In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


> From: Knudsen, Mark (Contractor) 
> John and Sylvia you're both great,
> 
> Why does not the fathers group write/sponsor an official ironclad form(s) 
> for future fathers to bring to marriage that insists that upon separation, 
> the father will maintain custody of any and all children.

This is no different than the current "De-Facto" system that virtually
guarantees that a woman will get custody.  It's also harder to sell.
Here's why:

	The first test case would be a woman who married under this form,
	her husband became drunk and abusive after she got pregnant and
	he started having an affair.  Minutes after the baby was born, his
	lawyer served her with separation papers and took custody of the
	child.  No mother, and no man still in love with his wife, would
	support such a draconian act.

	The second test case would be a woman who married under this form
	and after the children were born found herself supporting herself,
	her children, and her alchoholic/addict husband.  Eventually,
	after several DUIs, several beatings, and several arrests, she
	decides to leave him.  He uses the form to get custody of the
	children, and starts beating them to force her to come back.

	The third test case would be the woman who was raped by her
	husband, left before the baby was born, and after the baby was
	delivered, was forced to give it up under the "agreement".

> The father could 
> insist on having his spouse sign the form before marriage especially once he 
> had reviewed the horrors of reality and our legal system contained in Johm's 
> stats. 

When you are in the process of getting married, the LAST thing you are
thinking about is the divorce proceedings.  Given the scenarios above,
no woman worth having would sign, and no respectable judge would honor it.
One would have to go through the entire proceeding anyway.

A good place for this clause, is buried within the divorce settlement.
Set a condition which grants irrevocable custody to the father if, for any
reason, the mother is unable, unwilling, or unfit to be the primary
physical custodian.  Within 2 years, a "crisis" will occur to trigger that
clause.

> This would not be an area that would cause contoversy because it 
> would be totally voluntary but hopefully would be legally solid (if that is 
> possible).

Any woman who would willingly promise give up custody of children she
hasn't even had yet probably should not become a mother in the first
place.  Children should not be used as hostages by either the father OR
the mother.

> So the fathers group could package the form with John's 
> statistics (reality) along with a cover letter explaining to the prospective 
> father to be very careful as failure to heed warning may result in his 
> losing most or all contact to his children, cause him and any future spouses 
> financial ruin, and it would cause him to be enslaved by a warped and unjust 
> childsupport system for at least till all of their children turn 22 or jail 
> time as the only alternative. then this could be distributed at least over 
> the Web, if not in court houses, libraries, ...; we could all take it upon 
> ourselves to get this stuff out there.

By getting this information to as many men AND women as possible, and 
proposing an alternative "Due Process" and "Choice=Responsibility"
program, we would see two immediate impacts.  First, a fully negotiated
prenuptual would be "standard", like making a will.  Second, men would
think very carefully before having sex with a woman.  Third, it would
alter the nature of marital law. 

Family court is like the dungeons of the inquisition, or the ovens of
Auchwitz.  No one wants to know that they exist, the victims are in denial
until it's too late, and those who have their suspicions keep it to
themselves.  The people involved are revolted but are "Just following
orders".  The result of the silence is that millions of innocent people
are persecuted (if 16 million fathers were enslaved or killed, there would
be rioting in the streets).

> That would be a great way to approach this mess. If I ever get married 
> again, I still have no way of being protected from ..., ..., and ...; I 
> still have no idea of how to expect any reasonableness from the system at 
> all, ... . It would be nice (like Monica took a first step on ) to in 
> addition to collecting valuable court forms, etc, to generate them!!! Is it 
> possible at all to have legal documents along these lines that is effective 
> in court???

Unfortunately, you have very few choices.  Your ex holds all the cards.
You can be very nice to her, and she MAY let you see your kids and even be
a week late with a payment.  OR you can be a shit, pay through the courts,
and spend whatever is left trying to get the courts to let you see your
kids while they still remember who you were.

>  -mjk
>  ----------
> To: Sylvia Long-Labno
> Dear Sylvia,
> 
> Thanks for jumping into the fray.
> 
> On Wed, 8 May 1996, Sylvia Long-Labno wrote:
> 
> > A comment, if I may....  While father custody as a presumption may in fact
> > reduce the number of divorces, it will, I believe, also reduce the number
> > of marriages, and definitely reduce the number of births.
> 
> Interesting point, so I looked up the birth rates, and it turns out that
> exactly the opposite has happened, at least since 1960:
> 
>         1960    23.7 births per 1,000 population (per DHHS)
>         1970    18.4
>         1994    15.3
> 
> This is an important point that deserves closer scrutiny.  The explantion
> is simple.  Prior to feminism, men were not so threatened by marriage,
> but today the only man who gets married is one who is not aware of what
> has happened to fathers in the US.  This used to be a joke -- but it no
> longer is.

