Jump to content

Talk:Fathers' rights movement in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notes from prior versions:

[edit]

In 2004, some Massachusetts voters were offered a chance to vote on a non-binding ballot question about creating a legislative presumption for joint physical custody. One such question was "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the court shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children and the children's right to maximize their time with each parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing child support and abuse prevention laws?" Of those voters choosing to answer the above or similar non-binding ballot initiatives, 84.5% voted approval and 15.5% voted disapproval.

Michael H 34 04:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Members of the fathers rights movement note that in Michigan, the units that perform child support order establishment and enforcement services, the various county Friends of the Court, receive local funding directly from taxpayers and funding converted from the Michigan Title IV-D program, and as a result, more than in any other state, child support in Michigan is paid indirectly to the custodial parent and is first paid to Michigan, and that this is a result of the self interest of the Friends of the Courts, and an indication of the role of self interest in general, for maximizing the amount of child support collected.

Michael H 34 04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

The law and its application

[edit]

These recommended standards, which ‘reflect the most current thinking about the welfare of children and the optimal role of law’,47 favour a departure from a heavily discretionary approach in light of the view that ‘the child’s best interests are a policy goal and not an administrable legal standard’48

47 Bartlett, (US Custody Law) above n 44, 17. 48 Ibid 16.

http://eprints.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00000129/01/raethesis1.pdf

Michael H 34 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

I THE PAST CARETAKING STANDARD

A A new approach to resolving post-separation parenting disputes

The PRINCIPLES1 advocates a radical new approach to the issue of determining parenting arrangements after separation. The central operating idea is found in §2.08. It is that the court should allocate custodial responsibility so that the proportion of custodial time the child spends with each parent approximates the proportion of time each parent spent performing caretaking functions for the child prior to the parents’ separation. This is the past caretaking standard. It is based on the concept of continuity between the intact and separated family.

1 AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (2002). For an explanation and defence see Katherine T. Bartlett, Preference, Presumption, Predisposition, and Common Sense: From Traditional Custody Doctrines to the American Law Institute’s Family Dissolution Project, 36 FAM. L. Q. 11 (2002).

http://www.law2.byu.edu/isfl/saltlakeconference/papers/isflpdfs/Parkinson%20(past%20caretaking).pdf

In other words, the while recognizing that the best interest of the child standard is not an administrable legal standard, the "PRINCIPLES" drafters have decided that (in their idea of what is in the best interest of the child) caretaking will be valued more than breadwinning when deciding parenting time.

Michael H 34 01:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Darren Mack

[edit]

Reference does not support the statemetn "Although Mack saw himself as a martyr for fathers' rights." There is insufficient support for linking Darren Mack - wife killer - to the fathers' rights movement; or violence in general to the fathers' rights movement. Authors seem to confuse any violent act by any man as related to the fathers' rights movement. Rogerfgay 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, in one message he holds himself up as a martyr for the father's rights movement saying, "remember, they want me as a sacrificial lamb. They want the pleasure of executing me." " Michael H 34 22:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

"What has this case done to the father's rights movement in this country?" Roberts asks Tong. "And it's certainly slapped me in the face," Tong says. "How dare you be a martyr for this, for what we've worked so hard for."

"Darren Mack, though now behind bars, still sees himself as a father’s rights advocate. His daughter, Erika, visits him in jail and had been living with Charla's mother." Michael H 34 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

No evidence is provided that Mack worked as a fathers' rights activist. Mack is not even quoted as saying that he is connected to a fathers' rights group. The author has created the connection to the fathers' rights movement, otherwise he would have provided better evidence of the connection. Michael H 34 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Claim?

[edit]

The word "claim" is used far too often in the article. Facts such as federal incentives for child support programs are well-established, well-documented, and possible to confirm. It misrepresents to refer to facts as claims. Rogerfgay 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Michael H 34 22:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Alleged?

