A Child's Right

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

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.

RADAR ALERT: "First they ignore you, ..."

RADAR ALERT:

"First they ignore you, ..."

Two weeks ago, Slate.com's short-lived
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote1sym> 1 publication
"Double X" published an article by Kathryn Joyce entitled "'Men's Rights'
Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective."
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote2sym> 2

This was not Slate.com's finest hour. One thing this article could never be
accused of is objective reporting.

On Nov. 5th, the very same day the Double X article appeared, Salon.com's
Broadsheet published an article by Judy Berman entitled "'Men's rights'
groups go mainstream"
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote3sym> 3 that adds no
new information, and simply seems to be an effort to repeat the Double X
article to Salon's readers.

Since the Double X article appeared there have been several analyses of its
flaws, the most recent being Cathy Young's article in Forbes: "Feminism
should be about equality-for males too"
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote4sym> 4 which says:

"More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet
Radcliffe Richards wrote, 'No feminist whose concern for women stems from a
concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest
to be the advantage of women.' Joyce's article is a stark example of
feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage,
rather than justice or truth."

In "Journalistic Misrepresentation at Slate's New Woman-Oriented Publication
'Double X'" <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote5sym> 5,
RADAR's Mark Rosenthal explained how the article had misrepresented his
comments and also took issue with the article's characterization of Murray
Straus as someone "who has written extensively on female violence," saying:

"The characterization of Straus as someone who has written extensively on
female violence is like characterizing Susan B. Anthony as someone who wrote
extensively on temperance - true but misleading because of what it leaves
out. Straus has devoted his professional career to the study of all forms of
family violence - parent-to-child, child-to-parent, sibling-to-sibling, as
well as partner violence in all its configurations - male-to-female,
female-to-male, and mutual. He has never focused exclusively on female
violence."

And in a series of articles beginning with "Slate.com & Salon.com Criticize
the Fatherhood Movement (Part I)"
<http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote6sym> 6, Glenn Sacks
critiques the quality of the reporting, saying:

"The articles discuss various aspects and actors in the [men's and fathers]
movement, and also quote and misquote me. ... I specifically, repeatedly,
and emphatically told Joyce that any linkage between the men's & fathers'
movements' grievances and Sodini is not my view, but I guess she was
determined to jam it in there anyway."

Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said: "First they ignore you, then they
ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." The joint Slate/Salon
attack pieces are a good indication that we're well past stage 1.
Congratulation to all RADAR supporters and allies for getting us this far.
Let's keep it up!

_____

1 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote1anc> "Double X
closes up shop",
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/11/16/double_x_folds/index.html

2 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote2anc> "'Men's
Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective.", Slate.com,
http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/mens-rights-groups-have-become-
frighteningly-effective

3 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote3anc> 'Men's
rights' groups go mainstream, Salon.com,
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/11/05/mens_rights/index.ht
ml

4 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote4anc> "Feminism
should be about equality-for males too",
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/mens-rights-feminism-equality-violence-opin
ions-contributors-cathy-young.html

5 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote5anc> "Journalistic
Misrepresentation at Slate's New Woman-Oriented Publication 'Double X'",
http://www.breakingthescience.org/DoubleXMisrepresentation.php

6 <http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20091123.php#sdendnote6anc> "Slate.com &
Salon.com Criticize the Fatherhood Movement (Part I)",
http://glennsacks.com/blog//?p=4359 <http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4359>

_____

Date of RADAR Release: November 23, 2009

R.A.D.A.R. - Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting - is a
non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve
the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.
http://www.mediaradar.org

US HR 739 SAFE DV Industry Act

H.R. 739 ‘SAFE’ Act – Ignoring…

An Industry

Battered by Reality

H.R. 739, the SAFE (Security and Financial Empowerment) Act has been introduced in the House to address alleged discrimination against victims of abuse.

But if we want to curb domestic violence, we first need to ask why existing domestic violence policies and programs have done such a poor job in helping victims and stopping abuse.

Evidence of the pervasive problems began to mount six years ago:

1. Ms. Foundation for Women: Minorities Harmed by Arrests

The original VAWA law provided millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies to implement mandatory arrest laws. But such policies have turned out to be ineffective, and the impact on minority communities has been devastating. 

