silversavant2021

[silversavant2021]

[silversavant2021]

If HE cannot have access to your bank account; maybe you should reconsider giving him access to your BODY!

[silversavant2021]

The Least Protected Group...Single Fathers!

There are several laws that protect various groups in our society, and in various areas...employment, wages, education, etc. According to the U.S Federal Law website, “these laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity”. However, although they protect according to gender, there is another group within gender which needs protecting in another specific area. That area is fatherhood, and when it comes to their rights to their children after separation, and/or divorce.

If we look through the articles online, and in booklets on custody we will see a great deal of information on what is called conservatorship and in all of these documents the deciding factor is a term called, “the best interest of the child”. In looking at that statement, we would think it would be both parents but it is not.

In Texas, the Family Code gives the father the same rights as the mother as far as custody of the children however that is rarely carried out. The mother is usually granted the position of custodial parent, even if the father is in a better position of stability in order to have the child(ren).

The imbalance has gotten so great until various states are beginning to take action on behalf of the fathers. In Massachusetts, a ballot initiative was created, and approved 85 to 15 percent on protecting the rights of the father. The ballot was an initiative to approve equal legal and physical custody of the children in the case of divorce. This ballot was requesting that “the courts uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children”. And that state is not the only one requesting this by proposition on behalf of fathers. The Washington Post had an article by Michael Allison Chandler entitled “More than 20 states in 2017 considered laws to promote shared custody of children after divorce.”

One would have to ask; why is this necessary since most custody paperwork state that either parent has the right to conservatorship, or custody? It is because Family Courts use the concept called “best interest of the child” to decide who will hold this position, and that term is wholly subjective. Over the years, this term has been used to give custody, in most cases, to the mother.

Ms. Chandler also states that, “we are led to believe that the plight of fatherless children is caused by husbands walking out on their wives, fathers abandoning their children, and “deadbeat dads” when one of the best-kept secrets in American society today is that two-thirds of divorces are now sought by wives, not husbands”. She claims that the “feminist movement has taught wives that they can seek “liberation” by walking out of their marriage contract and marital duties and still reap the benefits of marriage, i.e. their children and his money.”

In considering the background elements of this controversial topic I interviewed Baba Richard and Sri Namaste Moore, who are “The Infinite Couple” and have a combination of 30+ years of experience, (and success), in dealing with men, women, and couples regarding relationships.

Sri Namaste stated that this basically started with “Women’s Rights” movement, and explained how this played into this situation of mothers being given more rights than fathers in the case of custody.

She elaborated on what two legal rights, which were attached to this movement, brought about:

• Women’s Reproductive Rights:

• Reproductive Rights — claims having the ability to decide whether, and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health. Research suggests that being able to make decisions about one’s own reproductive life and the timing of one’s entry into parenthood is associated with greater relationship stability and satisfaction.

• AbortionRights:

• AccesstoAbortion-IntheUnitedStates,the1973SupremeCourtcaseRoev.Wade established the legal right to abortion. State legislative and executive bodies nonetheless continue to battle over legislation related to access to abortion, including parental consent and notification and mandatory waiting periods. In addition, public funding for abortion remains a contested issue in many states: federal law has banned the use of federal funds for most abortions since 1977, and currently does not allow the use of federal funds for abortion unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest or the woman’s life is in danger. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 reinforces these restrictions, but state Medicaid programs have the option to cover abortion in other circumstances using only state, and no federal funds.

Sri Namaste stated, “Initially, women were supposed to be given Reproductive Rights/Freedoms however a woman had that already, and had already exercised her right when she chose to have unprotected sex. That was/is her exercising her “right to reproduce” by allowing herself to get pregnant. She had a choice to prevent that from happening by several different means.

“Then giving her the sole right to decide to keep the baby, or not, is giving her sovereignty as well. Now she has the right to decide “life or death” with impunity in the case of this child. Even though the child was created by the woman and the man; the father has no rights and even if he wants the baby, (which belongs to him as well), he has no right to it.”