Divorce has never been a joking matter.  Even the movie made by Dick Van
Dyke (Divorce American Style?), went from some cute schtick to a
nightmerish hell.  In the movie, he ended up drinking himself into
oblivion, then he met a divorce' who couldn't get married because
she would lose her alimony.  I don't even remember how the movie
ends.  I remember seeing that movie, and thinking of it several times
from the moment I said "I DO" to the day the judge said "It's over".

> > I believe this because I believe that many women marry for the sole 
> purpose
> > of having children for the purpose of eventually gaining "the castle, 
> cash,

I don't think most women go into marriage with the intent of "dumping the
man and keeping the rest".  I think they go into the marriage with the
same hope and love that the man has.  Prior to marriage, the goal of
getting married is like an obsession.  Many women don't even know what
they are getting into.  Some women get married and pregnant without even
the experience of babysitting a child.

Soon, the stress of caring for an infant 24 hours/day 7 days/week loses
it's appeal.  The father is off at work, and what little time they have
together is with the child.  The father wants his friend and lover (what
motivated him being in the marriage in the first place), and the mother
just wants a friend.  She may even gain weight and dress "ugly" to try and
reduce the interest level.  At the end of a 24 hour day, she is too
exhausted for anything but affirmation.  If she doesn't have sitters or
day-care, or family to help, she will fall into nearly psychotic state.

This anger and frustration cannot be directed against the child, so it is
directed against herself, THEN against her husband.  She can act out by
castrating him emotionally, pointing out his most vulnerable areas at the
most inopportune times, insulting him in front of his friends...

Of course, she has a network of friends...other mothers who have been
going the same "maternal hell" that she has been enduring.  The ones with
really abusive husbands start getting divorced first, and appear much
happier now that they don't have hubby beating her or raping her every
night.  Then come the women who are strong and have weak husbands.  They
usually get out by the time the kids are ready for kindergarten.
Eventually, the relatively happy, not abused wife, after picking up his
dirty underwear for the 30th time this week, is enticed into one of those
"No Obligation Consultations" with a lawyer who can handle divorces.
Before the hour is up, she has been informed of her rights, how her
husband will pay all the legal fees, and how she can't loose, and she's
left with that information, to let it fester like an infection.

Eventually, maybe after a night of fighting over sex, or just who get the
remote control, the young mother has had enough.  She sees the lawyer,
signs a few consent forms, and she's told to go home.  In two or three
days, she has a restraining order, a separation order, and a supbeneoa
waiting for her husband, along with two sherrif's deputies who help him
load up the family clunker and give him the names of a few "no tell
motels".  If the husband resists, he is arrested immediately for violating
the restraining order he has only seen for 90 seconds.

If the mother should be foolish enough to have second thoughts, the lawyer
will tell her she has to pay him, up front, in cash, and pay him extra to
drop the divorce proceedings.

> > etc."  Similarly, many women, once having "nabbed" a guy, effect the same
> > result by getting pregnant, which, in essence, gives them the "key to the
> > castle, cash, etc."

This one is weird.  There are many men, especially in the military, who
want to get a woman pregnant, even though they have no desire to support
the child.  The women they choose are not exactly vestal virgins, and most
have had other sexual partners (often other military) in their recent past
(within the last 3 to 6 months).  They promise love, treat her like a
queen, and even buy her nice clothes and things.  They live on a military
base and don't have to pay rent.  It appears as if they have money to
burn.  The woman sees this as love and commitment and winds up making love
without the benefit of condoms or birth control.

As soon as this young lady is confirmed to be pregnant, the man volunteers
for duty which makes him unavailable for testing and review.  Suddenly
this "Ideal Man" becomes an "Undesirable Father".

Other variations are the drug pusher who gets himself arrested, the
construction worker who hurts himself, or the salesman who suddenly gets
transferred to a new territory.

