Fathers' rights movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rights
Animal rights
Children's rights
Civil rights
Collective rights
Equal rights
Fathers' rights
Gay rights
Group rights
Human rights
Inalienable rights
Individual rights
Legal rights
Men's rights
Natural right
Negative & positive
Reproductive rights
Self-defense
Social rights
"Three generations"
Women's rights
Workers' rights
Youth rights
This box: view • talk • edit

The Fathers' rights movement has been characterized as a civil rights movement,[1][2] whose members are primarily interested in issues affecting fathers and children related to family law, including child custody and child support sometimes after divorce.[3][4] The movement has also been characterized as a social movement,[5][6] but members of the fathers' rights movement disagree and state that these issues are "a question not of social science, but of constitutional government."[7] The movement receives international press coverage as a result of high profile style activism of Fathers 4 Justice and other national organizations internationally.[4][3]

Contents

[edit] Background and history

[edit] The Movement

The fathers' rights movement is a grouping of individuals and groups who are highly diverse in goals, methods and political views, and who focus on a narrow set of issues of interest to their members.[8] It is not simply a men's movement, as women have increasingly become involved in activities promoting fathers' rights; these women are often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law.[9][1][3]

Discussion about fathers' rights issues began in the West in the 1960s as changes in law (discussed below) prompted an examination of the legal rights and responsibilities of fathers and parents in general.[8] During the 1970s fathers' rights organisations such as Families Need Fathers emerged.[8] The movement has become increasingly vocal, visible and organised, and has played a powerful presence in family law debates.[3] Some commentators see the rise of the movement as a 'backlash' to increasing female power in the family and in society, and the consequent challenge to men's traditional roles and authority. In this view, the movement is seen as part of a 'gender war' between the sexes. Other commentators propose a more complex analysis that sees several interrelated trends as leading to the growing prominence of the movement. They suggest that shifting household demographics, including greater fragmentation of families through the decline in marriage and rising divorce/separation rates, have increased the fragility of men's relationships with their children.[3][4]

Some fathers’ rights groups have been short-lived and unstable, as members and leaders do not remain with the group after they have been helped.[9][3] Infighting within groups has occurred.[10]

Differences in philosophy between groups show in their approaches to the issues they are concerned for. While Fathers 4 Justice has used demonstrations and stunts to secure public attention, other groups have attempted to engage the political process. The Cheltenham Group has conducted a comprehensive survey of father's experiences, of the then members of Families Need Fathers in 1995. Publishing their report The Emperor's New Clothes in 1996, it remains online at Cheltenham Group website.

Some fathers' rights activists in various countries have been accused and/or convicted of criminal activities, including stalking[11] and harassment.[12][13][14][15][16] In addition, Darren Mack, who sought help from a fathers' rights group and who later killed his wife and attempted to kill a family court judge, was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.[17][18][19][20] Glenn Sacks, a prominent fathers' rights activist, has criticized persons he has called "the lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement", who describe the perpetrators of violent crimes against family court judges and others as "some sort of freedom fighters."[21]

[edit] Changes in Law

Domestic relations law, divorce, custody, and child support, originates under the Common Law. Natural rights as defined under the Common Law had reciprocal Common Law obligations. Initially state interference into domestic relations matters required criminal acts, criminal ‘Breaches of Duty’, i.e., criminal breaches of Common Law duties, i.e., breaches of natural law obligations.[22] Willful and intentional acts which had to be proven in a fair and impartial court, i.e. initially in criminal courts; to which a fair and just punishment for these criminal breaches of Common Law duty included the loss of natural rights associated with these violations of natural law obligations.

Under Common Law jurisdiction the reciprocal relationship between the natural law obligation of supporting one's child and the natural right[23] to the care, companionship, and custody of the child, did not permit the punishment of child support without a finding of abandonment or abuse by the parent.[24]

Under the Common Law, married men had absolute right to their children,[25] while married women had absolutely no right to their children, even when the husband was dead.[26] Unmarried women had absolute right to their children even if the mother later married the child’s Father,[27] and unmarried men had a natural right to their children, which was secondary only to the unmarried mother’s natural rights.[28]

Child Support, under statutes and per the Common Law, was a punishment.[29]

Custody matters were determined based on natural rights, not judicial discretion. Two US Supreme Court have explicitly stated,[30] in complete agreement with a federal court decision,[31] custody of children cannot be decided in a court of equity and must be decided under Common Law jurisdiction.