Also, that baby is not “her body”, it is a whole separate entity.

Sri Namaste also stated, “The “double standard” is amazing! If the pregnancy is wanted then, even at the earliest stages, the woman celebrates the pregnancy. She will call the baby “hers”, buys clothes, has a celebration, names the baby, etc. And if she should “miscarry”, (lose the baby), she mourns, has a funeral, etc. HOWEVER, if the pregnancy is unwanted...suddenly it is NOT a baby, it is a fetus – a non-thing.”

I asked her how did all that plays into child custody?

She stated, “Because the woman has already been given “sovereignty” over the baby/fetus before birth so it just carries over when the child is born...she still has those rights. However, everyone should be sovereign over their own life, and when one has a child, that is a “separate” life which belongs to the mother AND the father who made it.”

“Also, because that child is a combination of the mother and the father, she shouldn't be able to make that decision alone, and definitely not on the behalf of the father. The state should be the entity who is stepping in to ensure decisions would be neutral, but they are not.”

I was surprised at how all of this fit together.

In order to get a perspective from a man, from a father’s point of view, and from one who had gone through a divorce and custody within in the court system, I then spoke to Baba Richard, who stated:

“I think fundamentally there is something that is happening here. Once you are a parent then being a good parent is based on time passing and you being engaged in that. In talking about the role of the father, what is happening and is implicit in the whole system is that fatherhood is irrelevant. The “state” is functioning as the “father surrogate” and making decisions as to what the state and the woman are going to do about the child(ren).”

“The father is looked at as an economic contributor at maximum, or somebody that if you refuse, or are not meeting whatever standard they say, economically, then you are punished. The system is already in place that you, father, are here to provide economics so the state and the mother can decide what they are going to do with your resources in order to decide what the future of your child is going to be.”

“Once one starts from a “faulty premise” all decisions after that...none of them can be, “well this is great”, because it is a “domino effect”. Look at fatherhood and motherhood as two parallel lines...train tracks, if you will...equal parallel lines and they must be because they both have equal responsibility for the welfare of what they created. Once we say the only “line” that matters is the motherhood line when going forward, then the fatherhood line veers off...we don’t need that, don’t want that line. So, once you engage with the state those two lines are no longer parallel, and never brought back into parallel. Fatherhood gets a “dotted line” which says “you can pay money but we will decide how often you see the child.”

“Visitation is something you do for someone who is “incarcerated”. You don’t visit your “prodigy”, you don’t “visit” your children, children don’t “visit” you. What are they talking about? Either we ALL visit, or nobody visits. Shared custody by default, NOT an arrangement the father has to negotiate his way into. The presumption should be that BOTH parents will share equal responsibility for raising the child(ren) that they have created between the two of them.”

“When you go into that equation with the idea that “woman create children”, and men- we don’t know what they do...but they are engaged in some level of “malfeasance” or irresponsibility because a child has come forward so now the state needs to come in to make things fair...better...more equitable, for the women. One has to wonder, “how is the state the arbiter between these two people?”

“There is a default belief/assumption that there has been some wrong-doing on the part of the man...the scales are inherently imbalanced and “justice”, the state, is stepping in to balance this inequity. The woman has been victimized by this man through the act of pregnancy and now the state is here to make things right again.”

“You, the woman, being right, and righteous, should be supported in whatever you decide to do. It is impossible for you to not to visit your children because the presumption is that the child is at home, and home is always with YOU.”

However, in the case of the man, let’s bullet point the situation and think like this... “Imagine a world where”:

-You are guilty before the proceedings even start.

-All you will get is a decision as to what level of punishment you will endure.

-You will never be found “not guilty” because this is the nature of things.

-You will incur penalties that are overwhelming in most cases.

There is no court of appeals, the only thing, the most you can get is a lessening of the penalty/sentence but you will have it until the courts decide that you don’t.

