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



	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


On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Fathers' Manifesto wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Robert A. Hirschfeld wrote:
> > >>Not once did you have the decency to write to the same audience an explanation,
> > >>if in fact your outrageous stand-alone statement was merely "sarcasm".
> 
> Sharad Sharif responded:
> > >What audience other than you required an explanation?
> 
> Hirschfeld responds:
> The Fathers' Manifesto explains:
> 
> The complete transcript of this discussion on joint custody versus father
> custody, in which Mr.  Sharif, a dedicated hard-working fathers' rights
> advocate who has held rallys and protest and marched on courthouses and
> governor's offices, showed his exasperation by saying "give custody to the
> mothers for all I care", is available at
> http://idt.liberty.com/~fathers9/jc

Aren't there days when, regardless of how much you want costody for
yourself, or a joint custody that actually works, you just want to give
up?  It is really frustrating!!!  There are moments when, if they said
"sign here and end your child support", the temptation to start fresh
rather then being held hostage through my children, would be too much.

Does this mean I don't care?  Does this mean I don't deserve to live?
Does this mean I deserve to spend the rest of my life in jail?  Does this
mean I deserve to never see my kids again?  Does this mean I deserve to
spend the rest of my life working double shifts to pay child support?

There are those who would say "yes" to all of the above.  Not because
I would think of giving them to their stepfather (who does love them and
does take good care of them), but because I allowed my wife to marry her
lover.  This is the justice of the Family Court System.

> The transcript shows that only one individual out of hundreds of posts
> took exception to Mr. Sharif's statement, and on top of that insulted him. 
> 
> The invisible thousands of people which Hirschfeld refers to above have as
> yet to reveal themselves, and apparently are the same group which
> constitutes the "85% of fathers who support joint custody" rather than 
> father custody.

I have already gone on record as supporting neither.  I believe that both
parents have the unalienable right to raise their children.  I believe
that a divorce which involves children should require a mandatory hearing
and review - at state expense.  Furthermore, I do not believe it is right
for the state to take either parent away from his children and then force
the person who has lost those he has loved more than anyone else in the
world, to pay tribute to a court that will turn the money over to the
other parent and her lover/boyfriend/girlfriend.

> It is proposed that Hirschfeld either get his constituents to express 
> their own views clearly, or stop asserting that there are others who:

As I said, I don't subsribe to the mandatory father custody.  This would
just bring us back to the days when the father would run off with the
"heroine of his nocturnal emissions" and expect to take the kids with him.
I suppose you would force the mother to pay child support or perform maid
service?

> 1) don't appreciate the work that Mr. Sharif has done on behalf of 
> fatherhood.

I don't always agree with Mr. Sharif, but at least he's doing something.

> 2) do believe that demanding joint custody in place of father custody is a 
> reasonable strategy for the fatherhood "movement".

History has shown that any "de-facto" decision is likely to be wrong 85%
of the time.  Those selecting divorce would be those most likely to get
custody.  Those selecting the divorce would be those most likely to
prepare for the divorce by having a "replacement" for the original parent
in the back pocket.  Those selecting the divorce would be most likely to
abuse the spouse into submission.

There are no substitutes for "Due Process".  For the court to deprive a
man of livelihood, liberty, and property without a trial of his peers,
without being informed of the exact nature of the charges against him,
without being allowed to establish a defence, without being able to be
represented by compitent council, and without right to privacy and
security.  This is the ultimate unconstitutional injustice.  What next,
Iron Maidens?  Chain Gangs?  Death Camps?  Public Executions?

> Should no credible evidence or witnesses to the benefits of fathers
> "fighting" for joint custody, rather than corralling their resources to
> IMPLEMENT father custody, present itself, this round of debates regarding
> joint custody has come to a close. 

A position based exclusively on father custody is destined to lose.  It
will never be given a legitimate hearing.  A position based on justice and
constitutionality at least has a chance.

> The FM Signatories shall now proceed to implement father custody. 

Please remove my name from the FM Signatories.

	Rex Ballard.



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Mon Jun 24 17:00:07 1996
Status: O
X-Status: