trend documented in the Illinois Bar Journal, Yale Law Review, Rutgers Law Review, and others. The principal impediment to child abuse is thus the father. "The presence of the father placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse," concludes a study in Adolescent and Family Health. By eliminating fathers, officials pose as the solution to the problem they themselves create. Appalling as it sounds, we have created a massive army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse. 'DEADBEAT DAD'? The "deadbeat dad" is another creation of divorce machinery. He is far less likely to have voluntarily abandoned offspring he callously sired than to be an involuntarily divorced father who has been, as one attorney writes, "forced to finance the filching of his own children." Originally justified to recover welfare costs, child support has become an entitlement for all mothers, regardless of their behavior, and a subsidy on middle-class divorce. It allows the mother--simply by divorcing--to confiscate her husband's income. It is tax-free to the recipient, and nonpayment means incarceration without trial. The Journal of Socio-Economics notes that child support serves as an "economic incentive for middle-class women to seek divorce." Economist Robert Willis calculates that one-fifth to one-third of child support payments are used for children; the rest is profit for the custodial parent. State governments also generate revenue from child support, giving them a financial incentive to make it onerous and to encourage divorce. Federal taxpayers subsidize this family destruction scheme with about $3 billion annually. Officials have admitted that the arrearages are far beyond the parents' ability to pay. Government's divorce apparatus has become a machine for destroying families, seizing children, and incarcerating parents without trial. It is the most repressive government machinery ever created in the United States. --------------- Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House). This column is adapted from an article in the Jan.-Feb. issue of Touchstone magazine. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND: UNWELCOME REALITY
Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?
No thanks, I don't need the liability or the government's right to take my freedom! "Dusty" wrote in message ... http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...ex_html?page=1 AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND: UNWELCOME REALITY Divorced From Reality Stephen Baskerville Date published: 3/29/2009 --The decline of the family now affects virtually every American and seriously threatens not only social order but freedom and constitutional government. G.K. Chesterton once observed that the family checks government power. He was writing about divorce: Despite other threats to the family, divorce remains the most serious. Americans would be shocked if they knew what goes on in the name of divorce. Divorce today licenses unprecedented government intrusion, including the power to seize children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without trial. The full implications of the "no-fault" revolution have never been publicly debated. Divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways; 80 percent of divorces are unilateral. Under "no-fault," divorce becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by judicial officials who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, and social workers. Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long-term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails. The most serious consequences involve children. Invariably the first action in a divorce is to separate the children from one parent, usually the father. Even if he is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and does not agree to the divorce, the state seizes his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof--and financial burden--falls on him to demonstrate why they should be returned. A legally unimpeachable parent can thus be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. He can be arrested through additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even without evidence that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, regardless of the amount demanded. He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or psychotherapist. There is no formal charge, no jury, no trial, and no record. To justify this, the divorce machinery has generated hysteria against parents so inflammatory that few dare question it: child abuse, wife-beating, and nonpayment of "child support"--all propagated by feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies, with federal funding. The accused parent loses his children and is abandoned by friends, family members, parishioners, and co-workers--all terrified to be associated with an accused "pedophile," "batterer," or "deadbeat dad." A HOAX Each of these figures is largely a hoax. There is no evidence of large numbers of fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. Divorce courts separate parents from their children, with false accusations as a rationalization. Child abuse and domestic violence have no precise definition. They are not adjudicated as assault, and accused parents do not enjoy the constitutional protections of criminal defendants. Allegations are "confirmed" not by juries but by judges or social workers. Domestic "violence" need not be violent or even physical. Official definitions include "extreme jealousy" and "constant criticizing." Child abuse is itself the creation of welfare bureaucracies. An intact family is the safest place for women and children, since child abuse overwhelmingly occurs in single-parent homes from which the father has been removed. Britain's Family Education Trust reports that children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a single-parent home than in an intact family. Domestic violence too is far more likely with the breakup of a marriage than among married couples. Yet trumped-up accusations are rampant in divorce courts, usually to eliminate fathers. Elaine Epstein of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association writes that "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" in custody cases, a trend documented in the Illinois Bar Journal, Yale Law Review, Rutgers Law Review, and others. The principal impediment to child abuse is thus the father. "The presence of the father placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse," concludes a study in Adolescent and Family Health. By eliminating fathers, officials pose as the solution to the problem they themselves create. Appalling as it sounds, we have created a massive army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse. 'DEADBEAT DAD'? The "deadbeat dad" is another creation of divorce machinery. He is far less likely to have voluntarily abandoned offspring he callously sired than to be an involuntarily divorced father who has been, as one attorney writes, "forced to finance the filching of his own children." Originally justified to recover welfare costs, child support has become an entitlement for all mothers, regardless of their behavior, and a subsidy on middle-class divorce. It allows the mother--simply by divorcing--to confiscate her husband's income. It is tax-free to the recipient, and nonpayment means incarceration without trial. The Journal of Socio-Economics notes that child support serves as an "economic incentive for middle-class women to seek divorce." Economist Robert Willis calculates that one-fifth to one-third of child support payments are used for children; the rest is profit for the custodial parent. State governments also generate revenue from child support, giving them a financial incentive to make it onerous and to encourage divorce. Federal taxpayers subsidize this family destruction scheme with about $3 billion annually. Officials have admitted that the arrearages are far beyond the parents' ability to pay. Government's divorce apparatus has become a machine for destroying families, seizing children, and incarcerating parents without trial. It is the most repressive government machinery ever created in the United States. --------------- Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House). This column is adapted from an article in the Jan.-Feb. issue of Touchstone magazine. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reality check | DB | Child Support | 15 | April 16th 07 04:04 AM |
Measles REALITY | Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath | Kids Health | 14 | October 23rd 06 03:08 PM |
Mumps REALITY | Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath | Kids Health | 1 | October 21st 06 02:31 AM |
U.K. May Extend Divorce Rights to Unmarried Couples | Dusty | Child Support | 5 | June 2nd 06 08:47 AM |
unwelcome belly touching | Vicky Bilaniuk | Pregnancy | 4 | July 19th 04 01:53 AM |