In 2003, the Ms. Foundation for Women concluded: “Criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color, decimating marginalized communities.”^[1]

2. OMB and DoJ: No Evidence of Effectiveness

In 2004, the Office of Management and Budget rated the effectiveness of abuse shelters supported by the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. The OMB rating states flatly, “Not Performing: Results not Demonstrated.”[2]

That same year, Angela Moore Parmley of Department of Justice admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”^[3]

3. National Academy of Sciences: Programs ‘Driven by Ideology’

The following year the National Academy of Sciences released its report, Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence against Women. The report concludes that many domestic violence programs are “driven by ideology and stakeholder interests rather than by plausible theories and scientific evidence of cause.”^[4]

4. Researcher: ‘Factoids from Nowhere’ are Common

In 2007, University of Pennsylvania researcher Richard Gelles published a report documenting the widespread use of misleading and false claims by representatives of the domestic violence field. Professor Gelles concluded such “factoids from nowhere” could turn out to be “harmful to women, men, children, and the institution of the family.”[5]

5. CDC: Women More Likely to Abuse

Later that same year, the Centers for Disease Control released a national survey on partner aggression. Published in the May 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the study found that women were the aggressors in 7 out of 10 cases of one-way partner violence.[6]

This study confirmed over 200 other studies showing women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner violence. And last month, former NFL quarterback Steve McNair was murdered in his sleep by his ex-girlfriend.

Despite such compelling evidence, the domestic violence industry consistently refuses to acknowledge that violence-prone women need help.

6. Lawsuits

In recent years, a number of lawsuits have been filed against domestic violence programs.

·         In California, a ground-breaking lawsuit resulted in the Third Court of Appeals ruling that domestic violence programs in the state were engaged in illegal sex discrimination.

·         In West Virginia, a pending lawsuit alleges discrimination and dissemination of false and misleading information.

7. Florida IG: Cover-Ups

Last month the Florida Inspector General released the results of investigations of two abuse shelters in the state: Another Way and Harbor House.

Both investigations document attempts by top managers to thwart the reporting of child neglect and abuse that had occurred within the shelters. The similarity of the cases raises questions why two abuse shelters were engaged in such cover-ups.

8. California: Draconian Budget Cuts

Facing a $14.5 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently cut the budgets of almost all state departments by 10%. But when it came to abuse shelters, the governor opted to slash all – that’s 100% -- of the state funding.

One wonders if the governor will now demand accountability and proof of effectiveness before restoring funding to these abuse programs.

12-Point Plan to Rescue VAWA

Beset by a myriad of complaints, lawsuits, and budget cuts, the domestic violence industry has fallen into dire straights. But the industry refuses to acknowledge a problem even exists.

The upcoming renewal of the Violence Against Women Act provides a historic opportunity for lawmakers to institute long-overdue reforms. These are the changes that are needed:

1. Respect the wishes, decisions, and autonomy of victims.
2. Assure policies and programs are based on sound science, not rigid ideology.
3. Assure policies and programs are culturally-sensitive to the needs of African-Americans and other minorities.
4. Assure fairness and equal opportunity in funding for culturally-sensitive domestic violence programs.
5. Assure that services are made available to all groups. Avoid discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
6. Assure programmatic and financial accountability.
7. Assure the criminal justice system respects due process protections. Phase out mandatory arrest laws that have been proven to be harmful.
8. Assure training and community education programs provide accurate information, and do not promote harmful gender stereotypes.
9. Assure that persons who provide services to victims and offenders have the necessary academic credentials and training.
10. Reform VAWA’s immigration provisions to restore due process and protect the rights of the falsely-accused.
11. Base services on a careful needs assessment that takes into account the many factors that can cause intimate partner aggression.
12. Respect the integrity of the family. Encourage counseling over incarceration.

HR 739 shrugs off the pressing need to revitalize the faltering domestic violence industry. We ask you to assure the upcoming Violence Against Women Act addresses the 12-point plan for VAWA revitalization.

Do victims of abuse deserve anything less?

For more information, contact:

African-Americans for

VAWA Reform

P.O. Box

8701

South Charleston, WV

25303

(304) 342-7752

www.aavreform.org

---

References

[1] Ms. Foundation for Women. Safety and justice for all.

