A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CS/Divorce No-spin article



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 1st 03, 03:41 PM
Virginia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS/Divorce No-spin article

Only 25% of first marriages fail. It's that 25%'s constant remarrying
and divorcing that raises the overall divorce rate to 50% of all
marriages (which includes 1st 2nd 3rdetc marriages all together).
In the last ten years we've seen a decrease in first mariage divorces
from 30%-25% and an increase in SAHP in couples with young children.

Dave wrote:
Articles on what is the reality of divorce and child support are a rare find
these days. Stephen Baskerville nails it right on the head with this
article.

--------------------------
Divorce as a Revolution
Salisbury Review
June 21, 2003
by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

For some thirty years now a quiet revolution has been waged throughout the
Western world. Most people are now familiar with the social consequences of
the divorce explosion: the growth of single-parent homes and massive
increase in fatherless children. The Pandora's box of social problems this
has released has also reached general awareness. Virtually every major
personal and social pathology can be traced to fatherlessness more than to
any other single factor: violent crime, substance abuse, unwed pregnancy,
truancy, suicide, and more. Fatherlessness far surpasses both poverty and
race as a predictor of social deviance.
These problems are alarming enough in themselves. What is seldom appreciated
is that they are also responsible for a vast expansion in the power and
reach of the state. In fact, so is divorce itself. In contrast to its social
fallout, the political consequences of divorce are hardly understood at all,
yet they may ultimately be the most destructive.

The result of three decades of unrestrained divorce is that huge numbers of
people - many of them government officials - now have a vested professional
and financial interest in encouraging it. Divorce today is not simply a
phenomenon; it is a regime - a vast bureaucratic empire that permeates
national and local governments, with hangers-on in the private sector. In
the United States divorce and custody comprise over half of civil
litigation, constituting the cash cow of the judiciary and bringing
employment and earnings to a host of public and private officials, including
judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counsellors, social workers,
child support enforcement agents, and others.

This growth industry derives from the impact of divorce on children. The div
orce revolution has spawned a public-private industrial complex of legal,
social service, and psychotherapeutic professionals devoted to the problems
of children, and especially children in single-parent homes. Many are women
with feminist leanings. Whatever pieties they may voice about the plight of
fatherless, poor, and violent children, the fact remains that these
practitioners have a vested interest in creating as many such children as
possible. The way to do it is to remove the fathers.

It is commonplace today that fathers are disadvantaged in divorce courts
everywhere when it comes to child custody. In today's political jargon we
attribute this to 'discrimination' and 'gender bias'. But this does not
convey the half of it. Divorce courts and their huge entourage of personnel
depend for their existence on broken, single-parent homes. The first
principle of family court is therefo remove the father. So long as
fathers remain with their families, the divorce practitioners earn nothing.
This is why the first thing a family court does when it summons a father on
a divorce petition - even if he has done nothing wrong and not agreed to the
divorce - is to strip him of custody of his children. While mothers also
fall afoul of divorce courts, fathers are their principal rivals.

Once the father is eliminated, the state functionally replaces him as
protector and provider. By removing the father, the state also creates a
host of problems for itself to solve: child poverty, child abuse, juvenile
crime, and other problems associated with single-parent homes. In this way,
the divorce machinery is self-perpetuating and self-expanding. Involuntary
divorce is a marvelous tool that allows for the infinite expansion of
government power.

No-fault divorce is the middle-class equivalent of public assistance,
creating single-parent homes among the affluent as welfare did among the
poor. In the United States, where the trend began, all the major
institutions of the divorce industry were originally created as ancillary to
welfa juvenile/family courts, child support enforcement, child protection
services. No-fault divorce extended these 'services' to the middle class
because that was where the money was, and with it political power.

Like welfare, divorce involving children is almost wholly female-driven.
Though governments invariably claim that fathers 'abandon' their children,
there is no evidence this is true, nor even that fathers agree to most
divorces. Cautious scholars like Sanford Braver of Arizona State University
consistently find that at least two-thirds of divorces are filed by women,
usually with no legal grounds. Yet lawyers and feminists report much higher
proportions. Shere Hite, the popular researcher on female sexuality, found
'ninety-one percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to
divorce, not their husbands.'