States have removed decisions of divorce, child custody and child support from Common Law courts, which provided for punishments of Common Law breaches of duty, and assigned them to courts of equity. Fitness of the parent was never the issue in Common Law courts. The issue was who had a natural right to the child and had that right been abused.[32]

For additional information about changes in the law, please see "No-fault divorce" below.

[edit] Movement's Activities

The movement's primary focus has been to campaign (including lobbying and research) for formal legal rights for fathers, and sometimes for children, including changes to family law related to child custody, support and maintenance, abuse and violence as well as the perceived inequities in the family court system themselves.[3][33] Fathers’ rights groups also provide emotional and practical support for members during separation and divorce.[33][3]

Some fathers' rights groups have become frustrated with the slow pace of traditional campaigning for law reform.[8] Groups such as Fathers 4 Justice have become increasingly vocal and visible, undertaking public demonstrations which have attracted public attention and influenced the politics of family justice.[8] With the increase in access to the internet, much advocacy, support and development of fathers' rights issues takes place through the internet, on blogs and forums.[citation needed]

Sociologists Scott Coltrane and Neal Hickman state that like other political advocacy groups, members of fathers' rights groups cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems,[34][35] and that they use rhetorical strategies to elicit emotional responses.[34] Michael Flood, a critic of the fathers' rights movement, suggests that its members focus on the needs and wants of fathers as well as issues of "rights", "equality", and "fairness", rather than on the nuts and bolts of actual parenting and the developmental needs and wishes of children.[36][37]

[edit] Main Issues

[edit] No-fault divorce

Main article: No-fault divorce

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce did not stop at removing the requirement that grounds be cited for a divorce, so as to allow for divorce by "mutual consent"; they also allow either spouse to end the marriage without any agreement or fault by the other.[38] They add that while either parent has a right to voluntarily waive their own parental rights and withdraw from their marital and family relationships, the customary practice in divorce courts is to interpret the plaintiff's petition for no-fault divorce as a demand to restrict the defendant parent's family relationships without any evidence that the defendant parent is unfit or harming the child (when unfitness or harm are present, the divorce is not "no-fault"). They also state that no-fault divorce should be referred to as unilateral divorce.[39]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in modern history that have effectively ended marriage as a legal contract.[40] They state that it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family, adding that government officials can, at the request of one spouse, end a marriage over the objection of the other.[40] They state that no-fault divorce has left fathers with no protection against what they describe as the confiscation of their children.[41] Members of the fathers' rights movement propose "reasonable limits" on no-fault divorce when children are involved.[42]

[edit] The Family court system

Main articles: Adversarial system, Family law, and Divorce

Members of the fathers' rights movement criticize the win or lose adversarial system currently used in most Western countries to determine divorce and child custody issues, and define "winning custody" not as the right to parent one's children, but as the power to prevent someone else from parenting his children with the help of the government.[43] They state that family courts are biased against fathers, and in favor of mothers, sole custody, and geographical/one-parent stability,[44] in making custody decisions.[45][46][47] They point to studies noting that women initiate at least two-thirds of divorce, with the claim that "automatic custody" for mothers is one of the reasons for this.[48] They also state that family courts are slow to take effective measures to prevent interference with fathers' parenting time.[49] They note that an adversarial approach is expensive in time and money.[47][50]

They state that family courts operate in secret, which protects them from public scrutiny,[51] and that family courts have engaged in censorship.[52] They state that fathers who have criticized the court system publicly have been sanctioned by fines and reductions in custody and parenting time.[53] Some activists argue that some men have been driven to suicide by family courts,[48] while others acknowledge that these suicides often might stem more from personality factors than legal bias.[54]

Members of the fathers' rights movement point out that parental rights have been characterized by courts as "sacred", "absolute", and "inherent, natural rights", and that courts have ruled that parenthood cannot be denied without violating fundamental principles of "liberty and justice",[55] but that these unequivocal principles are ignored by family courts as a threat to their reason for existence.[56] Members of the fathers' rights movement state that parents are ordered to pay fees for services demanded by the court,[57] and claim that those working within the court system have a “vested interest in separating children from their parents.”[58][59] Members of the fathers' rights movement propose the restoration and enforcement of the traditional rights of parents to the care, custody and companionship of their children."[42]

Critics of the fathers' rights movement note research that fathers are accorded considerable significance in custody decisions and are not discriminated against.[8] Some critics also state that based on significant research, family courts discriminate against mothers as a result of gender bias and influence from the fathers' rights movement.[60][8][46] Critics also claim that most non-custodial parents are fathers, not as a result of actual court bias, but because most fathers do not want to be the primary custodial parent to their children.[61][62] Fathers rights groups respond that this is a sexist position that presumes fathers care about parenting their children less than mothers do.[citation needed]