New York

, 2003. http://www.ms.foundation.org/user-assets/PDF/Program/safety_justice.pdf

[2] Program Assessment: Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002150.2004.html

[3] Parmley A. Violence against women post VAWA. Violence Against Women Vol. 10, No. 12, 2004. p. 1424.

[4] Kruttschnitt C, McLaughlin BL, and Petrie CV (eds). Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence against Women.

Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2005, p. 6.

[5] Gelles RJ. The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data—The cases of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2007.

[6] Whitaker DJ et al. Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007.

Action Alert: Michigan FOC Legislative Change Now

ACTION ALERT: Join Me in Sending Recommendations for the Michigan Fr

Posted by: "Doug Dante" [email protected]   dougdante1

Wed Sep 2, 2009 4:59 pm (PDT)

Hi,

Please join me in sending recommendations for the Michigan Friend of the Court to Michigan's Judiciary Committees. To make it easy, I've created a form message that you can use below. Use this message, or just share your own personal experiences.

Thank you in advance to the many people who will take action.

Sincerely,

Doug Dante

TO:

markmeadows@house.mi.gov; EllenLipton@house.mi.gov; LisaBrown@house.mi.gov; BobConstan@house.mi.gov; marccorriveau@house.mi.gov; AndyCoulouris@house.mi.gov; AndrewKandrevas@house.mi.gov; bettiecookscott@house.mi.gov; rebekahwarren@house.mi.gov; tonyaschuitmaker@house.mi.gov; JustinAmash@house.mi.gov; JosephHaveman@house.mi.gov; rickjones@house.mi.gov; EileenKowall@house.mi.gov; toryrocca@house.mi.gov; senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov; SenACropsey@senate.michigan.gov; SenASanborn@senate.michigan.gov; SenBPatterson@senate.michigan.gov; SenGWhitmer@senate.michigan.gov; SenHClarke@senate.michigan.gov; SenRBasham@senate.state.mi.us

Subject:

Recommendations for the Michigan Friend of the Court

Body:

Members of the Michigan House/Senate Judiciary Committees,

Here are my recommendations for
the family justice system in Michigan or the Michigan Friend of the
Court. As
you know, these programs effect millions of Michiganders, including
children, parents, and extended family members, and as members of the
Michigan House and Senate Judiciary Committees, you are the people's
elected representatives regarding these matters.

There is a previously available summary and recommendations here which may assist you:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12745431/Suggestions-to-Help-the-Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Strengthen-Families

However, recommendations to you committee include matters such as:

* Reform child custody procedures so that African American fathers are no longer only 3/5hs as
likely as White Non-Hispanic fathers to receive a custody
recommendation for joint custody or a for father sole custody.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6169001/Analysis-of-Friend-of-the-Court-Custody-Recommendations

*
Reform court procedures to ensure that parents and children get due
process and that an impartial court has weighed all of the relevant
facts.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3123830/Michigan-Child-Custody-Survey-Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2561734/Some-Thoughts-on-Child-Custody-Hearings

* Reform the Friend of the Court Association to stop illegal lobbying using taxpayer dollars.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12744555/Is-the-Friend-of-the-Court-Stealing-Taxpayer-Dollars-From-Children-for-Illegal-Lobbying

* Reform the office of court recorder so that all litigants can get contemporaneous recordings, and we don't
have consistent accusations that court proceedings were altered after
the fact by insiders.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2257035/Contemporaneous-Recordings-for-Referee-Hearings-in-Michigan

* Create an independent fraud tip line and an independent internal investigative unit at the FOC to uncover underhanded activities. Provide a mechanism for
members of the public to submit reports of fraud and underhanded
tactics to such an organization. Provide specific guidelines for
investigations, including undercover investigations, and provide
specific guidelines for turning over information received to law
enforcement. Provide specific guidelines for annual public reports of
investigations and wrongdoings uncovered.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/948712/Detecting-Fraud-in-Court-Filings-Postal-Meters-Color-PrintersCopiers-and-Cartridges
http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives
http://www.scribd.com/doc/477791/A-Review-of-the-CSPER-Report

* Apply FOIA to the FOC and SCAO in matters not regarding a particular case,
including policy matters and those matters normally FOA-able in other
departments.