This is hardly surprising, given the almost irresistible emotional and
financial incentives the industry offers mothers to divorce, including
automatic custody plus windfall child support and other financial rewards,
regardless of any fault on their part. A Canadian/American research team
found that 'who gets the children is by far the most important component in
deciding who files for divorce.' What we call 'divorce' has in effect become
a kind of legalised parental kidnapping.

Once the father loses custody, he becomes in many ways an outlaw and subject
to plunder by a variety of officials. His contact with his own children
becomes criminalised in that he can be arrested if he tries to see them
outside of authorised times and places. Unlike anyone else, he can be
arrested for running into his children in a public place such as the zoo or
church. In the United States fathers are arrested for telephoning their
children when they are not authorised or for sending them birthday cards.
Fathers are routinely summoned to court and subjected to questioning about
their private lives. Their personal papers, bank accounts, and homes must be
opened and surrendered to government officials. Anything a father has said
to his spouse or children can be used against him in court. His personal
habits, movements, conversations, purchases, and his relationship with his
own children are all subject to inquiry and control by the court.

Despite prohibitions on incarceration for debt, a father can be jailed
without trial for failure to pay not only child support but the fees of
lawyers and psychotherapists he has not hired. A judge can summon a legally
unimpeachable citizen who is minding his own business and order him to turn
over his earnings or go to jail.

As the logic of involuntary divorce plays itself out, divorce is forced on
not only one parent but both. Mothers are not only enticed into divorce with
financial incentives, in other words; they are being pressured into it by
threats against their children. Last year, Heidi Howard was ordered by the
Massachusetts Department of Social Services to divorce her husband or lose
her children, although authorities acknowledged neither parent had been
violent. When she refused, the social workers seized her children and
attempted to terminate the couple's parental rights. Massachusetts News
reporter Nev Moore says such cases are common in Massachusetts.

Family law is now criminalising rights as basic as free speech and freedom
of the press. In many jurisdictions it is a crime to criticise family court
judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly. Under the pretext of
'family privacy', parents are gagged from publicly disclosing how government
officials have seized control of their children. In Australia it is a crime
for a litigant to speak publicly concerning family courts, even without
mentioning specific cases.

In Australia, the US, and Britain, family courts have closed web sites
operated by fathers' groups. Britain, Australia, and Canada have all
resurrected archaic laws prohibiting the criticism of judges in order to
prosecute fathers' groups. In the United States judges cannot be sued, but
they can sue citizens who criticise them. The confiscation of property can
also be used to criminalise political opinions. Following his testimony to
the US Congress critical of the family courts, Jim Wagner of the Georgia
Council for Children's Rights was stripped of custody of his two children
and ordered to pay $6,000 in the fees of attorneys he had not hired. When he
could not pay, he was arrested.

The swelling hysteria over 'domestic violence' appears fomented largely for
similar ends. 'All of this domestic violence industry is about trying to
take children away from their fathers,' writes Irish Times columnist John
Waters. 'When they've taken away the fathers, they'll take away the mothers.
' Donna Laframboise of Canada's National Post investigated battered women's
shelters and concluded they constituted 'one stop divorce shops', whose
purpose was not to protect women but to promote divorce. These shelters,
often federally funded, issue affidavits against fathers sight-unseen that
are accepted without corroborating evidence by judges to justify removing
their children. Special domestic violence courts in Canada can now remove
fathers from their homes and seize their houses on a mere allegation of
domestic violence.

Divorce, not violence, is also behind the explosion of restraining orders,
which are routinely issued without evidence of wrongdoing, separating
fathers from their children and homes. Almost 90% of judicial magistrates in
New South Wales acknowledged that protective orders were used in divorce -
often on the advice of a solicitor - to deprive fathers of access to their
children. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar
Association, writes that restraining orders are doled out 'like candy.'
'Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to
virtually all who apply,' and 'the facts have become irrelevant,' she
reports.