“Now where is this? In a foreign country? Or some weird dystopian future where everything has “gone to hell in a handcart”? No, this is what a person live with every day if that person is a MAN, and happen to get divorced from a woman, and there are children involved. Or weren’t married and there are children involved.”

I said, “I don’t understand, why doesn’t the courts give joint custody”? He said...

“It is inherently unfair, and I think that there is a presumption of “guilt” with respect to men who are in court...for whatever reason. When I went for my divorce, the judge, his attitude toward me was hostile for no reason. I am not a criminal, and was not there for an assumption of any criminal activity.”

“While waiting for other people to handle their business I saw many different types of cases. There were people who came through who had committed crimes. I had committed no crime, was only there due to processing a divorce. Me, and this woman, had decided we did not want to go forward in life anymore. I couldn’t understand how I warranted all of this “ire” from the judge? I didn’t know him, personally. We both, (my spouse and I), were there at the same time, and when he talked to her, he was nice, and soft spoken...and then when he talked to me it was, “well, what's this!!!” spoken in anger.

I asked him, “But there are documented “rules” that apply to everybody, even mothers; why aren’t they enforced? He said...

“Because there is another issue as to why things go the way they go. Men are not prepared. Actually, it is almost the opposite of being prepared. They are intentionally unprepared because number one, one of the things that I saw in the four or five guys that I know, including myself when I got divorced, is that they are emotionally exhausted...there is a great deal of stress, strain, etc....and a man has to still keep up everything while all of this going on.”

“One of the things about the linear nature of men is that we, we don't do well with this kind of “stress”. We don’t maintain hatred in “perpetuity”. Even if you look at a man whose been trained as a military soldier...yes, they may be upset about the enemy...but the actual pulling of the trigger, or launching the missile is very dispassionate. This is just a job that he is doing...combatants over there...we got them all right, cool. Let's go home, you know, but they don't usually keep that “emotional charge” every day.

“But it's one of the things about the feminine, and I've seen it, they can hold a grudge. Oh my God...even if the two people haven't been together for decades, kids are grown, and gone on and whatever. And it's like, you want to set her off, mention his name in her presence, and it's just like the day that they got divorced.”

“The point being is that when they go into this court situation, number one, most people don’t have any experience with this...it’s not like buying a car, one gets to do this many times so they know what to expect. When they go into this situation, it's the first time, and they don't know what to think or how it's going to go. Also, all they want is for the pain to stop, and they think that after this, we can be “okay”, it’s official.”

“Most men are at the point where they think, “You know what, I'll start over, whatever car, house, whatever things. I don't care. I don't care about any of that because being able to sleep at night”, even if they have to sleep on a pallet. However, here’s the hinge that door swings on...the men go into this thinking that what she wants is stuff, right? What they find out is what she wants is for him to suffer, and no amount of money, no amount of stuff, all the things that he gave, the “quid to the pro quo” that he thinks is going to happen... doesn’t!” 

And so that's a double whammy because then they're shocked because they're like, wait a minute, I gave you what you said you wanted...all the stuff. I let you have whatever it is that you want up to, and including what I considered the most precious...the care of the children. But now he finds that the woman, the court, and the state are thinking, “how much worse can we make this? What else can we do?” Whatever he thought he was going to give, that's not enough, and he is thinking, “Wait a minute, I gave everything so how can that not be enough? There isn’t anything more to give.” And the courts state, “you better come up with something because now we have rules in place that where we're going from present into the future. And now as a state, we can enforce those rules and say, not only have you given all of your material possessions presently, now we are going to look into the future and you will give all your possessions in perpetuity, or until the child(ren) are 18-21 years old.”

“Suddenly, he comes into this realization that the rules that are imposed upon men in that situation are only for men. There are no equivalent rules for women. So, if he doesn't do whatever the court says, then there are penalties and it is NOT that she can’t do what the court says and “be penalized”, it is because she has no rules!”