* Investigate evidence of fraud in child support calculations.
Change procedures so that fraud is more difficult, including requiring
that FOC must not coerce parents into signing away their rights, as
they do on the standard FOC child support form, and change procedures
so that parents can actually see how the 2008 MCSFM is applied in their
case. Children are harmed when child support amounts are either inadequate or excessive.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-Request
(Search for "fraud")
http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/courtforms/domesticrelations/support/foc10a.pdf

*
Review
the 2008 MCSFM. At this time , I do not believe that it
provides an adequate amount of the child's resources to his/her care
when in the care of the parent paying child support. In particular,
since the 2004-2008 formula, the elimination in the new 2008 formula of
the 50% overnight refund for more than 6 days as well as the
application of the new "difference of cubes" of overnights rule for
child support allocation means that children receive substantially
fewer family resources while in the care of one parent versus the care
of another. For example, a typical single child with a total base
support of $703.71 can receive only a paltry $29.37 per month to care
for his/her needs when spending about a third of his or her waking
hours at the paying parent's home. This is wrong and simply serves to
hurt children, although
it reduces the workload at the FOC and increases federal program income
for the FOC.

http://www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/2008MCSFmanual.pdf
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/2004MCSFmanual.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-Request
(Search for "Parenting Time Offsets Could Often Be Insignificant")

In My View: Dad deserves better deal in Illinois law

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x931198271/In-My-View-Dad-deserves-better-deal-in-Illinois-law 
 

In My View: Dad deserves better deal in Illinois law 
 
By Staff Report
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
 
Jun 19, 2009
 

Father's Day focuses our attention on the importance of the role of fathers in children's lives. As perennial as the traditional Father's Day gifts, pronouncements on the virtues of fatherhood by elected officials such as Barack Obama are offered to reinforce its value. When tied to proposed legislation, these statements have often included a suggestion that many fathers need to act more responsibly.
 
Likewise, the current presumptions of Illinois family courts that ensure divorced fathers' access to their children influence our perceptions of the value of father engagement. Their minimum standards for the parenting roles of separated fathers underwrites the value by which all fathers, married and separated, are measured.
 
The de-facto minimum parenting schedule used by Illinois courts is every other weekend with a weekly non-overnight visit. This is what most fathers have to contend with. This minimal number of overnights with their children is, according to at least one national child development specialist, a child-unfriendly schedule befitting of only disinterested fathers.
 
Illinois judges, family court protocols and many legislators have continued to acquiesce over the past decades to this inadequate standard that can be a barrier to fathers acting more responsibly.
 
Our courts presumed parenting schedule prevails regardless of the father's close geographic proximity and track record of responsible fathering. It is a cookie-cutter presumption that states, in effect, fathers need not put their children to bed, help them with their homework, nor help get them ready for school the very activities associated with being a responsible father.
 
The Children's Rights Council (CRC) of Illinois provided new minimum guidelines to reform judicial protocols at the Illinois Family Law Study Committee in Waukegan on Jan. 26 of this year. The directors of the CRC of Illinois also listened to the testimony of child development and parenting experts, including prominent psychologists Dr. Alan Ravitz of New York University and Dr. William Pins of at Northwestern University, at the committee's hearing in downtown Chicago. 
 
The expert testimonies provided to the Illinois Family Law Study Committee offer Illinois' judges, attorneys and legislators the academic research and examples needed for serious reform. They need only the will power to create new child-friendly parenting time standards, to demand mandatory parenting agreements, and to adopt other reforms that have met with success in other states.
 
Along with reforms to court protocols, respected clinicians at the Family Institute at Northwestern University have developed alternative processes that would help redirect vengeful, sociopath and uncooperative parents away from corrosive litigation which is ill-suited to family dissolution, and toward constructive co-parenting solutions. Rather than children's future lives with their parents being steered by overworked legal professionals who often lack the special training to deal with ... these disputes (Firestone and Weinstein), processes such as Integrative Family Therapy could provide a system of intermediate-term counseling blended with mediation to help parents put the kids first. 
 