Fathers are further criminalised through child-support burdens, which
constitute the financial fuel of the divorce machinery, underwriting
unilateral divorce and giving everyone involved further incentives to remove
children from their fathers. Government claims of unpaid child support
constitute one of the most dishonest and destructive hoaxes ever foisted on
the public. In a US government-funded study, Sanford Braver discovered that
most fathers pay fully and on time and that 'estimated' arrearages are
derived not from official records but from surveys of mothers. Braver's
findings have never been refuted by any official or scholar. Yet ever-more
draconian 'crackdowns' and arrests continue.

Last summer Liberty magazine published documentary evidence that 'deadbeat
dads' are largely the creation of civil servants and law-enforcement agents
with an interest in giving themselves criminals to prosecute. In most
jurisdictions, child support guidelines are set by enforcement personnel,
the equivalent of the police making the laws. These officials can separate
children from their fathers, impose impossible child support obligations,
and then jail fathers who inevitably fail to pay.

Child support trials operate on a presumption of guilt, where 'the burden of
proof may be shifted to the defendant,' according to the US National
Conference of State Legislatures, which favours aggressive prosecutions.
Contrary to Common Law and the US Constitution, courts have ruled that 'not
all child-support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled
to a jury trial,' and 'even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled
to a lawyer.' Thus impoverished parents who lose their children through
literally 'no fault' of their own are the only defendants who must prove
their innocence without counsel and without a jury of their peers.

Cases like Darrin White of British Columbia are the result. With no evidence
of wrongdoing, White was denied all contact with his children, evicted from
his home, and ordered to pay more than twice his income as child and spousal
support, plus court costs for a divorce he never agreed to. White hanged
himself from a tree. 'There is nothing unusual about this judgement,' said a
British Columbia Supreme Court Judge, who pointed out that the judge applied
standard support guidelines.

Fathers driven to suicide by family courts are acknowledged by officials in
Canada, Australia, and Britain. A suicide epidemic has been documented by
Augustine Kposowa of the University of California in the Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health. Kposowa attributes his finding directly
to family court judgements, though media reports of his study emphasised
fathers' lack of 'support networks'.

Why is so little opposition heard? Though the conservative media are waking
up, the silence of conservative politicians is deafening, given that every
prophecy about the dangers of judicial activism, bureaucratic
aggrandizement, and ideological extremism is vindicated in the war on
fathers. What is perhaps most diabolical about the divorce industry is its
ability to co-opt so many people, including its critics. By creating
problems to be solved - and then dispensing government money to solve them -
the machine gives everyone an interest in fatherless children. Even critics
develop a stake in having something to criticise.

In Canada and the US, domestic violence legislation dispenses a gravy train
of federal money to the states/provinces and localities. This is often
earmarked with appeals to 'law enforcement', though the effect is to divert
it from the prosecution of criminals to the prosecution of fathers.
Likewise, child support enforcement is propelled by federal payments
rewarding local governments for each dollar collected, filling local coffers
and giving officials an incentive to squeeze revenue from (after they have
forced divorce on) as many fathers as they can find.

Especially questionable are government enterprises to 'promote fatherhood',
which disperse grants to local governments and organizations ostensibly to
'reunite fathers with their children'. Yet they are premised on first
separating them from one another. What is advertised as a program to
facilitate 'access and visitation' means supervised contact centers, where
fathers must pay to see their children in institutions. 'Encouraging good
fathering' means state-sponsored television advertisements with actors
depicting fathers abandoning their children. One American state receives
federal money to implement 'Five Principles of Fatherhood', including: 'give
affection to my children' and 'demonstrate respect at all times to the
mother of my children'. One cannot help but wonder what penalties the state
will bring to bear on fathers who fail to show sufficient 'affection' and
'respect'.