Women are starting to think twice before getting pregnant, but there's a
long way to go.  In the early years (0-5 years), it's difficult for a
woman.  She can't work because she can't earn enough for day-care.  She
can't support herself, he doesn't want to get married, and there is little
to do but apply for "assistance".  After hitting a "brick wall" with the
direct approach, she turns to an agency (united way, church, synagogue,
tharapist...) who has a network of trained volunteers who know the ropes
and can help her get everything, including the kitchen sink (and the house
to go with it).  All she has to do is sign a piece of paper giving the
state the right to persecute the father.  She can sign one for each
father.  Then DHHS can go after the most "Willing" candidates.  They won't
go after the soldiers (they'd be draining their own pockets), or the bums
(a waste of prosecutor money).  They will go after men who make a stable
income, admit to sexual contact, and don't insist on a blood test.  If no
one "Volunteers", they start down the list of potentials.  If the blood
test gives a "High Probability", the most financially viable match is
tapped.  The records for the rest are eradicated to make sure that the
existence of these other "Possible Fathers" doesn't get reviewed by the
"Father's" paternity lawyer.

In the lawyer's office, cases are prioritized by their revenue and
collectibility potential.  The wife who is leaving the doctor or dentist
gets lots of resources.  The potential father is down there next to the
parking tickets and leaky faucets.  There is no contingency, if he wins,
it will take years to pay the legal fees.  If the father loses, he will be
technically, if not legally, bankrupt.

>         1960    23.7 births per 1,000 population (per DHHS)
>         1970    18.4
>         1994    15.3

> That is a good point.  But will women forego having children just because
> the economic incentive for divorce is removed?  The above numbers don't
> suggest this.

In 1960, the divorce rate was substantially lower, people got married in
their early 20's, and a house payment was about 3-5 days wages.  There was
no birth control pill, penecillin had stripped the fear of STDs, and the
baby boom was in it's tail. Abortion was only available in a few states
and even then only under the guise of a miscarriage. 
Birth rate peaked in 1955.

In 1970, birth control pills were widely available to women as young as
16.  The Vietnam war, environmental concerns, and feminism had people
postponing pregnancy into their late 20's.  A major segment of the male
population had been killed off, and abortion was legal.

In 1994, the AIDS epidemic had decimated the female population in Haiti,
had become a serious issue in the U.S., and was threatening to wipe out
the children born between 1970 and 1980 as they entered their sexually
active years.  The pill, patch, norplant, and monthly injectables were now
available.  Women were being informed about antibiotics and drug reactions
(which render birth control pills ineffective).

Bottom line, women were getting more and more control over their bodies,
and their ability to have children.  There were fewer "accidental" babies,
and more of the children born were a function of maternal choice.

> > I am convinced this was what happened in Bob's case.  Donna chased him
> > until she wore him down (when her mother died) and then nagged him for
> > years to have a baby, which she finally did at 36 years old (after one
> > miscarriage).  It was HER idea, not his, because he was miserable in the
> > marriage in the first place.

It's amazing how many people think that a baby will "fix" a marriage.
It's amazing how many women make incredible promises to have a baby.  It's
amazing that none of this is considered in family court.  The reality is
that the baby will intensify all feelings, requires intense commitment
from both parents, and support from a community beyond the parents.  If
any of these is missing, it's a sure-fire recipie for a divorce.

> What do you think would have happened to their marriage if the practice
> had been that the father gets the kids in the event of divorce?  Would she
> just not get married?  Would Bob have gotten divorced anyway?

In all probability, Donna would have either created a support network that
supported the entire family, or she would have gone insane.  In the
1950's, women were routinely institutionalized or put on steady doses of
tranquilisers such as librium, valium, thorazine, or other sedatives.
These days, the "vogue" drug for housewives who won't let go is Prozac.
She might have self-medicated.  Alcohol, Pot, and Crack have been big-time
favorites among the "too poor for the psychiatrist set".  Finally we have
the OTC junkies, hooked on Nyquil, Sudafed, Antihistimines, and "Diet
Pills".

If a man worked 18 hours/day, ate like a rat, and spent most of his time
alone, the entire medical community would be in his face to "get help".

> Would Bob's son have been a lot better off?

It depends on what Bob did next.  The custodial parent has to make some
adjustments.  The may have to get remarried, arrange alternative care, set
up alternative work situations, or just restructure their relationship to
the community.  Certainly the simplest, and most effective long term
solution is for the custodial parent to remarry to a spouse who can fully
provide what was provided by the previous spouse.  The custodial father
can marry a woman who is fully qualified to be a mother, preferably one
who has her own children, or had them and let her husband have custody.
The custodial mother can marry a reponsible husband who can function as
provider and father.