Personally, I was shocked, and had nothing else to say.

As I began to research further for the solution(s) to this challenge for “fathers”, I decided to do some research on this topic with “Father’s Rights” organizations. I found three agencies, and interviewed the three men who had started, and/or participated in them. What I found was confirming.

The first person interviewed in this arena was Joshua Banks, who is the Founder/Facilitator of IDADS, (Involved Dads of Action Developing and Succeeding), and he is the Program Coordinator. His agency has been in operation since 2015, and his motivation was dealing with families for 7 years as a Pastor. He assisted 300+ people through online summits, and approximately 80 fathers on a weekly basis.

He states, “It is always better for the child when there is joint custody however the system seems to be in opposition to this. It seems that “best interest of the child” always translate to the Mom. A majority of the fathers I deals with want to be involved in their children’s lives, and the few who are reluctant is due to the “toxicity” of the relationship with the mothers.”

His advice to fathers seeking joint custody to:

Engage the Mom, try to get her “onboard”.

As soon as the child is born, go to child support court, (whether you live together or not), so there will be no risk of “arrears”, (even if you only put payment as $100).  This is because even if you take care of your child, pay bills in the household, etc. the “child support system” does NOT acknowledge/recognize support paid OUTSIDE of their courts. This will make it easier when you go to Family Court regarding custody.

Build Credibility - Employment, shelter, and a proper environment for his child.

Effort - It won’t be easy, and he will have to “fight”.

Involvement - No matter how difficult it is made, stay involved!

Attorney - If at all possible, get an attorney.

His agency is currently involved with the Attorney General’s Father’s Rights Division; Child Protection Services - Father’s Rights Coalition; and the University of Texas - Child and Family Research Partnership under Dr, Osborn. His agency also receives referrals from Child Protective Services.

The second person I interviewed in this area was Isaac Rowe, who is the Founder of “The Man In Me”, and he is the CEO. His agency has been in operation since 2012, and his motivation was seeing the “fatherless sons” in his arena. He was also troubled by what he saw a friend go through not being able to be with his father...saw it from a “child’s” standpoint. He decided to tell fathers to fight for their rights, and more time with their children. He assists 300+ men through conferences, and speaking engagements, and approximately 80-120 men weekly/bi-weekly.

He states, “Joint custody is always best for the child because everyone is doing their part for the sake of that child. A father’s participation beyond “court appointed visitation” is very important, and valuable to the child. The biggest hinderance I have seen is that the judges will rule against fathers, and there is definitely a double standard.”

He doesn’t have much dealings with the agencies in the area however they have helped fathers to come to his meetings. His advice to fathers seeking joint custody is to:

• Try to co-bond with child,(easier when mom is onboard). • Take care of himself,(spiritually, mentally, physically, financially). • Get in programs to better themselves • Don’t give up,or sign over rights, [you will still have to pay child support]. • Show responsibility; employment, housing, etc. • Don’t get behind in child support payment; no child support arrears.

The last person I interviewed in this area was Marcus Griggs, who is the Director of Fatherhood Services at “The Man In Me”. His motivation was having a well-adjusted dad, and see what not having one had done to youth, and men. He transitioned from working with youth to working with men. Also, he saw the “system” was not set-up for “families”, (which included fathers). He assists 30-40 men on an average.

He said, “All the men I deals with want to “father” their children. I feel that it is better for the children to have both parents, and even research has proven that there is damage to children due to a lack of fathers.”

He states the biggest hinderance to fathers is: • They are not a consideration • They have to“jump thru hoops” to qualify which is not done with mothers. 

• Laws are not enforced with mothers.

His advice to fathers seeking custody is to: • Be prepared for an“intake”,which is required of fathers, only. • Get information - know what the requirements are before you go to one. 

• Be employed, have a residence, etc. • Have a willingness to fight for their child(ren).