Involuntary divorce is the instrument not simply of tyrannical judges,
unscrupulous lawyers, and doctrinaire feminists, but of a new political
class whose interest is to subject the private corners of life to state
control. Two conservative scholars recently argued in the Journal of
Political Economy that the vast expansion of governmental machinery during
the twentieth century proceeded largely from women acquiring the vote.
Women, far more than men, voted to create the welfare state. But: 'Why would
men and women have differing political interests?' ask John Lott and Larry
Kenny. 'If there were no divorces . . . the interests of men and women would
appear to be closely linked together.' The premise of their question invites
the answer: 'As divorce or desertion rates rise, more women will be saddled
with the costs of raising the children.' Conservatives have accepted the
feminist argument that the arm of the state is a necessary defensive shield
to protect women from the costs of divorce, attributed to male desertion.
But male desertion is not a major cause of divorce. The welfare state and
expansive government therefore are not defenses against divorce but
preconditions for it. Divorce is a political weapon and an offensive one at
that, promoted by the same bureaucratic and ideological interests that are
undermining and politicising fatherhood and expanding the power and reach of
the state to deal with the consequences.

What then can check the march of the unilateral divorce machine?

One theme of intellectuals who dissented from the ideological-bureaucratic
dictatorships of eastern Europe was 'nonpolitical politics': to oppose
ideology not with contrary ideology but with non-ideology, to resist
politicisation by re-creating the ordinary business of 'civil society' and
private life. If any group should adopt this philosophy today, it is
fathers. For all the effort to 'restore fatherhood' through programs like
Fathers Direct, ultimately the only ones who can restore fatherhood are, of
course, fathers themselves. Almost by definition, fathers alone can truly
'save the children' by re-creating the family with themselves in it.

In so doing, fathers may also hold the potential to start redeeming a
political culture that for thirty years has been sinking into the mire of
permanent rebellion. Their current plight indicates how far the divorce
'revolution' has brought us all into a brave new quasi-Freudian world where
not only traditional institutions are attacked and brought low, but so now
are private individuals, simply because they hold the most basic position of
human authority, the head of a family. Whether they are up to the challenge
remains to be seen.


Stephen Baskerville



  #2  
Old July 2nd 03, 02:59 AM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS/Divorce No-spin article

Stephen Baskerville has many good points to make on this issue. He is
undoubtedly right about the divorce industry. He's also right about the
strong tendency of politicians, judges, and bureaucrats to favor
everything that increases their power (and to have nauseatingly
hypocritical explanations that are supposed to justify their positions).

The problem, I think, is that everyone who reads an article like
Baskerville's knows, in their heart of hearts, that it is exaggerated
and to a degree paranoid.

The current situation didn't arise from any clever conspiracy. It
resulted from a much more messy process, involving feminist special
interest groups who were essentially unopposed, politicians who sought
to play to these special interest groups, and lawyers and other
parasites who used changes in the law to line their own pockets. Added
to this unholy mix -- particularly in the U.S. -- was the growing
tendency for people to consider only their own selfish interests, and to
have no regard to the interests of the wider community, including the
interests of their children.

The way to change the situation ISN'T to try and convince everyone that
there's some sinister conspiracy.

The way to change the situation is to ask people whether anyone ever
wanted to end up with a 50 percent divorce rate or to end up with huge
numbers of children growing up in fatherless families (a virtual
guarantee of later serious problems). Of course, that's not what people
wanted, or ever expected to happen. What HAS happened is the result of
the iron law of unintended consequences.

To change the situation, we need to remove the incentives for the
creation of fatherless families, included guaranteed custody for mothers
and grossly excess "child support." We need to start to re-stigmatize
divorce and single motherhood, in the same way that drunk driving (once
socially acceptable) has been stigmatized.

It won't help at all to try to convince people that there is some evil
conspiracy. Such a conspiracy doesn't exist. All attempts to bring it
to light will fail, and will do nothing more than undermine the
credibility of those who are seeking to reform this whole rotten system.



Dave wrote:

Articles on what is the reality of divorce and child support are a rare find
these days. Stephen Baskerville nails it right on the head with this
article.