> > But, she had the kid, still has the kid, got ALL the castles and cash, and
> > is determined that Bob will never have a life.

Now, she can have any single man she wants.  She can have as many as she
wants.  She can have complete control of the relationships.

> >  (Tells everyone that Bob
> > "disowned his son and told him he never wanted to see his face
> > again..........What a LIE FROM HELL!)

Bob married you.  That has to be a serious threat!  She knows that if the
judge were to review the case this year, you and Bob could make a real
good case for having the children live with you.  You would LOSE, but you
could make a real good case.  On the other hand, if she gets careless and
does something irresponsible or rash, you could easily win.  Fortunately
for her, and unfortunately for you, the judge does not routinely review
the case every two years.

> There are terrible stories -- and many of them come from fathers who have
> joint custody.  THAT is what is destroying the country.  THAT is what
> must end.

Every divorced parent is forced to endure incredible hardship.  The woman
who gets custody has to compensate for the loss of 1/2 the after tax
income she had, to cover the standard expenses.  The man who loses custody
has to deal with a tax increase of up to 40% and has to continue to work
and support children who he can't see.  It is natural for the parents to
resent each other, the children, and the government.

> > But, I digress.  Point is, father custody as a presumption by the courts
> > would do a LOT to put an end to the feminist agenda, which, IMHO, is to
> > make all men sperm donors and slaves.  Period.

You've read Dvorkin! :-).  In reality, men aren't even needed as slaves.
It's more socially acceptable and politically correct than sending them
directly to the gas chambers to let them keep a subsistance level income
and do what they have spent years training themselves to do.

The biggest problem is not that they create the "safety net" for the
women.  The biggest problem is that they don't structure that support
system in such a way as to promote eventual independence.  Changes in tax
laws, child support that is reduced over time, and economic and
councilling structures that help both parents to reconstruct families
will be the best long term solution.

If mom wants the children, let her keep them.  But she should be
completely self supporting within 2-5 years.  If she wants to remarry, she
should be encouraged to marry a man who is AT LEAST as responsible and
productive as the original father.  If the original custodial parent can't
create a fully self-supporting family, give the other parent a shot.

Both Democrats and Republicans are pushing "Work-Fare", to get welfare
mothers off the system within 2-4 years.  Both, however are content to let
that same mother collect child-support for 20 years.

The children born after 1970 have been given a message.  It's better to be
a drug-usin' sex-machine and live off of someone else's old-man than it is
to go to school, study hard, go to college, get your degrees, and become
the "wallet" of the family.

> > Sylvia aka phoenix aka DBSM
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Hear!  Hear!

> 'cept for one minor corrction -- the presumption of father custody would
> eliminate the courts from the process.  The courts only get involved
> because there is a dispute between the parents.  If the presumption were
> father custody, there would be no dispute.

This is brutal, but it has to be said. 
 DE-FACTO PATERNAL CUSTODY WON'T SELL

You would have to get the married men, married women, divorced men, and
the men who leech of divorced women to agree that this is a good thing.

Married women aren't going to vote for it.  They might get divorced 
someday.

Married men aren't going to vote for it.  They hope to be married forever!

Divorced women won't vote for it. They would lose their meal ticket!

Single men wouldn't vote for it.  They want to be married someday.

Single women wouldn't vote for it.  They might get pregnant and need help.

The opposition would include:
	Religeous Communities.
	Social Workers.
	Lawyers.
	Doctors, therapists, analysts.
	Government workers.
	Government dependents.
	Married Taxpayers.
	Divorced Women.
	Single Women.
	College Students and young voters.
	Anyone who believes that the mother's body is hers and that she
	has the fundamental right of reproductive choice.

	Attempting to persuade anyone that de-facto paternal custody is a
	good thing would be dismissed as easily as the Montana Free-men.

> And of course there would be fewer divorces in the first place.

Divorce is a function of an educational, political, media, and theraputic
system which promotes disfunctional relationships.  In school they would
encourage young people to "play the field", parental interferance was
considered unacceptable, an "arranged date" was the act of someone too
desparate to find their own partner.  An "arranged marriage", or even
parental consent, was considered "Dark Ages Stuff".