He also said there is a program called “NCP-Choices” which assist fathers with “back child support” however there may be a qualification that the fathers have a “good” relationship with the mother. He also receives referrals from Child Support Services.

I must say that I did note that each person stated some sort of “appeasing of the mother” as a prerequisite to any possibility of getting joint custody, and even a service. This speaks directly to the bias-ness of that system.

In my research I noted several situations, these included the:

Bias-ness of Judicial Systems in Texas, [and in most states]:

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get visitation.

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get joint custody, even when he is qualified.

There are NO rules, requirements, regulations, or qualifications for mothers

Unfairness of the “System”:

• If a woman births a baby, and is unable to take care of it, she gets free

 “Government assistance/subsidies” in the form of:

• Medical Care • Food Stamps • Finances Aid

• Housing – Section 8 vouchers/certificate • Free, or Subsidized Daycare • Earned Income Credit on tax returns

However, if a father creates a baby, and he is unable to support it he gets:

• Excessive child support payments, and if he is unable to pay then:  

-He loses his driver’s license -He is put in jail. -His income tax is garnisheed.

-He is stigmatized, and alienated from his child.

My question is, “Shouldn’t the one chosen to be the CUSTODIAL PARENT be the ONE who is most capable of, and the most responsible in caring for the child with the LEAST amount of assistance from the government”?

Then there is the case(s) of:

There are REQUIREMENTS which the fathers have to achieve, and which have to be PROVEN in order to have visitation, and/or to be “custodial” parent, when the mothers do not.

If mothers do not allow the fathers to see their child on the appointed days, the courts do not enforce his rights, or penalize her behavior.  The father’s are sent to a different court for that.

Fathers are required to take “fathering classes/counseling” and to pay for them, while this is never required of the mother.

In my reviewing the “Standard Possession Order and Parenting Time” on the TXACCESS. ORG website I found the “visitation schedule” that is given to fathers, (yearly time given to spend with their child(ren)):

The schedule of time assigned to fathers in order to see their children are “every first and third weekend, every fifth weekend, 2 hours on Weds. or Thurs. each week”, every other holiday week, and 30 days in the summer. This amount to, (yearly-2020):

Regular Weekends = 48 days

Fifth Weekends = 8 days

Thursdays - 2 hours = 4.3 days

Alternate Hours

• Sub-Total is: 60.3 days a year

Holidays Weeks - alternate between odd/even years (additional 7 days when it is his year).

Summer Vacation - 30 days • Total of 90.3 to 97.3 days a year! That is not even 1/3 of the year!!!

As I began to look at the negative impact on fathers when the mothers are the “custodial parent” I realized something. As a mother of 4 adult children, and 18 grandchildren I realize that women learn how to be “good mothers” by being with their child(ren) on consistent, daily, hands-on basis. When fathers only have “visitation rights” that is minimal access. They do not get the opportunity to properly develop “fathering abilities”, to learn and grow with their child(ren), and/or to actually experience being a “father”. Also, if they aren’t as good at it as mom, then they are penalized for not being “good” at something they were not allowed to do by the court systems, and the mothers, who didn’t allow it.

Finally, there is another challenge to this...according to the US Department of Human Services/Child Protection Resources Online, mothers were more likely to abuse their children than fathers at a percentage of 70.6% vs 29.4%.

According to Allie Morris, of the San Antonio Express-News, it is reported that in 2018, 211 children had died from child abuse in Texas. It is also noted that in half of those deaths, CPS- Child Protection Services had been investigating the cases. If the statistics are true, (from CPS), then in most of those cases the mothers had custody. I have to wonder how many of those cases were because the children were allowed to remain with the mothers, instead of being given to the fathers.

Also, why are courts, and CPS, ignoring this information instead of making it a consideration when determining who would be in the “best interest of the child”?

As you can see, there is a need for legislation to be put in place not only to “protect” fathers from the bias-ness of what is already in place, but children as well. There needs to be a revision of the Judicial System on the behalf of fathers and their children for the future.