--------------------------
Divorce as a Revolution
Salisbury Review
June 21, 2003
by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

For some thirty years now a quiet revolution has been waged throughout the
Western world. Most people are now familiar with the social consequences of
the divorce explosion: the growth of single-parent homes and massive
increase in fatherless children. The Pandora's box of social problems this
has released has also reached general awareness. Virtually every major
personal and social pathology can be traced to fatherlessness more than to
any other single factor: violent crime, substance abuse, unwed pregnancy,
truancy, suicide, and more. Fatherlessness far surpasses both poverty and
race as a predictor of social deviance.
These problems are alarming enough in themselves. What is seldom appreciated
is that they are also responsible for a vast expansion in the power and
reach of the state. In fact, so is divorce itself. In contrast to its social
fallout, the political consequences of divorce are hardly understood at all,
yet they may ultimately be the most destructive.

The result of three decades of unrestrained divorce is that huge numbers of
people - many of them government officials - now have a vested professional
and financial interest in encouraging it. Divorce today is not simply a
phenomenon; it is a regime - a vast bureaucratic empire that permeates
national and local governments, with hangers-on in the private sector. In
the United States divorce and custody comprise over half of civil
litigation, constituting the cash cow of the judiciary and bringing
employment and earnings to a host of public and private officials, including
judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counsellors, social workers,
child support enforcement agents, and others.

This growth industry derives from the impact of divorce on children. The div
orce revolution has spawned a public-private industrial complex of legal,
social service, and psychotherapeutic professionals devoted to the problems
of children, and especially children in single-parent homes. Many are women
with feminist leanings. Whatever pieties they may voice about the plight of
fatherless, poor, and violent children, the fact remains that these
practitioners have a vested interest in creating as many such children as
possible. The way to do it is to remove the fathers.

It is commonplace today that fathers are disadvantaged in divorce courts
everywhere when it comes to child custody. In today's political jargon we
attribute this to 'discrimination' and 'gender bias'. But this does not
convey the half of it. Divorce courts and their huge entourage of personnel
depend for their existence on broken, single-parent homes. The first
principle of family court is therefo remove the father. So long as
fathers remain with their families, the divorce practitioners earn nothing.
This is why the first thing a family court does when it summons a father on
a divorce petition - even if he has done nothing wrong and not agreed to the
divorce - is to strip him of custody of his children. While mothers also
fall afoul of divorce courts, fathers are their principal rivals.

Once the father is eliminated, the state functionally replaces him as
protector and provider. By removing the father, the state also creates a
host of problems for itself to solve: child poverty, child abuse, juvenile
crime, and other problems associated with single-parent homes. In this way,
the divorce machinery is self-perpetuating and self-expanding. Involuntary
divorce is a marvelous tool that allows for the infinite expansion of
government power.

No-fault divorce is the middle-class equivalent of public assistance,
creating single-parent homes among the affluent as welfare did among the
poor. In the United States, where the trend began, all the major
institutions of the divorce industry were originally created as ancillary to
welfa juvenile/family courts, child support enforcement, child protection
services. No-fault divorce extended these 'services' to the middle class
because that was where the money was, and with it political power.

Like welfare, divorce involving children is almost wholly female-driven.
Though governments invariably claim that fathers 'abandon' their children,
there is no evidence this is true, nor even that fathers agree to most
divorces. Cautious scholars like Sanford Braver of Arizona State University
consistently find that at least two-thirds of divorces are filed by women,
usually with no legal grounds. Yet lawyers and feminists report much higher
proportions. Shere Hite, the popular researcher on female sexuality, found
'ninety-one percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to
divorce, not their husbands.'

This is hardly surprising, given the almost irresistible emotional and
financial incentives the industry offers mothers to divorce, including
automatic custody plus windfall child support and other financial rewards,
regardless of any fault on their part. A Canadian/American research team
found that 'who gets the children is by far the most important component in
deciding who files for divorce.' What we call 'divorce' has in effect become
a kind of legalised parental kidnapping.

Once the father loses custody, he becomes in many ways an outlaw and subject
to plunder by a variety of officials. His contact with his own children
becomes criminalised in that he can be arrested if he tries to see them
outside of authorised times and places. Unlike anyone else, he can be
arrested for running into his children in a public place such as the zoo or
church. In the United States fathers are arrested for telephoning their
children when they are not authorised or for sending them birthday cards.
Fathers are routinely summoned to court and subjected to questioning about
their private lives. Their personal papers, bank accounts, and homes must be
opened and surrendered to government officials. Anything a father has said
to his spouse or children can be used against him in court. His personal
habits, movements, conversations, purchases, and his relationship with his
own children are all subject to inquiry and control by the court.

