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




Q - Is it proposed that the mother be required/mandated to participate in an interview regarding
placement of children with their biological relatives, with those relatives present?

A - Her choice.  If she is interested in the welfare of the children there is no need to mandate her
appearance.  But she must be advised of this interview.  Excluding either parent, as fathers are
currently excluded, is not helpful to the children, to the mother, to the father, or to the taxpayer.

Q - If so, would this not take a change in state law and perhaps even federal law?

Possibly not.  This is currently being evaluated.

Q - Who is to enforce this requirement, and what are the consequences to the mother and
children for failure to cooperate?

If the father or another biological relative is willing, able, and capable of taking care of their own
children or grandchildren, and if this removes the stigma of welfare from the children, and if this
enables the mother to pursue education and a career, and if this saves taxpayers $200 Billion
per year, then what "enforcement" is required?  All that is needed is for the government to end
the practice of removing children from their fathers.  No children are going to carried kicking and
screaming from their mothers' arms.

Q - Is not the requirement that children participate breaking new ground with regard to children
having to participate in the welfare application process?  Will this not be of major concern to
child advocates?  Will children feel harassed, scared, be missing school to subject themselves to
this?

A - This is ground that should have been broken 3 decades ago.  Child advocates cannot deny
the desirability of getting fathers back into their children's lives.  The recent "Focus on Fathers
Summit" in Burbank and the "Family Conference" in Anaheim sponsored by Governor Wilson
established the desirability of returning fathers to their children's lives.  This has become a
national priority which no "child advocate" can deny.  David Blankenhorn says "In order to assure
that every child has a father present, we are going to have to take care of our own children,
PLUS one more".  Missing from school, scared, or harassed when presented with the opportunity
to gain a father?  Even in the rare event that a child has to miss school is well worth it.

It is time to break new ground with a system which has contributed so much to the bankruptcy of
the nation, financially and morally.  The fact that neither the father nor the children,  are involved
in such an expensive and profound process

Q - What controls will there be put in place to assure that the Father Placement Council:

1) Does not violate the mother's/child's constitutional rights to due process?

A - The same controls that are in place now for the father's constitutional rights.

2) Has staff performing this function who are properly trained, sensitive,and have undergone a
criminal record check?

A - Clearly those functions can be performed adequately today.  The fathers who have
committed to maintaining integrity in this process are honest, sincere, and dedicated and have
no political issues to dilute their goals.

Q - What evidence is there that removing the children from the custody of their mother (who is
applying for welfare) and placing them instead with the father or paternal grandfather is not
simply substituting the sociological impact of one parent being absent from the family for that of
another parent now being missing?

A - it can't get worse.  All of the evidence is that it will get much better.  Fatherlessness is clearly
the underpinning of our social pathology.  [ref: THE GARBAGE GENERATION by Dr. Daniel
Amneus, and THE MYTH OF MALE POWER by Dr. Warren Farrell].  But primarily most
estimates are that both divorce and illegitimacy could decline by as much as 90%, which would
both reduce the number of single-parent families and increase the number of two-parent
families.  It almost doubles the number of parents involved in parenting.  This is the heart of the
solution.

Q - Is single father involvement any better for the child than single mother involvement?

A - Because there are so few single-father families the data is scarce.  But what is common
knowledge is that they are better environments than single-mother families, especially if the
choice is between single-mother families living under the stigma of welfare or single-father
families which are self-supporting.

Q - What is the legal authority for the welfare department or the Father Placement Council to
remove children from the custody of the mother and place them with a father or grandfather?

A - The US Constitution does not give the courts authority to divorce children from their father's
care.  The highest authority granted by the Constitution regarding the care of children rested with
the father, and not with the legislature nor with the courts.  The Bible specifically gives the father
both authority and responsibility for his children.  The use of this unconstitutional and secular
power by the legislature and by the courts has not benefitted children, fathers, savings accounts,
the economy, social stability, nor even mothers.

Q - Does this not require court intervention and decisions?

A - No.

Q - Hasn't the family law court in many of these cases decided the issue of child placement, and
isn't the court itself the only source of legal action to change the placement?

The court has supreseded the authority granted it and violated Biblical, constitutional, and
common law principles by awarding custody only to mothers who can't afford to raise them
without a huge cost to taxpayers, while not involving their biological fathers.

Q - If so who is going to petition the court,and who will pay those legal costs (including the legal
cost of the mother who, in many cases, will want to fight the petition in the court setting)?

A - Achieving "equality in parenting" can be achieved without the involvement of the court or the
legislature or any legal costs.

Q - Who will determine the appropriateness of the father to have custody (i.e., a father with a
violent and/or serious criminal record may be a much worse choice for placement than allowing
the children to remain with mother, even if welfare is the primary source of economic
resources)?

A - The father.  If not, the paternal grandfather.  Next, the maternal grandfather.  Next, uncles.
The US Office of Technology Assessment commissioned Howard Dubowitz through a health
program to evaluate child abuse, and his report dated May 1987 entitled "Child Maltreatment in
the US" points out that:
	Child abuse and neglect in the 8 years from 1976 to 1984 increased 158%.  This
parallelled the increase in mother-headed households and the corresponding decrease in Father-
headed households indicating problems stemming from Father-absence.  The study concluded
that 2.3% of sexual abuse of girls was by biological Fathers versus 17% by step-Fathers.  This
suggests that girls in the custody of their divorced mothers who remarried were 7.4 times more
likely to be sexually abused as those who remain in Father-headed households.  It reported that
37% of child maltreatment occurred in mother-headed households versus 23% in all US
Families.  It reported that 44,700 children were sexually abused in 1979 which was 0.07% of all
children below the age of 18 years.


Q - The family law court presently makes these often heart wrenching decisions:  is it proposed
that for welfare applicants this ominous authority be turned over to some bureaucrat or to the
Father Placement Council?

A - No.  This will be a "FAMILY DECISION" involving all concerned members of the children's
biological family and not one made in a vacuum in sterile court rooms by third party bureaucrats
with no vested interest in the children's future welfare.

Q - Is this about what is best for the children or what is best for their fathers?

A - Yes.

Q - What do we do with the mother with multiple kids from multiple fathers, with marriage not
having occurred in some or perhaps all of these births?  Do we split up the kids among the
several fathers, thereby breaking up the family of stepbrothers and stepsisters?  is this better for
the kids than keeping them together with mom?

Imagine if you yourself, the son or daughter of a welfare mom, is given the opportunity to live
with his natural father, at least 50% of whom are living above the poverty line and thus are self-
supporting.  The answer would be very clear.

Q - Is the intent that this proposal applies only to welfare applicants who were at one time
married?  What about the burgeoning population of moms who were never married to the father?

A - There is no greater dishonor the state could force onto a child's life than to fail to take every
action to identify his father and avoid a childhood of fatherlessness.  By all means we should
work diligently to care for the children of this burgeoning population of moms.

regards,



fathers



ps - your comments, suggestions, advice, insults, etc., are invited.


From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Fri Jul  7 20:07:51 1995
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA00837 ; for ; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 20:07:49 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA25785 for online-news-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 16:35:31 -0600
Received: from mailserv1.startribune.com (mailserv1.StarTribune.com [132.148.25.25]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA25775 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 1995 16:35:18 -0600
Message-Id: <9507072233.AA03151@mailserv1.startribune.com>
Received: from pc25-63.startribune.com ([132.148.25.63]) by mailserv1.startribune.com; Fri, 7 Jul 95 17:33:04 CDT
X-Sender: rocky@startribune.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: online-news@marketplace.com