[edit] Child custody - Shared parenting

Main articles: Child custody, Shared parenting, Best interests, and Rebuttable presumption

Stating that "children need both parents", the fathers’ rights movement calls for greater equality in parental responsibility following separation and divorce.[63][64] They call for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody so that children would generally spend equal time with each parent unless there were reasons against it.[65][64] They point to studies showing that children in shared custody settings are better adjusted and have fewer social problems such as low academic achievement, crime, pregnancy, substance abuse, depression and suicide,[66][58][67] and claim that shared parenting is in fact in the best interests of the child.[68][69] Members of the fathers' rights movement and their critics disagree about the correlation of negative developmental outcomes for children to sole custody situations. Critics claim that father absence covaries with other relevant family characteristics such as the lack of an income from a male adult, the absence of a second adult, and the lack of support from a second extended family system and concluded that it is the negative effects of poverty, and not the absence of a father, that result in negative developmental outcomes.[70] On the other hand, members of the fathers' rights movement state that although the consequences of poverty and having a single parent are interrelated, each is a risk factor with independent effects on children,[71] and that the negative outcomes for children in sole custody situations correlate more strongly to "fatherlessness" than to any other variable including poverty.[72][73]
Members of the fathers' rights movement criticize the best interests of the child standard currently used in many countries for making custody decisions, which they describe as highly subjective and based on the personal prejudices of family court judges and court-appointed child custody evaluators,[74][75][68][69] and that courts are abusive when more than half custody is taken away from a willing, competent parent.[76] They claim that a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting is supported by a majority of citizens,[77] and that their proposals to enact such laws are opposed by divorce lawyers and by feminist organizations, the latter by invoking the specter of domestic violence and child abuse as propaganda directed against fathers and fathers' rights groups.[78]

Critics point to research suggesting that joint custody arrangements are good for children only if there is little parental conflict.[79] They argue that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children.[61] Fathers rights groups respond that this is also a sexist position that presumes that fathers would not provide for the daily needs of their children for no reason other than that they are fathers.[citation needed] Critics also question the motives of those promoting shared parenting, noting that it would result in substantial decreases in or termination of child support payments.[80][62]
Members of the fathers' rights movement respond that shared parenting has been demonstrated to reduce parental conflict by requiring parents to cooperate and compromise, and that it is the lack of constraint by one parent resulting from the ability of that parent to exclude the other, that results in increased parental conflict.[81] They add that only when child support guidelines exceed true costs do parents ask for or seek to prevent changes in parenting time for financial reasons, adding that any argument that a parent is asking for increased parenting time to reduce child support is at the same time an argument that the other parent is making a profit from child support.[82]

Critics claim that some fathers' rights groups are more interested in enabling men to re-establish authority over their children and ex-partners and that issues of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse are ignored.[83][84] In response, members of the fathers’ rights movement state that fathers have a constitutional right to shared control of their children and through political action they intend to establish parental authority for the well-being of their children.[85] They also point out that a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting preserves a child's protection against unfit or violent parents.[86]

[edit] Child support

See also: Child support and Paternity fraud

Members of the fathers’ rights movement campaign for the reform of child support guidelines, which in most Western countries are based on maintaining the children's standard of living after separation, and on the assumption that the children live with one parent and never with the other.[87][88] Activists argue that the current guidelines are arbitrary, provide mothers with financial incentives to divorce, and leave fathers with little discretionary income to enjoy with the children during their parenting time.[48][89][87] In their place, fathers’ rights activists propose guidelines based on a Cost Shares model, in which child support would be based on the average income of the parents and the estimated child costs incurred by both parents.[90] Critics of the Cost Share Model guidelines claim that they focus on the relative living standards of divorcing parents rather than the best interests of the children and supporting them at the same level after divorce.[91]

Noting research that cultural communities emphasize different aspects of fatherhood, members of the fathers' rights movement state that the law should value a broader definition of fathering for poor fathers by reducing the focus on collecting child support and encouraging the informal contributions (such as groceries, clothes, toys, time with the children) of these fathers, by counting these contributions as child support.[92]

Members of the fathers’ rights movement suggest that child support should be terminated under certain conditions, such as if the custodial parent limits access to the children by moving away against the wishes of the other parent, gives fraudulent testimony, or if paternity fraud is discovered,[88] adding that two men should not have to pay child support for the same child.[87]

They also complain that it is often difficult for fathers in financial hardship or who take on a larger caregiving role with their children to have their child support payments lowered. They point out that unemployment is the primary cause of child support arrears, and claim that arrears make the father subject to arrest and imprisonment without due process.[73]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the purpose of child support should be publicly determined, and enforcement programs must be designed to serve that purpose, observing the due process of law.[42]

[edit] Domestic violence and Child abuse

Main articles: Domestic violence, Emotional abuse, and Child abuse

Members of the fathers' rights movement assert that some women make false claims of domestic violence or child abuse in order to gain an upper hand in divorce, custody disputes and/or prevent fathers from seeing their children, and they state that lawyers advise women to make such claims.[74] They contend that false claims of domestic violence and child abuse are encouraged by the inflammatory "win or lose" nature of child custody hearings, and that men are presumed to be guilty rather than innocent by police and by the courts.[59][93][88] They protest the inclusion of vaguely-defined and difficult-to-refute definitions of violence based on fear, harassment and stalking, in child custody hearings.[94]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that it is extremely rare for fathers to abuse their children.[59] They add that when child abuse occurs, the perpetrator is not likely to be the father, and that the child abuse most often occurs after the father has been separated from his children.[48][59] They suggest that government policies are creating child abuse by separating children from their fathers.[59]

Members of the fathers’ rights movement point to domestic violence studies based on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), which suggest that men and women act violently toward their partners in about equal percentages.[95][93][96] They claim that men comprise a "significant minority" of the victims of domestic violence,[97] and they call for more services to be provided for male victims of domestic violence.[96] Critics of the CTS dispute its reliability.[98][99][100] Michael Flood argues that the CTS definitions of domestic violence obscure "variations in the meaning, consequences, and context of violent behaviors in families and relationships".[99]

Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that both domestic violence and child abuse must be adjudicated as criminal assault, observing due process protections, and that government funding for programs addressing these issues must be made contingent on such protections."[42]

[edit] Parenting time interference and Parental alienation syndrome

Main articles: Parental alienation and Parental alienation syndrome

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that some mothers interfere with the father's parenting time and that such interference should be stopped.[101] They state that parenting time interference can result from the custodial parent's relocation beyond a practical distance from the noncustodial parent and they campaign for a rebuttable presumption prohibiting such relocations.[102]

They claim that parental alienation is a well-documented phenomena and that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a valid syndrome[103][104] in which a child is alienated by a parent against the other parent for the purpose of gaining or retaining full custody of the children, and they offer advice to fathers about what to do if their access to their children is affected by parental alienation.[105]

Critics of the fathers' rights movement and of parental alienation syndrome note that it is not considered a syndrome by the American Psychological Association[33][106] and that it is a strategy that has been rejected by some members of the legal community.[107] This particular objection questions the validity of any diagnosis of this alleged sydrome within a child, but has no relevance to the discussion of parental alienation in the context of a parent's actions with respect to that child. Those who differentiate between PAS and parental alienation note that the term "child abuse", though unquestionably a legitimate description of negative parental behaviors, is also not recognized by the APA as a specific diagnosis of mental illness within a child. In this context, parental alienation can be considered to be a form of child abuse.

Critics and members of the fathers' rights movement agree about the danger that claims of parental alienation syndrome may be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody.[107][103]

[edit] Unwarranted Termination of Parental Rights and Adoptions

Main article: Parents' Rights Movement

Parents' rights advocates claim that many parents' parental rights are unnecessarily terminated, and that children are separated from fathers and mothers and adopted through the actions of family courts and government social service agencies seeking to meet their own targets, rather than looking at the merits of each case.[108]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that government employees harm children by disregarding the loving bonds they share with their fathers, when social workers typically place children in the foster care system without informing their fathers.[109]

[edit] Fathers' rights movement by country

Main articles: Fathers' rights movement by country and Parental responsibility (access and custody)

Issues related to the fathers' rights movement in specific countries are included in Fathers' rights movement by country. The countries included are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, The United Kingdom (UK) and The United States of America (USA). Of the aforementioned countries, Australia, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Sweden and a minority of the states in the United States of America have enacted a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting as of January 1, 2007.

[edit] Fathers' rights and issues with language

Fathers' and parents' rights campaigners state that parenting time should be used to replace contact, visitation and residence. The term visitation is particularly objectionable to fathers' rights activists, who believe that this term reinforces the idea that only one parent raises the children. It is perceived that there is a stigma associated with treating one parent as resident and the other as non-resident. The use of the terms absent parent, putative father, and non-custodial parent have also been challenged.

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that child support should be referred to as parental transfer payments.[110]

[edit] Notable supporters

Public supporters of the fathers' rights movement and their issues, include divorced (and subsequently widowed) Live Aid founder, Bob Geldof,[111] Irish writer and journalist John Waters, ex-UK Home Secretary David Blunkett and Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women[112][113]

[edit] Significant writers

[edit] Books

  • Fathers Rights Survival Guide by Mike L. Weening
  • Fathers after Divorce by Michael Green
  • Shared Parenting Jill Burrett & Michael Green
  • Father and Child Reunion by Dr. Warren Farrell
  • Torn Apart: True Stories of Excluded Fathers (2005) by Tim Willis ISBN 1-904977-30-8
  • Guide To Fathers' Rights by Attorney Ronald Isaacs.
  • Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused by Dean Tong
  • Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville
  • Without Authority by Barry Worrall ISBN-13 978-1-900080-09-5/-08-8/-07-1
  • Custody Revolution: The Father Factor and the Motherhood Mystique by Richard A. Warshak
  • Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths by Shanna Danae Derrick and Diane O'Connell ISBN 0-87477-862-X

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Sacks and, Glenn & Thompson, Dianna (2006-06-21), “Why Are There so Many Women in the Fathers' Movement?”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, <http://www.glennsacks.com/why_are_there.htm> 
  2. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House, 259. 
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally (2006). "Fathers' rights, fatherhood and law reform- International perspectives", in Collier, Richard and Sheldon, Sally: Fathers' Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective. Hart Publishing. 
  4. ^ a b c Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally. "Unfamiliar territory: The issue of a father's rights and responsibilities covers more than just the media-highlighted subject of access to his children", The Guardian, November 1, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-10-17. 
  5. ^ McKee, Alan (2005). The Public Sphere: an introduction. University of Queensland, p. 47. ISBN 9780521549905. 
  6. ^ Kenedy, Robert (2004). Fathers For Justice: The Rise Of A New Social Movement In Canada As A Case Study Of Collective Identity Formation. Caravan Books. ISBN 978-0882061085. 
  7. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House, 282. 
  8. ^ a b c d e f g Collier, Richard; Sheldon, Sally (2006). "'The outlaw fathers fight back': Fathers' rights groups, Father 4 Justice and the politics of law reform- reflections on the UK experience", in Collier, Richard and Sheldon, Sally: Fathers' Rights Activism and Law Reform in Comparative Perspective. Hart Publishing. 
  9. ^ a b Kaye, Miranda; Julia Tolmie (1998). "Fathers' Rights Groups in Australia and their Engagement with Issues in Family Law". Australian Journal of Family Law 12: pp 19-68. 
  10. ^ Fathers 4 Justice split by infighting - Times Online
  11. ^ “Stalker: lesson learned”, Herald-Sun, 30 September 2004
  12. ^ BBC News. "Australian militant fathers under fire", BBC, 25 July, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-03-24. 
  13. ^ “Threat to crack down on vigilante group.” The Age, 25 July 2002
  14. ^ Militants harassed woman, daughter.” The Canberra Times, 6 August 2002
  15. ^ "Message proves unsettling", Times Union, June 26, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-24. 
  16. ^ Morgan Bolton, Michele. "Custody Bill Fight Turns Frightful: Women's Groups Say They Are Being Threatened Over Their Stance On Legislation", Albany New York Times Union, April 21, 2006. 
  17. ^ Ryan, Harriet. "A dog's yelp, a friend's 'weird' stare: Mack witness recounts signs of a killing", Court TV, October 26, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-10-30. 
  18. ^ Hennessey, Kathleen. "Lawyer: Reno man killed wife in self-defense, spun into delusions", Associated Press, October 24, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-10-30. 
  19. ^ Ritter, Ken. "Friend describes Mack's 'weird look' coming from slaying scene", Associated Press, October 25, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-10-30. 
  20. ^ Chereb, Sandra. "Nev. Man Gets Life Term for Killing Wife", Associated Press, 2008-02-09. Retrieved on 2007-02-12. 
  21. ^ Sacks, Glenn (June 19, 2006). Do I Even Need to Say This?. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
  22. ^ Pidge v. Pidge, 44 Mass. 257 (1841) regarding the great change in the laws ushered in by MA Statutes 1838, c.126, i.e., no longer requiring courts of criminal jurisdiction for divorce. And to confirm this assertion, see: Barber v. Root, 10 MA 260 (1813) (“Regulations on the subject of marriage and divorce are rather parts of the criminal, than of the civil, code; ...”) 
  23. ^ Reidell v. Morse, 36 Mass. 358 (1837) and Boylston v. Princeton, 13 Mass. 381; (1816) 
  24. ^ Kirby v. Kirby, 338 Mass 263 (1959); Boggs v. Boggs, 138 Md. 422 (1921) ("... the right of the parent to the services of the children and the obligation of maintenance of the same, devolving upon the parent are reciprocal rights and obligations."); Creely v. Creely, 258 Mass. 460 (1925), Smith's Case, 322 Mass. 186 (1947), Broman v. Byrne, 322 Mass 578 (1948) (“at common law, a father is entitled to custody, society and services of his minor children and bound to support them if sufficiently able.”), Alvey v. Hartwig, 106 Md. 254 (1907) (“[T]he right of the parent to the services of the children and the obligation of maintenance of the same, devolving upon the parent are reciprocal rights and obligations.”); Brow v. Brightman, l36 MA 187 (1884) (“A father is under no obligation to support his child after a decree of divorce in the mother's favor, and awarding the custody of the child to her. His liability is commensurate with his right of control.”) 
  25. ^ see Ex parte Winn, 48 Ariz. 529 (1936); Commonwealth v. Briggs, 33 Mass. 203 (1834); State v. Richardson, 40 N.H. 272 (1860), “It is a well settled doctrine of the common law, that the father is entitled to the custody of his minor children, as against the mother and every body else; that he is bound for their maintenance and nurture, and has the corresponding right to their obedience and their services. 2 Story's Eq., secs. 1343-1350; 2 Kent's Com. 193; 1 Bl. Com. 453; Jenness v. Emerson, 15 N.H. 486; Huntoon v. Hazelton, 20 N.H. 388.” 
  26. ^ (see Whipple v. Dow, 2 Mass. 415 (1807)) 
  27. ^ see Wright v. Wright, 2 Mass. 109 (1806) 
  28. ^ see Reynolds v. Davidow, 200 Miss. 480 (1946); "The putative father of an illegitimate child is entitled to the custody of the child, as against all persons but the mother; if the mother be dead and the father is a suitable person, it shall be taken from the maternal grandparents and delivered to him." Pote's Appeal, 51 Am. Rep., 540; Commonwealth v. Anderson, 1 Ash., 55; Richards v. Hodges, 2 Saund., 83; "Though a bastard be not looked upon as a child for any civil purpose, the ties of nature are respected in regard to its maintenance. The putative father, though not legally related to it, is so far considered its natural guardian as to be entitled to the custody of it." Moritz v. Garnhart, 32 Am. Dec., 762; The King v. Cornforth, 2 Stra., 1162.; Rex v. Cornfoot, 1 Boot's Poor Laws, 465. 
  29. ^ see Foss v. Hartwell, 168 MA 66 (1897); Brow v. Brightman, l36 MA 187 (1884); Smith's Case, 322 Mass. 186 (1947); Hathaway v. Rickard, 323 Mass. 501 (1948), and Brow v. Brightman, l36 MA 187 (1884). 
  30. ^ see Barry v. Mercein, 46 US 103 (1847) and In re Burrus, 136 US 586 (1890) 
  31. ^ see In re Barry, 42 F. 113 (1844) 
  32. ^ {{Citation | title = see Hibbette v. Baines 78 MISS 695 (1900).
  33. ^ a b c Flood, Michael (2004). "Angry Men's Movements", in Stacey Elin Rossi: The Battle and Backlash Rage On (pdf), Xlibris Corporation. Retrieved on 2007-09-16. 
  34. ^ a b "The Rhetoric of Rights and Needs: Moral Discourse in the Reform of Child Custody and Child Support Laws" . Social Problems 19 (4): 400-420. University of California Press. 
  35. ^ Smyth, Bruce. "Child support Policy in Australia: Back to basics?". Family Matters (67). Australian Institute of Family Studies. 
  36. ^ Flood, Michael. "Separated Fathers and the Fathers’ Rights Movement". Feminism, Law and the Family Workshop, Law School, University of Melbourne. Retrieved on 2007-03-12. 
  37. ^ Kolata, Gina (November 1988). "Child splitting: many states now favor joint custody. But it's not always the happiest arrangement". Psychology Today. 
  38. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House, 45. 
  39. ^ Phyllis Schlafly's keynote address. American Coalition of Fathers and Children (September 2006). Retrieved on 2007-05-12.
  40. ^ a b Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  41. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  42. ^ a b c d Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  43. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  44. ^ Farrell, Warren (2006-03-21). Three Judicial Biases About Moms, Dads and Children. Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
  45. ^ Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Fourth Report. House of Commons, Parliament UK (2005-02-23). Retrieved on 2007-03-18.
  46. ^ a b Charalambous, Mark (2005-07-10). New research shows bias in restraining orders. The Fatherhood Coalition. Retrieved on 2007-04-14.
  47. ^ a b The Operation of the Family Courts. House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee Family Justice (2004-11-08). Retrieved on 2007-03-18.
  48. ^ a b c d Baskerville, Stephen (Summer 2003). Divorce as Revolution. The Fatherhood Coalition, also Salisbury Review vol. 21 no. 4. Retrieved on 2007-03-22.
  49. ^ National Fatherhood Initiative's Ad Campaign Insults African-American Fathers. GlennSacks.Com and Daily Breeze, Los Angeles (2004-05-25 Daily Breeze, Los Angeles). Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
  50. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (June 2004). The Fatherhood Crisis: Time for a New Look. NCPA Policy Report No. 267 ISBN #1-56808-136-7. National Center for Policy Analysis.. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.
  51. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  52. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  53. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  54. ^ Crary, David (th). Fathers' Rights Groups Decry Court Process. The Associated Press.
  55. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  56. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  57. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  58. ^ a b Baskerville, Stephen (December 2002). The Politics of Fatherhood. childrensjustice.org: American Political Science Association. Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  59. ^ a b c d e Baskerville, Stephen (May 2006). Family Violence in America The Truth About Domestic Violence and Child Abuse. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
  60. ^ The California National Organization for Women’s Family Law Court Watch Program Guide. California NOW (th). Retrieved on 2007-10-14.
  61. ^ a b Baker, Maureen, Families, Labour and Love: Family Diversity in a Changing World, UBC Press 
  62. ^ a b Fathers' Responsibilities Before Fathers' Rights. NOW-NYS (2006-07-29). Retrieved on 2007-09-09.
  63. ^ Ballard, Travis. Mitigating the Effects of Divorce on Children. National Congress for Fathers and Children. Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  64. ^ a b Shared Parenting Council Membership. Shared Parenting Council. Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  65. ^ Why Howard suddenly started to talk about custody battles. theage.com.au (2003-06-21). Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  66. ^ Shared Parenting: Common Objections versus the Facts. American Coalition of Fathers and Children: The Liberator Volume 32#3 (Fall 2005). Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  67. ^ HB 5267 Will Help Michigan’s Children of Divorce. American Coalition of Fathers and Children (also Lansing State Journal) (2006-05-08 (printed in Lansing State Journal)). Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  68. ^ a b New York Times Press Gives Major Press Coverage for Fathers. Fathers & Families (2005-05-08). Retrieved on 2007-05-27.
  69. ^ a b Schlafly, Phyllis (2007-07-23). Children's rights should include life with both parents. Retrieved on 2007-09-30.
  70. ^ McLoyd, V. C., “Socioeconomic Disadvantages and Child Development”, American Psychologist, 53: 185-204 
  71. ^ Hart, Craig H. (1999). Combating the Myth that Parents Don’t Matter. The Howard Center for Family Religion and Society. Retrieved on 2007-03-28.
  72. ^ Deconstructing the Essential Father. SPARC. Retrieved on 2007-09-22.
  73. ^ a b Baskerville, Stephen (Spring 2004). Is There Really A Fatherhood Crisis?. The Independent Institute. Retrieved on 2007-05-01.
  74. ^ a b Schlafly, Phyllis (2005-02-02). The Fatherphobia of Family Courts. Retrieved on 2007-04-24.
  75. ^ Newdow, Michael (2004-06-18). Family Feud. Slate.Com. Retrieved on 2007-04-30.
  76. ^ An APPEAL to the PARENTS of AMERICA about the DESTRUCTION of the AMERICAN FAMILY. American Coalition of Fathers and Children. Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  77. ^ Testimony in Support of an Act Relative to Shared Parenting (2003-09-25). Retrieved on 2007-10-14.
  78. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  79. ^ Govorun, Olesya (November 21, 2002). Joint-custody arrangements good for children of divorce -- but only if there is no parental conflict. Ohio State Research News.
  80. ^ American Bar Association (2000), Guide to Family Law: Effect of Joint Custody, <http://family.findlaw.com/child-support/support-guidelines/joint-custody-support.html>. Retrieved on 15 March 2007 
  81. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  82. ^ Baskerville, Stephen (2007). Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family. Cumberland House. 
  83. ^ Michigan National Organization for Women (1996), Mandated Joint Physical And Legal Custody Bill, <http://www.michnow.org/jointcus.htm>. Retrieved on 24 March 2007 
  84. ^ Callander, Debbi; Martin Dufresne, Janet Menezes and Ellen Murray. On Abuse, Shared Parenting, & the System. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
  85. ^ Fathers' Rights Are Fathers' Duties. FatherMag.Com (1998-2000). Retrieved on 2007-10-14.
  86. ^ Position Paper of Fathers & Families. Fathers & Families (2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-06.
  87. ^ a b c Comments on the Child Support Guidelines. F.A.C.T. Fathers Are Capable Too: Parenting Association. Retrieved on 2007-04-12.
  88. ^ a b c Recommendations for Child Support Guideline Revisement June, 2001 (June 2001). Retrieved on 2007-04-15.
  89. ^ Wilson, KC (2004-09-15). The Subversion of Child Support. IFeminists.Com. Retrieved on 2007-03-17.
  90. ^ Rogers, R. Mark (2001-05-05). The “Cost Shares” Child Support Guideline: A Working, Superior Alternative. Guideline Economics. Retrieved on 2007-03-12.
  91. ^ Morgan, Laura W. (February 15 2005). The "Cost Share" model of child support guidelines. Retrieved on 2007-03-24.
  92. ^ Maldonado, Solangel (2006). Deadbeat or Deadbroke: Redefining Child Support for Poor Fathers. Retrieved on 2007-06-21.
  93. ^ a b Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men. Equal Justice Foundation (2002). Retrieved on 2007-10-04.
  94. ^ An Epidemic of Civil Rights Abuses: Ranking of States’ Domestic Violence Laws. Respecting accuracy in domestic abuse reporting (September 2006). Retrieved on 2007-05-05.
  95. ^ Claims about Husband Battering. American Coalition of Fathers and Children also Omaha World Herald, Daytona (Summer 1999). Retrieved on 2007-09-21.
  96. ^ a b October’s Domestic Violence Awareness Month Ignores Many Victims. American Coalition of Fathers and Children also Omaha World Herald, Daytona (October 2006). Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  97. ^ Equal Rights Amendment Yes, ‘Women’s Equality Amendment’ No. GlennSacks.Com, also the Louisville Courier (October 2006). Retrieved on 2007-04-15.
  98. ^ Taft, Angela, Kelsey Hegarty and Michael Flood, 'Are men and women equally violent to intimate partners?' in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health Volume 25 Issue 6 Page 498-500, December 2001
  99. ^ a b Flood, Michael, 'The Debate Over Men’s Versus Women’s Family Violence' in Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, Family Violence Conference, Adelaide, February 23rd to 24th, 2006
  100. ^ Archer, John, 'Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scale: A meta-analytic review', Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(12), December 1999, pp. 1263-1289
  101. ^ Equal Parents Week Highlights Need for Family Court Reform. GlennSacks.Com also Lansing State Journal 2002-09-26. Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  102. ^ AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce. Glenn Sacks (2005-06-17). Retrieved on 2007-05-12.
  103. ^ a b Protect Children from Alienation. Ifeminists.Com (2006-07-12). Retrieved on 2007-10-13.
  104. ^ Bone, J. Michael (Fall/Winter 2003). Parental Alienation Syndrome: Examining the Validity Amid Controversy. Parental-Alienation.Com - The Family Law Section, Vol. XX, No. 1, Fall/Winter 2003, p 24-27. Retrieved on 2007-05-04.
  105. ^ Hayward, Stan. A GUIDE TO THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME. UK Men and Father's Rights. Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
  106. ^ Statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome. American Psychological Association (2005-10-28). Retrieved on 2007-03-11.
  107. ^ Unwarranted Adoptions. BBC. Retrieved on 2007-06-05.
  108. ^ Choosing foster parents over fathers. The San Diego Union Tribune (2007-07-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-05.
  109. ^ Phyllis Schlafly's keynote address. American Coalition of Fathers and Children (September 2006). Retrieved on 2007-05-12.
  110. ^ "Bob Geldof", Shared Parenting Information Group (SPIG) UK. Retrieved on 2007-05-01. 
  111. ^ "Welcome to California Shared Parenting Alliance", California Shared Parenting Alliance. Retrieved on 2007-03-18. 
  112. ^ Family law reform helps children. Sunday Gazette Mail (West Virginia). Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

[edit] External links

[edit] External Links Critical of the Fathers' Rights Movement


v • d • e
Rights within the Family
Elements
Movements
Languages