Despite prohibitions on incarceration for debt, a father can be jailed
without trial for failure to pay not only child support but the fees of
lawyers and psychotherapists he has not hired. A judge can summon a legally
unimpeachable citizen who is minding his own business and order him to turn
over his earnings or go to jail.

As the logic of involuntary divorce plays itself out, divorce is forced on
not only one parent but both. Mothers are not only enticed into divorce with
financial incentives, in other words; they are being pressured into it by
threats against their children. Last year, Heidi Howard was ordered by the
Massachusetts Department of Social Services to divorce her husband or lose
her children, although authorities acknowledged neither parent had been
violent. When she refused, the social workers seized her children and
attempted to terminate the couple's parental rights. Massachusetts News
reporter Nev Moore says such cases are common in Massachusetts.

Family law is now criminalising rights as basic as free speech and freedom
of the press. In many jurisdictions it is a crime to criticise family court
judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly. Under the pretext of
'family privacy', parents are gagged from publicly disclosing how government
officials have seized control of their children. In Australia it is a crime
for a litigant to speak publicly concerning family courts, even without
mentioning specific cases.

In Australia, the US, and Britain, family courts have closed web sites
operated by fathers' groups. Britain, Australia, and Canada have all
resurrected archaic laws prohibiting the criticism of judges in order to
prosecute fathers' groups. In the United States judges cannot be sued, but
they can sue citizens who criticise them. The confiscation of property can
also be used to criminalise political opinions. Following his testimony to
the US Congress critical of the family courts, Jim Wagner of the Georgia
Council for Children's Rights was stripped of custody of his two children
and ordered to pay $6,000 in the fees of attorneys he had not hired. When he
could not pay, he was arrested.

The swelling hysteria over 'domestic violence' appears fomented largely for
similar ends. 'All of this domestic violence industry is about trying to
take children away from their fathers,' writes Irish Times columnist John
Waters. 'When they've taken away the fathers, they'll take away the mothers.
' Donna Laframboise of Canada's National Post investigated battered women's
shelters and concluded they constituted 'one stop divorce shops', whose
purpose was not to protect women but to promote divorce. These shelters,
often federally funded, issue affidavits against fathers sight-unseen that
are accepted without corroborating evidence by judges to justify removing
their children. Special domestic violence courts in Canada can now remove
fathers from their homes and seize their houses on a mere allegation of
domestic violence.

Divorce, not violence, is also behind the explosion of restraining orders,
which are routinely issued without evidence of wrongdoing, separating
fathers from their children and homes. Almost 90% of judicial magistrates in
New South Wales acknowledged that protective orders were used in divorce -
often on the advice of a solicitor - to deprive fathers of access to their
children. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar
Association, writes that restraining orders are doled out 'like candy.'
'Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to
virtually all who apply,' and 'the facts have become irrelevant,' she
reports.

Fathers are further criminalised through child-support burdens, which
constitute the financial fuel of the divorce machinery, underwriting
unilateral divorce and giving everyone involved further incentives to remove
children from their fathers. Government claims of unpaid child support
constitute one of the most dishonest and destructive hoaxes ever foisted on
the public. In a US government-funded study, Sanford Braver discovered that
most fathers pay fully and on time and that 'estimated' arrearages are
derived not from official records but from surveys of mothers. Braver's
findings have never been refuted by any official or scholar. Yet ever-more
draconian 'crackdowns' and arrests continue.

Last summer Liberty magazine published documentary evidence that 'deadbeat
dads' are largely the creation of civil servants and law-enforcement agents
with an interest in giving themselves criminals to prosecute. In most
jurisdictions, child support guidelines are set by enforcement personnel,
the equivalent of the police making the laws. These officials can separate
children from their fathers, impose impossible child support obligations,
and then jail fathers who inevitably fail to pay.