[edit]

As in "Alleged abuses of government power" - the word alleged, just as "claim" is an editorial comment, obviously adding a question mark to factual information. You could, for example, use a title like "inequalities in law" or "unequal treatment" instead of leaning on "abuse of power" with the sense that the subject needs to be cast as an allegation. An overall comment - the fathers' rights movement developed for very concrete reasons and would not exist if problems did not really exist. (Well maybe - two guys in a garage - but it's a lot more than that.) There are plenty of facts to support the argument, even if you do include a section of criticism. Rogerfgay 15:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Michael H 34 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Books - Major Studies

[edit]

Stephen Baskerville's new book "Taken into Custody, The War against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family" is now available. There is no doubt this is a master-work representing core issues of the fathers' rights movement. Baskerville is president of American Coalition of Fathers and Children, the largest fathers' rights organization in the world. Although ACFC is based in the US, Baskerville is not actually a native. He has been published quite often in Europe and the book provides an international perspective. This book should certainly be cited here - and I'm sure that his thesis can go a long way in helping to characterize the issues in a well organized way. If I can add a comment in support of what I've said above (about lack of credibility of opposition) - Baskerville makes clear a couple of points. There is no scientific evidence at all supporting the assumptions behind policies that FR groups complain about.

Another great reference - is Sanford Bravers' book "Diroved Dads: Shattering the Myths" based on the largest federally funded study of divorced fathers in the US (probably the world). Braver also points out that there is no scientific evidence in support of the assumptions underlying policies that FR groups complain about. Both point out that the evidence is squarely in favor of FR. Baskerville proceeds to deal more directly with the central issues involved in the contraversy, pointing out that all the myths have long since been disproven.

The major US study on custody is covered in Custody Revolution: Father Custody and the Motherhood Mystique by Richard A. Warsh. The research abolishes anti-joint-custody assumptions. Rogerfgay 09:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background and history

[edit]

Should include dramatic changes in family law and policy that gave rise to the movement, which did not exist 20 years ago. In the US, a critical date was December 1990 (with passage of federal laws during the 1980s and a history that goes back to 1975). December 1990 is the date federal reform of child support laws went into effect; which provided the basis of vast corruption and triggered an escalating war against fathers. Moving to the present day, it is commonly understood in the US at least, that the war against fathers was part of a more general war against marriage, which has since been transformed legally from a sacred constitutionally protected private issue to nothing more than an arbitrary government policy choice. Rogerfgay 09:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been concentrating on the Fathers' Rights Movement article. I intend to work on this article in the future. I've ordered Stephen Baskerville's new book. Michael H 34 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Critical Transformation

[edit]

I mention the legal transformation of marriage above (Background and history). In P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993), a federal appellate court declared that family policy in the US is catagorized as "social policy." In general discussion, and some other countries, this may seem like a basic and perhaps uninteresting observation. Under US law however, it was a critical transformation. "Social policy" (also economic policy) is an area of law based entirely on arbitrary policy choice. Examples include how much people on public support are entitled to receive and the level of taxes one is required to pay. Regardless of whether you think your own country's policies are completely arbitrary, there is no constitutionally defined right for an individual to challenge these decisions - other than through voting for someone you agree with. This was a fundamental change from its former status: family being seen as basic to human existence and sacred private ground. Prior to the ruling, courts agreed that family rights are among the most basic, and that parental rights are always more important than a state's desire to intrude. Had it not been for this reclassification of family law, courts would have been forced by constitutional rulings toward even handed treatment of parents. Because of the reclassification, courts were pushed rapidly and dramtically away from that principle.

possible references

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay050603.htm

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay082004.htm

arbitrary manipulation

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/02/gay080702.htm

--Rogerfgay 11:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Phases of the fathers' rights movement

[edit]

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/14/phases-of-the-fathers%e2%80%99-rights-movement/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child Support

[edit]

If editors here have special expertise in subjects related to fathers' rights, I think you might want to know that I've challenged the neutrality of the Wikipedia article on Child_support. My reason is explained on the topic's talk page, where I have also posted and explained reason for a move template. Rogerfgay 13:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father X

[edit]

The Father X case could really use some work: grammar, sources, and placement. If the case is notable, it should have sources. If it is current, it should be tagged as such. If there is notable connection to the Fathers' rights movement in general (many advocates pointing to the case) then it belongs here in summation. This is more closely connected to paternity fraud and it seems to belong there, or in its own article. 216.231.159.16 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fathers' rights movement in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fathers' rights movement in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fathers' rights movement in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fathers%27_rights_movement_in_the_United_States&oldid=1218482615"