The result.  We ended up with 5 generations of "pick up artists", who can
change partners as easily as they can change clothes, but have none of the
commitment, training, and role models required to sustain a relationship
for an extended period of time.  The average couple stays married for
about 7 years.  The average college graduate changes jobs every 3 years,
and relocates every 2 years.  The average adult has had between 7 and 10
sexual partners, and has had their first sexual experience between the
ages of 15 and 18,

In some sort of warped plan, the "Gods" of sociology have tinkered with
the relationship and family model in hopes of creating a social
darwinistic model of the "ideal family", that has resulted in 4
generations of the most sexually promiscuous, alcohol and drug addicted
(including both street and prescription drug addicts).  It is also an
extremely selfish, and extremely irresponsible generation.  It is almost
an overreaction to the "Depression Children" born in the late 1920's and
early 1930's.

Eventually, warfare, "gangsta violence", AIDS, drug addiction, and
underbreeding will eradicate the lower and upper class.  Unfortunately,
the most productive portion of the middle class will disappear, leaving us
in a "Black Market Economy" where everything from bread to medical
supplies will only be available through organized crime.

> And of course that is why it works so well in most of the rest of the
> world, and why the Bible established the father as the head of the
> household 2,000 years ago and created civilization, and why Thomas
> Jefferson respected religion in writing the Constitution.

The Torah also established rules of conduct within marriage, Paul, in his
writings on marriage and sexuality (a celebate advising couples on
marriage...RIGHT) did warn of the dangers of "Abusing your Virgin".  The
Song of Soloman, chapters of Leviticus, the teachings of the talmud, and
the teachings of Hindu, Buddhist, all major religeons advocated marriage
arranged by the parents, supported by the community, and that men should
honor a woman's marriage to another man.  Until 100 years ago, the average
woman married when she was about 14-15, usually after a period of
parentally supervised courtship, less than 9 months before the birth of
the first child.  The average man was 2-5 years older than his wife.
Young tradesmen would become apprentices to their father or their
father-in-law.  Young women would learn domestic skills from her mother
and mother-in-law.

In our perverse culture, we use ignorance, terror, shame, and guilt to
prevent adolescent teens from expressing their sexuality.  Not only has it
not been effective, if has backfired.  Young teen-agers who view R-Rated
movies where the seductively dressed or partially naked woman is
eventually assaulted and murdered have become "Turn-Ons", with couples
using bondage, S&M, and high risk partners to recreate the adrenal rush
that has become the trigger for erotic lust, love, and passion.

By the time an adult is able to see healthy normal sex in film (age 21 in
most states), they have already had experiences and even consider
"streight sex" boring.  The relationships are equally twisted.  In our
frantic fury to "protect" young people and get them to postpone marriage
(a concept made populer under the "New Deal") until the late 20's or even
the late 30's, we have taught them to rely on fantasy, masturbation,
one-night-stands, and "living-together" situations as a substitute for
committed, monogamous, marriage. 

From the time a child first develops sexual/romantic fantasies (around 5
or 6) to the time they actually get married and/or have children (let's
pick age 30 - arbitrarily, appropriate for middle-class), they fantasize
and "shop" for the "ideal partner", like a woman shopping for a prom
dress.  They "try out" everything that remotely resembles their ideal,
often terminating with a closer look at the face that goes with the legs,
the voice that goes with the face, the complaints that come with the
voice, or the demands and expectations that come with the complaints.  Of
course there's the clothes, and the car, and the house or apartment in the
"right neighborhood", and meeting at the "right" club (like a bar is a
good place to meet the potential mother of your children?).

The men try to look like James Bond, Jimmy Dean, or Mathew Broderick,
while the women try to look like Cindy Crawford, Cheryl Teigs, or Madonna.
Then they try to act like they are supposed to act, hide their emotions,
and try to "sample" as much as they can while committing as little as
possible.

> As soon as the courts started making minute decisions about family life,
> the family almost disappeared, and the children of those broken families
> created the gangs and social pathology we now face.

When king Solomon was faced with the delemma of two women who claimed to
be the rightful parent, he offered to cut the baby in half.  One woman
told him to go ahead.  The other woman told King Solomon to let the first
woman have the baby rather than let it be killed.  Paradoxically the woman
who surrendered demonstrated her worthiness to be the mother through her
sacrifice.

In our current court system, we literally cut the child in two.  We offer
visitation, which only creates more conflict between the two parents.  We
expect the father to be "responsible" for the child while the mother seeks
to poison the paternal relationship.  Even if a father were to say, "Let
her have the children", the court would say, "Very well, we will, and you
can pay ransom to keep your child from being destroyed" (we call it child
support).



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Sat May 18 14:07:02 1996