Child support trials operate on a presumption of guilt, where 'the burden of
proof may be shifted to the defendant,' according to the US National
Conference of State Legislatures, which favours aggressive prosecutions.
Contrary to Common Law and the US Constitution, courts have ruled that 'not
all child-support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled
to a jury trial,' and 'even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled
to a lawyer.' Thus impoverished parents who lose their children through
literally 'no fault' of their own are the only defendants who must prove
their innocence without counsel and without a jury of their peers.

Cases like Darrin White of British Columbia are the result. With no evidence
of wrongdoing, White was denied all contact with his children, evicted from
his home, and ordered to pay more than twice his income as child and spousal
support, plus court costs for a divorce he never agreed to. White hanged
himself from a tree. 'There is nothing unusual about this judgement,' said a
British Columbia Supreme Court Judge, who pointed out that the judge applied
standard support guidelines.

Fathers driven to suicide by family courts are acknowledged by officials in
Canada, Australia, and Britain. A suicide epidemic has been documented by
Augustine Kposowa of the University of California in the Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health. Kposowa attributes his finding directly
to family court judgements, though media reports of his study emphasised
fathers' lack of 'support networks'.

Why is so little opposition heard? Though the conservative media are waking
up, the silence of conservative politicians is deafening, given that every
prophecy about the dangers of judicial activism, bureaucratic
aggrandizement, and ideological extremism is vindicated in the war on
fathers. What is perhaps most diabolical about the divorce industry is its
ability to co-opt so many people, including its critics. By creating
problems to be solved - and then dispensing government money to solve them -
the machine gives everyone an interest in fatherless children. Even critics
develop a stake in having something to criticise.

In Canada and the US, domestic violence legislation dispenses a gravy train
of federal money to the states/provinces and localities. This is often
earmarked with appeals to 'law enforcement', though the effect is to divert
it from the prosecution of criminals to the prosecution of fathers.
Likewise, child support enforcement is propelled by federal payments
rewarding local governments for each dollar collected, filling local coffers
and giving officials an incentive to squeeze revenue from (after they have
forced divorce on) as many fathers as they can find.

Especially questionable are government enterprises to 'promote fatherhood',
which disperse grants to local governments and organizations ostensibly to
'reunite fathers with their children'. Yet they are premised on first
separating them from one another. What is advertised as a program to
facilitate 'access and visitation' means supervised contact centers, where
fathers must pay to see their children in institutions. 'Encouraging good
fathering' means state-sponsored television advertisements with actors
depicting fathers abandoning their children. One American state receives
federal money to implement 'Five Principles of Fatherhood', including: 'give
affection to my children' and 'demonstrate respect at all times to the
mother of my children'. One cannot help but wonder what penalties the state
will bring to bear on fathers who fail to show sufficient 'affection' and
'respect'.

Involuntary divorce is the instrument not simply of tyrannical judges,
unscrupulous lawyers, and doctrinaire feminists, but of a new political
class whose interest is to subject the private corners of life to state
control. Two conservative scholars recently argued in the Journal of
Political Economy that the vast expansion of governmental machinery during
the twentieth century proceeded largely from women acquiring the vote.
Women, far more than men, voted to create the welfare state. But: 'Why would
men and women have differing political interests?' ask John Lott and Larry
Kenny. 'If there were no divorces . . . the interests of men and women would
appear to be closely linked together.' The premise of their question invites
the answer: 'As divorce or desertion rates rise, more women will be saddled
with the costs of raising the children.' Conservatives have accepted the
feminist argument that the arm of the state is a necessary defensive shield
to protect women from the costs of divorce, attributed to male desertion.
But male desertion is not a major cause of divorce. The welfare state and
expansive government therefore are not defenses against divorce but
preconditions for it. Divorce is a political weapon and an offensive one at
that, promoted by the same bureaucratic and ideological interests that are
undermining and politicising fatherhood and expanding the power and reach of
the state to deal with the consequences.

What then can check the march of the unilateral divorce machine?