The benefits of updating Illinois family court protocols are many. They include decreased transfers of children between separated parents, greater father involvement in their children's schooling, fewer animosity-generating court battles, greater communication and incentives for parents to cooperate with each other, more father engagement, fewer Disneyland dads, improved post-divorce adjustment, fewer outcomes that scar children, less elevating of one parent into a monopolizing role and clearer signals to all parents that children in Illinois need a meaningful relationship with both parents.
 
Illinois is poised to place fatherhood onto a more solid footing. Adoption into law of recommendations from the Illinois Family Law Study Committee would send a positive signal that promotes fatherhood as a value. But will our legislators go far enough in adopting significant improvements to current Illinois family law? Do they have the political fortitude to revise our statutes so that Illinois family courts become significantly more child-friendly?
 
All of these reforms and alternatives to judicial processes could be put into law. But like all changes to the status quo, there will be resistance. Concerned citizens will need to advocate that legislators should provide Illinois children of separated parents the opportunity for the responsible fathers they deserve and set a positive example for all families.
 
Mike Doherty is chairman of the Children's Rights Council of Illinois (www.equalparentingillinois.org). He can be reached at
 
[email protected].
www.myspace.com/familyrights
 
http://www.youtube.com/user/joemaflage

Michigan Parent-Child Relationship Protection Bill 2009

Michigan Equal Parenting Rights Bill  to help protect the parent-child relationship http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-5114

 

This bill was introduced in the House Judiciary committee http://house.michigan.gov/committeeinfo.asp?lstcommittees=judiciary&submit=Go Let's let them know that we want a hearing and that it needs to be passed now! Please work on getting into the offices of the individual committee members. Check out the Michigan Secretary of State's site http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/contrib_anls.cgi to search the committee members and your state representative's campaign contributors. Maybe these contributors would like to know of this bill and the need for it's support by the politicians that they supported in the past.

 

Other Bills of Interest:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-4005

Need signed affadavit to take putative father's parental rights

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-4061

6 months to end child support after discovering that you are not the father via DNA

Tea Parties and Parental Rights

Smaller government, less taxation and coalition building discussions should happen while attending your local Tea Party. Check it out; show up with your t-shirt, buttons, signs and information and be a leader.

Tea Party Convention this Saturday
Sat., June 13 – Capitol City Baptist Ministries, 5100 Willoughby Road, Holt

If you haven't registered yet, this is your chance to be further informed by expert speakers, meet fellow activists and grow the movement...all for just $10. At the organizers’ request, AFP–MI staff will help lead two panel discussions, so we hope to see you there. Visit www.teapartyconvention.com for more info.

Upcoming Fourth of July Tea Parties
At last count, we know of 16 Tea Parties that are scheduled or being organized across Michigan for July 4th.

Manchester Gather @11am; Program @ noon
American Legion Post 117, 203 Adrian St.
Info: Bruce- cell: 734-972-1844; home: 734-428-9573

Clare 1–3pm
5th Street Park
Info: Adele Allen- 989-386-9030; [email protected]

Holland- noon
Centennial Park
Info: Bart Spencer- 616-218- 5118
[email protected]

Kalamazoo
6–8pm Bronson Park
Info: Gene Clem; [email protected]

Owosso noon–2pm
2355 E. Main St
Info: Bea Vajgart- 989-729-8897, [email protected]

Northville 12:30–3:30
Northville Community Park
Info: Maribeth Schmidt; [email protected]

Port Huron 4–7pm
Smiths Creek Rd at I-94 (Kimball Twp)
Info: Lee Sheldon- 810-385-4406, [email protected]

Traverse City 4:00pm Traverse City Civic Center

Taylor 11am

Lansing 1–3pm State Capitol Bldg.

Jackson (TBA) Info: Kathy Houle- 517-764-0623

Niles (TBA) Info: Jo Flock- 269-683-4242

Big Rapids (TBA); Grand Rapids (TBA); Hudsonville (TBA); North Branch (TBA)

East Tawas *Mon., July 6 Harbor Park

Its OFFICIAL....Support? makes a Festival....in ATLANTA!

Dear Friends,

I hope this email finds you all well.  It has been a while since emailed all of you so for that I apologize.

After much clawing, scratching and a little begging( lol J) long after hundreds of submissions--------

It’s OFFICIAL!   Our first festival ACCEPTANCE!

 SUPPORT? (the movie!) has finally been Accepted to a film festival for this September 2009 in Atlanta GA.

 Peachtree Village International Film Festival
4 Annual from September 24, 2009 to September 27, 2009

Please  go here:  https://www.withoutabox.com/03film/03t_sta/03t_sta_curr.php?film_id=1275898

We are also being considered for 2 Major Festivals in Australia with help of a friend and supporter there. (Thank you)  Keep your fingers crossed and your prayers high and enthusiastic.

Not sure how things will turn out or where this movie will go from here. All I can do is be honest and tell you I am still working on this project in my spare time to be sure it gets out somehow. Thank you for trusting me. I believe this project will be successful and change lives  in more ways than one. It has for me…….all positive. One day many of you will know why if you don’t already.

 It could be great if we can bring the movie to LA and NY for the 7 day screenings so Ill keep praying on that and hopefully you do the same. If you have any suggestions please let us know.

PLEASE if you or  someone you know can be in ATLANTA those dates please email us. It would be great to have AS MANY PEOPLE THERE AND AS MANY PEOPLE show up 3 days there for the support…..….support…….  SUPPORT?.

We have more T-Shirts now and will be having White ones up soon so it would be cool to have them on that week and please remember we have the Sneak Peak available. GET YOURS TODAY. You get the credit on the full film at the release date on our website. SO BUY-IT NOW if you haven’t already.

Whatever support you can help us with it is greatly appreciated $5,10,15,20 or $100  please pass it on! Thank you. We have to make this really work.

Thanks for all the support and more to come. So now you can really stay tuned!

All the best and may God Bless.

Warmest Regards,

Angelo Lobo

HELP  THE MOVIE :SUPPORT? system down get marketing today.

 www.shop.supportthemovie.com  

DONATE HERE: www.paypal.com  send to [email protected] to support the press releases and advertising.Be a sponsor.

Email: [email protected]

Follow-Us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/supportthemovie
Website : www.supportthemovie.com
Youtube:http://www.youtube.com/user/SupportTheMovie
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/supportthemovie
FaceBook: Supportthemovie

=======================================
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/   
A Kid's Right to Both Parents!
------
Newsletter mailing list
[email protected]  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter

*Parents* Rights Amendment Quickly Gains National Attention*

April 21, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press Contact: Rebekah Pizana (540) 751-1246

*Hoekstra, Farris Encouraged by Grassroots Support for Constitutional Amendment*

*Parents* Rights Amendment Quickly Gains National Attention*

WASHINGTON, D.C. * U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich, and Michael Farris of

ParentalRights.org earlier issued the following joint statement regarding the Parents* Rights Amendment:

*We recognized from the outset that amending the Constitution would not be easy and that we would encounter those entirely opposed to hearing this issue. However, the attention and support that the amendment has received just two weeks after introduction has been incredible. It is a testament to the grassroots support and tireless work of individuals and families nationwide supporting parents* rights.

*The grassroots support has been encouraging. The amendment has gained more than double our original goal for congressional co-sponsors upon introduction of the bill, from 30 to 70, and with continued support there is really no telling how fast we can drive this initiative.

*In just two weeks after introduction of the amendment, parental rights went from something that most people took for granted to a story that has been featured in Politico<http://hoekstra.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=13813-1767978> ,on The O*Reilly Factor<http://hoekstra.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=13814-1767978> and on radio shows across the nation.

*The need to protect parents* rights has struck a nerve with the American people. In an era where congressional leadership and the administration offer the federal government as the only solution to the challenges we face, Americans are starting to realize that no sphere of their lives is off-limits from government encroachment. Specifically, parents are recognizing the real possibility of being told by the government how to manage their parent-child relationship.

*As more people learn about the U.S. Senate*s possible ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the number of congressional co-sponsors will grow from the current 75 to a number that congressional leadership cannot ignore.*

Further information on the Parents' Rights Amendment can be viewed at www.parentalrights.org<http://mail.google.com/a/parentalrights.org/www.parentalrights.org>

Rebekah Pizana

National Coalition Director

ParentalRights.org

540.751.1200

[email protected]