A Child's Right

Midwest Fathers Conference Partnership for Dads

Midwest Fathers Conference Partnership for Dads http://ping.fm/UNCwf

Only Women Bleed?

Do fathers bleed

when their children are
taken away the way they say
mothers do?
Do fathers cry
inside deep in the night
holding a pillow
pretending
that it is their lost child?
Do fathers know
the pain that grows
deeper each second
they can feel their child beckon -
but they can't answer the call?
Do fathers hurt
and their hearts break
if the beautiful child that you both made
has his candle snuffed out before she's born?
Can a father weep, can a father mourn?
Yes, I can tell you
they do.

Copyright © 2007 - 2011 S. LaDon Ware All Rights Reserved.

S. LaDon Ware

Torm Howse on SCOTUS Action on Child Support Enforcement

Child Support Enforcement on Trail at the SCOTUS http://ping.fm/FL3zi

    [direct links to the actual petition, some amicus briefs, and major media stories are included below]
    =======
    
    (Washington, DC) -- On November 1st, 2010, the United States Supreme Court finally **GRANTED** direct review over the various States' unconstitutional patterns and practices of repeatedly jailing beat-dead [indigent] noncustodial parents under child support "contempt" and without providing the otherwise well-established right to have defense counsel appointed them.
    
    Groups filing amicus briefs in NCP Turner's support, so far (hint, hint..), have included the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, and The Constitution Project.  There are valid Letters from both principal opposing parties in this case, welcoming any and all amicus briefs, already on file with the Clerk of the US Supreme Court.
    
    Amazingly, some of the professional amicus briefs filed by these groups have come straight out against this "modern form of debtor's prison" with very strong arguments, backed with solid case law... very promising, VERY exciting for all NCPs!!
    
    While emerging from a plainly unconstitutional ruling of the South Carolina Supreme Court, which inexplicably affirmed the draconian tactics used repeatedly upon NCP Michael Turner, the various amicus briefs filed so far are *already* implicating like ALL of the States -- in general -- and particularly THESE seven (7) other States for being in similar noncompliance with indigent civil rights, regarding appointments of defense counsel within contempt and/or similar state court actions:
    
    "Just four other States--Florida, Georgia, Maine, and Ohio--are in the same camp as South Carolina. Courts in three other States--Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico--have adopted a third approach, requiring trial courts to determine on a caseby-case basis whether appointment of counsel is warranted."
    
    Already, amicus briefs are involving both case law and statutes from many different States...  A couple of new individual parties have been granted leave to intervene or otherwise participate, as well.  This ***very important*** case is growing fast...  I am confident that within 60-90 days from now, you will see that at least several other major, well-known civil rights organizations, and probably some 30-40 of the various States' Attorneys General in opposition, will have filed each of their own respective amicus briefs into this case, too... maybe even all 50 of the AGs, but we'll see yet how it goes...
    
    Accordingly, *now* is the time for interested family rights legal scholars/organizations to crank out their own amicus briefs, and/or select representative plaintiff(s)/intervenor(s) to enter directly into this case -- either way, and hopefully both ways!
    
    
    PROPOSAL:
    ==========
    
    Sets of three (3) different-named family rights organizations should work together on 2-3 related constitutional/legal issues, and submit JOINTLY-NAMED amicus briefs.  Even better, at least one male and one female, or more, who all happen to belong to, or work with, two or three different-named family rights organizations, should do the similar thing and move jointly to directly intervene, again with a purposefully JOINTLY-NAMED legal package submitted.
    
    This important case has been filed primarily over the deprivation of the right to indigent defense counsel, the related "ability to pay" aspect in child support contempt proceedings, the jailings, and that general area of family court issues.  However, in the recent Order by the US Supreme Court on Nov. 1st, the Court requested parties/amicus to also brief the new additional Question -- "whether or not" the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the ruling of the SC Supreme Court (duh...).
    
    It is this Question that has "opened up the door" to creative minds, because there are at least *several* legal angles that combine: providing the Court its own federal jurisdiction, by raising any *directly-related* constitutional issues, such as:
    
    (1) -- the reason that South Carolina's actions are sooo unlawful against NCP Turner, is because South Carolina has directly violated both federal and its own state CCPA laws (Consumer Credit Protection Act), by issuing ANY child support orders against someone who the state court itself classified as "unemployed", since CCPA laws mandate that those child support orders exceeding max percentages of NCP Turner's any available "disposable" income (i.e., none..) are simply VOID, in the first place.  In other words, most ALL of the States are routinely ignoring the mandatory protections of CCPA, and issuing onerous orders that far exceed the limits against available "disposable" income percentages, and all those orders are VOID, in the first place, and *cannot* be enforced, ever..., per the clearly express mandate of both federal *and* state CCPA laws!
    
    (2) -- the federal Congress never had any *valid* authority, in the first place, to ever promulgate federal laws to manage and micro-manage family units, or the individuals of family units, so NONE of those programs (Title IV-A, IV-D, IV-E, etc., etc.) should even exist, in the first place...  Family Law has *always* been the sole province of the States, and never the realm of the Federal Government...  ever.   See also, arguments within several of the pending Health Care Reform lawsuits out there, for the reality that the federal Congress has been far exceeding its Constitutional authority under the "Commerce Clause" for a long, long time...  Therefore, since Congress' Title IV-D of the Social Security Act is unconstitutional, to begin with, then it is really the Federal Government's fault that poor NCP Turner is in such a pickle, in the first place, you see, by all the "carrot and stick" programs and activities funded by federal taxdollars.  Again, ALL of the *federalizations* of Family Law are invalid.
    
    (3) -- also, the entire federalized Title IV-D child support enforcement scheme is a HUGELY fraudulent financial waste and catastrophic drain upon America, for 35 years now, costing **Trillions** of taxdollars over that span, to net back only in the very small Billions of extra C$ actually collected...  In other words, America would still have continued the prior ~80% paid in full of all child support out there, as America already had before the Fed got involved, yet, instead, America has poured out **Trillions** of taxdollars to collect only a few small extra Billions -- an actual return-of-investment that is NEGATIVE to the tune of at least hundreds-to-one, if not over 1000-to-1, in monetary LOSSES, every minute, of every hour, of every day...  The entire federal child support program is a HUGE financial fraud upon America, and always WAS..., from the mid-1970s start.
    
    and, etc., each of which gives square and solid federal jurisdiction to a US Supreme Court that already well knows that it has jurisdiction....  You may also know of one or more other strong legal challenge angles into this very important case.
    
    It also just so happens, that I have very direct and recent (May-June 2010) experience in the US Supreme Court over a few of these exact same issues, although my own client's Petition for Writ of Certiorari was another one of the 10,000 or 99% not picked this year for review (perhaps also because I scared the crap out of them with CCPA arguments, see this link):
    http://unitedcivilrights.org/worksamples/USSupCt-Pet4Cert1stAmended-CCPA.pdf  (directly relevant to THIS case)

    Therefore, the organization that I created and co-founded, United Civil Rights Councils of America, will be surely seeking to cooperate jointly with another pair of willing/participating family rights organizations, using one or more of the above theories to file into this very important case, under either an amicus angle, or the straight-up intervention method, if the right one or more people are found to be intervenors fitting this case well.  Please contact me via email directly if you are interested.
    
    
    LINKS TO LEGAL FILINGS AND ONLINE MEDIA STORIES:
    ============================================
    (provided in chronological order, more or less)
    
    Here is the original SC State Supreme Court ruling being reviewed by SCOTUS:
    http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26793
    or, the same on FindLaw:
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/sc-supreme-court/1522639.html
    or, the official SC advance sheet containing the ruling, with other cases:
    http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/advSheets/no122010.pdf
    
    For interest, a November 30, 2009 ACLU article on the original defiant SC Supreme Court in this case:
    http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/aclu-urges-state-supreme-court-affirm-right-counsel-indigents
    
    The New York Times online story about this case:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/02scotus.html
    
    Constitutional Law Blog story about this case:
    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/11/court-to-hear-right-to-counsel-case.html
    
    OnTheDocket's story/info/links:
    http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/2010/turner-v-price
    
    ABA Journal's article on this case:
    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_accepts_case_on_right_to_lawyer_in_civil_contempt_proceedings
    
    The Nerve's *very* informative and up-to-date article, detailing the total factual background on this case well:
    http://www.thenerve.org/Comments/10-08-02/Indigent_Father_Appeals_to_U_S_Supreme_Court.aspx?searchid=e433607d-ba56-476e-8f9c-d30b56ca8640
    and, the Nerve's previous related story, published after the SC State Supreme Court's ruling was issued:
    http://thenerve.org/Comments/10-04-12/S_C_High_Court_Upholds_Jail_for_Indigent_Parents.aspx?searchid=4611e176-8e28-4062-ba54-30395ab6bdcc
    
    Here is the current SCOTUS Docket online listing:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-10.htm
    
    Including this same Turner v Price case, an outlined organization of most/all other cases being reviewed by SCOTUS during this 2010-2011 Term - i.e., what other current SCOTUS cases might be either directly and/or indirectly related and useful:
    http://www.rashkind.com/supct.pdf
    
    One of few online places to normally get copies of, or to review, the various Briefs filed into SCOTUS cases:
    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/unscheduled.html#1010
    (unfortunately, briefs not there for this case yet - has the Questions, though)
    Turner v. Price, Docket No. 10-10
    Questions Presented -- Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina erred in holding - in conflict with twenty-two federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort - that an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration.
    Questions presented -- In addition to the question presented by the petition the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "does this US Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court?"
    
    BRIEFS FOUND ONLINE:
    The original Turner petition for writ of certiorari in the US Supreme Court (3.67mb):
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Pet.10-10.pdf
    The older combo ACLU-NACDL-etc-etc amicus brief, filed in NCP Turner's support, at the SC State Supreme Court:
    http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsissues/amicus_attachments/$FILE/PricevTurner_Amicus.pdf
    Their newer amicus brief filed into the US Supreme Court recently:
    http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsissues/amicus_attachments/$FILE/Turner_Amicus.pdf
    Snipets/links to all of NACDL's current/recent briefs, fyi:
    http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsissues/Amicus?opendocument
    An amicus brief filed by The Constitution Project into this SCOTUS case:
    http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/476.pdf or
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/AmConstProj.10-10.pdf (~2.5mb)
    
    One of the authorities cited in the original Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Urban Institute's report on child support arrears:
    http://www.urban.org/publications/1001242.html (excerpt, with link for full report download in PDF)
    
    The recent US Supreme Court's interim/new Order, from the free version of Lexus-Nexus, i.e, http://LexisOne.com
    2010 U.S. LEXIS 8485,*
    Michael D. Turner, Petitioner v. Rebecca Price, et al.
    No. 10-10.
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    2010 U.S. LEXIS 8485
    November 1, 2010, Decided
    PRIOR HISTORY:   Price v. Turner, 387 S.C. 142, 691 S.E.2d 470, 2010 S.C. LEXIS 83 (S.C., 2010)
    JUDGES: [*1] Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan.
    OPINION:
    The motion of Larry E. Price, Sr. for leave to intervene is granted. The motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition the parties is directed to brief and argue the following question: "Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court?"
    
    
    Related, I have provided this online Publix Law Schools legal learning center, free for everyone's use and benefit:
    http://unitedcivilrights.org/publixlaw.html
    
    
    
    Sincerest Regards,
    ------------------------------------------
    Mr. Torm Howse
    Co-Founder, National Board Director, Instructor,
    United Civil Rights Councils of America
    http://unitedcivilrights.org
    Co-Founder, National Board Director, Trustee,
    Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - US
    http://paao-us.com
    Founder, Owner, President,
    The FIDO Network
    http://fidonetwork.com
    General Contact:
    (317) 286-2538 office
    (888) 738-4643 fax
    indianacrc@earthlink.net
    
    Increase Your FAITH!

Michigan Parental Rights Resolution HCR 45 Action

Dear Friend of Parental Rights in Michigan,

Through your phone calls and the diligent efforts of our allies at
Citizens Alliance for Life and Liberty (CALL), a resolution calling
for the Parental Rights Amendment has made significant progress in the
Michigan legislature. Currently, the resolution - HCR 45  - has 60
cosponsors in the 110-member House, a clear majority.

However, HCR 45, championed by Rep. Dave Agema, must pass the House
Judiciary Committee to reach the floor for a vote, and that committee
is headed by Rep. Mark Meadows. As the chairman, Rep. Meadows has the
authority to decide whether the resolution will receive a hearing, and
whether or not it will be put to a committee vote.

We believe HCR 45 will pass if we can get it to a vote, so we need
your help to pursuade Rep. Meadows to give it that chance.

Next Thurs., April 29, at 11:30 Director Steven Dennison of CALL has a
30-minute appointment with Rep. Meadows to discuss this issue. April
29 is also Rep. Meadows' birthday.

Here, then, is what we need you to do:

Send a card as soon as possible wishing the Representative a happy
birthday;
Include in it a cordial request that he grant HCR 45 a vote in the
Judiciary Committee
Forward this email to as many friends and family members in Michigan
as you can and ask them to join you.
Please send your cards to:

The Honorable Representative Mark S. Meadows
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514.

Rep. Meadows may not be your local representative, but he represents
all of Michigan as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, especially in
deciding on matters like HCR 45. Your efforts are invaluable in
helping Michigan to pass this resolution in support of parental rights.

Sincerely,

Jason Heki
Regional Coordinator

F & F Introduces 5th CA. Family Court Reform Bill

Fathers & Families’ mission is to protect children’s right to the love and care of both parents after divorce or separation. One of the ways fit parents are sometimes driven to the margins of their children’s lives is by one parent using the other parent’s disability or partial disability as a pretext to deny them custody or visitation with their children.

While some disabled people are truly unable to care for their children, many are not. Fathers & Families is joining with disabled rights advocates, veterans groups, and California Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles) in sponsoring SB 1188 to solve this problem.

Existing California family law codes do not address the issue of disabled parents, leaving the door open for unnecessary and often expensive litigation, even in cases where the disabled parent had been successfully parenting the children for many years prior to the separation or divorce.

SB 1188 will add Section 3049 to the Family Code. It will read:

3049.  In any proceeding to determine child custody or visitation under this part, in which at least one parent is disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), a court shall not use the disability of that parent as the basis of an award of custody or visitation to another party unless that party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a grant of custody or visitation to the disabled parent would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

SB 1188 shifts the burden of proof onto the parent who raises the disability as an issue, serving as a deterrent to a parent seeking to raise the issue as a way to cause  unnecessary litigation. It also reduces disabled parents’ litigation costs and helps reduce court calendar time and costs at a time when California is struggling with budget woes.

Fathers & Families often hears from parents who have had their disability unfairly used against them in family court. If this has happened to you, please let us know by filling out our form here.

SB 1188 is the 5th California family court reform bill Fathers & Families has been instrumental in introducing this session. Last week AB 2416, a child custody reform bill, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee unanimously and has been put on the consent calendar for the full Assembly. Other current F & F legislation includes three child support reform bills–SB 1355, SB 578, and SB 580.

This remarkable progress is no accident–Fathers & Families’ legislative representative Michael Robinson and assistant legislative representative Nicole Silverman have spent many months lobbying legislators and gathering support for our legislative agenda.

F & F is creating real, tangible family court reform today, but our deep, professional involvement in Sacramento requires funding–please contribute to the organization which fights for you by clicking here.

Together with you in the love of our children,

Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families

Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families

Melissa Hodgdon
Deputy Director, Fathers & Families

Best Interest Of The Family Radio

http://www.bestinterestofthefamily.com/
At Best Interest Of The Family Radio, we remain steadfast in our commitment to providing quality programming that educates and inspires needed Family Court Reform that unites parents with their children and exposes corruption within systems and processes that are otherwise in place to serve the needs of all families.

Never give up on your children just because a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker, Department of Human Services (DHS) agent, Friend Of The Court (FOC) worker or Family Court Judge is making subjective rulings over the lives of your children and your parental role.

Together we will bring about the change needed to reclaim our families and build an America our kids will be proud of. Tune into BEST INTEREST OF THE FAMILY Radio where we believe "Children Need Both Parents!!"

Join us for Tuesdays broadcast at 8PM est.

Call for Presenters - Detroit Fatherhood Conference

 Call for Presenters - Detroit Fatherhood Conference

Where:
Samaritan Center
5555 Conner Ave.
Detroit, MI 48213

Driving Directions
When:
April 22, 2010 at 08:00 AM
-to-
April 23, 2010 at 05:00 PM
Add to my calendar

    Dear Friend,

The Detroit Fathers and Families Coalition will host its first annual conference themed,  "Strong Fathers, Strong Families".  The conference will lay the foundation for two full days of workshops and presentations that will foster a community of stronger father-child relationships and stronger sustainable families. The workshops will offer three learning tracks:

• Responsible Fatherhood
• The Father Daughter Relationship
• Healthy Fathers; Healthy Families

 The learning audience will include fatherhood practitioners, family service professionals, community partners, early education/childcare professionals, educators, fathers, mothers, grandparents, guardians and children of father absence.

SUBMIT PROPOSAL NOW!

 

Robin Wright King
Detroit Fathers & Families Coalition
rwrightking@detroitfathersandfamiliescoalition.org
248 7975080

Barry County Commission Resolution Supporting EP Bill

Here is a signed copy of the resolution that Barry County Commission in Michigan passed that supports HB 5114.
Download Res

HB 5114 is the bill that is currently stuck in the state house's Judiciary Committee waiting for a hearing. Here is a copy of the bill. Download 2009-HIB-5114

Please help get this bill through the house and the senate by contacting your state senator and representative.

The Domestic Violence Industry’s War on Men

The Domestic Violence Industry’s War on Men



By painting all males as brutes, feminists hope to reduce half the population to a state of dhimmitude.


January 21, 2010 - by Barbara Kay


The industry that has grown up around domestic violence (DV), or, as it is more precisely situated these days in research circles, intimate partner violence (IPV), began in good faith decades ago as a legitimate campaign to help women trapped in abusive relationships.

Over the years, as the triumphalist feminist revolution’s long march through the institutions of the West proceeded with eerily unchallenged vigor, DV emerged as a highly politicized touchstone justifying women’s entitlements — legal, economic, familial — at the expense of boys’ and men’s human rights.

A tipping point in the DV chronology, when the focus amongst militant feminists shifted from helping individual women to the more totalitarian ambition of reducing the male population to cultural dhimmitude, can be traced back in time to December 6, 1989, and in space to a school two miles north of my front door.

December 6, 2009, marked the 20th anniversary of a unique tragedy in Western history, the systematic massacre of 14 women engineering students, with injury to 13 others, at Montreal’s École Polytechnique by a lone young gunman, Marc Lepine, who killed himself at the end of his shooting spree.

As an act of violence against women, the Montreal Massacre had no prequel or sequel. Lepine — his real name was Gamil Gharbi, but Lepine chose to identify with his québécois mother rather than his brutal, misogynistic, Algerian-born father — was a sociopath, unaligned with any faith, political movement, or identity grievance group. He was no jihadi. Although one could argue that the massacre presented elements of an honor killing, Lepine’s crime was essentially sui generis.

Ironically enough, if he were a jihadi, feminists would have been stymied in their rush to collective judgment, for the standard reflex following jihadist incidents is to repudiate any linkage of the act with Islam and to warn against expressions of Islamophobia.

But in the case of the Montreal Massacre, a diametrically opposed instinct prevailed. Because Lepine’s only distinguishing feature was his maleness, the tragedy sanctioned unbridled hostility toward all heterosexual men. Indeed, for elite feminist apparatchiks, then in their most muscular and misandric phase, bliss it was in that bloody Montreal dawn to be alive.

Brazenly, without bothering to adduce any substantiating chain of evidence, there being none, feminist spokeswomen linked the horrific crime of a lone sociopath to the general phenomenon of domestic violence against women. Marc Lepine “became” all men who want to control women — eventually all heterosexual men — and December 6 achieved instant sacralised status as a day of national mourning that, for fevered rhetoric and solemnity, eclipsed even 9/11 memorials.

As I wrote in a December 2007 National Post column:

By contrast [to Americans’ lessening interest in 9/11 memorials], the Canadian public never seems to weary of the annual December 6 tribute to the 1989 Montreal Polytechnique shooting massacre of 14 women. Indeed, 12/6’s branding power burgeons with every anniversary: The theme of violence against women dominates the media; new physical memorials are constructed; additional programs decrying domestic violence against women are entrenched in school curricula; masses of white ribbons are distributed; more stringent gun control is more strenuously urged.

Their cumulative effect is to link all Canadian men to a global conspiracy against women of jihadist proportions.

Feminists everywhere in the West appropriated its emotive themes to lend greater credence to an already widespread pernicious tripartite myth: namely, that all men — the “patriarchy” — are inherently prone to violence against women, that all women are potential victims of male aggression, and that female violence against men is never unprovoked, but always an act of self-defense against overt or covert male aggression.

The unspoken corollary to these falsehoods is that violence perpetrated against males, whether by other males or by females, is deemed unworthy of official recognition or more than minimal legal redress, and that while female suffering must be acknowledged as socially intolerable, male suffering may not make a parallel moral claim.

In fact, as any number of peer-reviewed research and government statistics make clear, although women are far more likely to report domestic abuse, equal numbers of men and women experience some form of DV during their lifetimes; men and women initiate abuse in equal measure; and far from any inherent “patriarchal” instinct to control women, DV — in Judeo-Christian culture at any rate — is almost always attributable to individual psychological dysfunction (see citation for Abusegate RADAR report below).

For the overwhelming majority of boys and men who harbor no ill feelings toward women and no wish to control them — indeed, whose impulses are largely chivalric; feminists have never explained why all those “patriarchal” and “controlling” men on the Titanic died after voluntarily ceding the lifeboats to women and children — the social and cultural fallout from feminist misdirection about DV beggars any honest observer’s descriptive powers to summarize.

The unjust loss of children in biased family courts under judges trained by feminist DV “experts,” lives ruined by unchallenged false allegations of abuse, men’s ineligibility for psychological and logistical services lavishly provided for women — these are just a few of the human rights abuses men routinely endure because of DV industry myths.

At the heart of the myth-propagation problem is the 1991-initiated White Ribbon Campaign, impulsively organized by leftist male Canadian politicians eager to ingratiate themselves with politically influential feminists in the hysterical wake of the tragedy.

The “educational” and commemorative campaign, which rapidly spread to 57 countries, is based on scaremongering falsehoods perpetrated by feminists pulling the communications levers of the DV industry, such as the canard that one in three (in some accounts, four) women will be a victim of male aggression in her lifetime, or that spousal homicide is the leading cause of death for women (in fact, it is not even on the list of leading causes).

Credible information on DV is easily accessed, but the largely liberal media compliantly channel the disingenuous “findings” and “reports” churned out by hopelessly biased advocacy groups, whose methodology does not, to put it kindly, meet the gold standard of community-based, peer-reviewed research, or who use definitional ruses, or who collect only male-on-female violence information, or who withhold data on female violence — and I could go on.

The controversial and irrefragably anti-male Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is coming up for renewal in Congress this year. VAWA partakes of exactly the same philosophy as the White Ribbon Campaign and doubtless owes its provenance in large part to the Montreal Massacre juggernaut.

Is there hope for a breakthrough in correcting the public’s perception on DV, the necessary precursor to a gender-neutral approach to support for DV victims by policymakers?

One encouraging indicator has surfaced this month in the form of a high-profile Abusegate campaign, organized by a coalition of groups and individuals working to reform domestic violence laws. The campaign will include a concentrated lobbying effort on Capitol Hill explaining how flawed information leads to flawed public policy. It will also feature a series of radio interviews with internationally respected domestic violence expert Dr. Donald Dutton of the University of British Columbia, author of Rethinking Domestic Violence.

But Abusegate’s most tangible contribution to public exposure of the DV industry’s willful deception of policymakers and the public is encapsulated in a scrupulously referenced special report drawn up by a reliable research group, RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting): Fifty Domestic Violence Myths.

The report deserves widespread distribution in the media, as well as in political, educational, and legal circles. It completely debunks the received wisdom on many aspects of DV. For example, it tells us that: women are as likely as men to be controlling; fewer than 1% of hospital visits by women — not 22% as often touted — are attributable to DV; the actual annual number of rapes reported by the FBI is 90,427, a tenth the number claimed by feminists; 71% of children killed by one parent were killed by their mothers; and 46 other little-known facts the DV industry would prefer you didn’t know.

This report will not have relevance for everyone: it is only for men and for those women who have, or have had, or may have in the future kind thoughts for a father or male partner or brother or son or son-in-law or male friend or, indeed, any man who has, or may someday, contribute something positive to their lives or to the lives of those they love.

So as I say, this report may not be relevant to you, in which case you should not feel obligated to pass it along to anyone else. For those to whom it is relevant, you owe it to the men in your life to share it with others.

Barbara Kay is a weekly columnist in the comment pages of Canada’s National Post newspaper.

Midwest Father's Conference 2010

Here is the information on this years conference in Michigan at the Oakland School's Conference Center 2111 Pontiac Waterford, MI. Midwest Father's Conference 

Download 10th Midwest Fathers Conference