One theme of intellectuals who dissented from the ideological-bureaucratic
dictatorships of eastern Europe was 'nonpolitical politics': to oppose
ideology not with contrary ideology but with non-ideology, to resist
politicisation by re-creating the ordinary business of 'civil society' and
private life. If any group should adopt this philosophy today, it is
fathers. For all the effort to 'restore fatherhood' through programs like
Fathers Direct, ultimately the only ones who can restore fatherhood are, of
course, fathers themselves. Almost by definition, fathers alone can truly
'save the children' by re-creating the family with themselves in it.

In so doing, fathers may also hold the potential to start redeeming a
political culture that for thirty years has been sinking into the mire of
permanent rebellion. Their current plight indicates how far the divorce
'revolution' has brought us all into a brave new quasi-Freudian world where
not only traditional institutions are attacked and brought low, but so now
are private individuals, simply because they hold the most basic position of
human authority, the head of a family. Whether they are up to the challenge
remains to be seen.

Stephen Baskerville

  #3  
Old July 2nd 03, 08:23 AM
dani
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS/Divorce No-spin article

Kenneth S. wrote:


It won't help at all to try to convince people that there is some evil
conspiracy. Such a conspiracy doesn't exist. All attempts to bring it
to light will fail, and will do nothing more than undermine the
credibility of those who are seeking to reform this whole rotten system.

I would say you are partly right as is Dr. Baskerville. Overall, there
may be no nebulus conspiracy by all groups or the legal profession as a
whole, yet there are those out there who have an agenda. I would say
you need to be educated and I am willing to do so in two simple lessons.

Lesson #1.

Go here - http://www.argate.net/~liz/collects.htm

Lesson #2.

Go here - http://canow.org/fam.html

Do you see the light? Yet?

  #4  
Old July 7th 03, 08:02 AM
Batch File
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS/Divorce No-spin article

If that is enough to turn off someone when others are having their rights
taken away, then that person can just wait until its their turn and no one
is left to help them.


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
I've been involved in these matters for about 15 years. I've also
discussed some of them with Stephen Baskerville.

OF COURSE, the divorce industry (which includes lawyers, CS
bureaucrats, judges, and many family counselors) is interested in
protecting its income and its sources of power. OF COURSE, the system
is riddled with conflicts of interest and perverse incentives.

However, there's a major credibility gap created when people try to
maintain that there's some big conspiracy. Arguing that there is
alienates people who might otherwise be allies in the battle for reform.
Potential allies don't want to line up behind a group of grassy knoll
conspiracy theorists.

If we want to change things, we have to point out:

(1) what the current situation IS, in terms of proportion of fatherless
families and their consequences, in terms of which parent typically
makes the decision to create a fatherless family (the mother), and in
terms of the objective data about custody and "child support;"

(2) ask whether anyone ever set out to achieve this situation (clearly,
despite what Baskerville says, only a very few did, and the few that did
were willing to accept the situation in the interests of other
objectives, notably enlarging the range of options for women);

(3) explode the myth that changed laws and policies cannot do anything
to turn back the divorce and fatherless family epidemic in the U.S.


dani wrote:

Kenneth S. wrote:


It won't help at all to try to convince people that there is

some evil
conspiracy. Such a conspiracy doesn't exist. All attempts to bring

it
to light will fail, and will do nothing more than undermine the
credibility of those who are seeking to reform this whole rotten

system.

I would say you are partly right as is Dr. Baskerville. Overall, there
may be no nebulus conspiracy by all groups or the legal profession as a
whole, yet there are those out there who have an agenda. I would say
you need to be educated and I am willing to do so in two simple lessons.

Lesson #1.

Go here - http://www.argate.net/~liz/collects.htm

Lesson #2.

Go here - http://canow.org/fam.html

Do you see the light? Yet?



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MONEY IS NOT just FOR CHRISTMAS!!!! Rebecca Richmond Twins & Triplets 0 December 13th 03 10:08 PM
Kids should work... Doan Foster Parents 31 December 7th 03 04:01 AM
Recalls (X-posted) Ali's Daddie General 0 November 20th 03 09:52 PM
CyberNews article: THE NEW PHONICS methodology and its history Tracy Sherwood General 2 September 4th 03 03:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.