Fathers 'powerless against vengeful mothers'

Decent fathers are left powerless to see their estranged children if vengeful mothers are determined to prevent access, a senior judge has admitted.

Lord Justice Ward attacked child access law after presiding over a case that saw a “vicious” mother falsely accuse her ex-husband of sexually abusing their child.

He spoke out after telling the father that there was nothing he could do to help him re-establish contact with his daughter after his ex-wife turned her against him.

The man’s 14-year-old daughter, who cannot been identified, had been influenced by a “drip, drip, drip of venom” from his ex-wife, who wanted to deny him his paternal rights.

Lord Justice Ward said the case was bordering on the scandalous but the court was compelled to act in the interests of the child.

Because of her mother’s “viciously corrupting” influence, it would cause the teenager too much distress if she spent time with her father, he said.

In London’s Civil Appeal Court, Lord Justice Ward said: “The father complains bitterly, passionately, and with every justification, that the law is sterile, impotent and utterly useless.

”But the question is 'what can this court do?’ The answer is nothing.”

The parents were briefly married in the 1990s and their daughter was a baby when they parted.

Lord Justice Ward said it was “impossible” that the girl could remember being abused and it was obvious it was something she had been told and believed.

In 1997 a judge ruled that allegations of sexual abuse were “wholly unfounded”.

The malignant influence of the mother, who lives in the Lincoln area, came to a head when the girl wrote to her father when she was nine.

The letter read: “This is what I really think about you. I hate you and you frighten me. You made my life miserable and stressful. I wish you would die. Leave me alone.”

In 2004 the father went to Lincoln County Court in an attempt to gain access. He was allowed to see her, but only under the supervision of a priest.

The contact was an unhappy experience for the daughter and the arrangement ceased. At a later court hearing, the father virtually admitted that further meetings would distress her.

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Ward refused the father permission to appeal his decision. The father is considering taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Read more...

Very Intersting Blog

I have been reading a new blog about a father's fight in Kentucky Supreme Court, It's a very moving and trying story. Click here to visit his Blog

so What don't you stop by and read, lean support and comments and messages of hope for this father.

On a personal note, about his case, though he might have lost his case, I would have to wonder if the mother of his child and her husband was to divorce, just who would they go after for Child Support.

Read more...

Gay sperm donor denied son access

Civil liberties groups demanded radical reform of family law after a gay man, who donated sperm to a lesbian couple, was refused rights to his biological son.

Dublin's High Court ruled that the man, who had been friends with the women, should have no guardianship or access to the child and the toddler would be better off with the couple. The landmark ruling is the latest case to expose serious gaps in family law, fathers' rights and a lack of legislation on same-sex couples.

The Unmarried and Separated Fathers of Ireland warned the decision could end up being a major setback for fathers' rights. Legal spokesman Donnacha Murphy said: "Legislation may further the issue of inequality in Irish family life. The only way to achieve ultimate equality is by an amendment to the constitution."

---

How much would you like to bet if the those mommy need more money they will hit him up for child support and win.

Read more...

State's Mistake Denies Father Rights To His Child

In April 2006, Eggleston got a surprising letter from the Foster Care Review Board saying his child's mother had attempted suicide the previous summer and the child had been made a ward of the state.

"They told me that she had been in foster care with her grandmother for almost a year. Wow. I had no clue, and by that time -- well, they knew where I was to take my money, but how come no one ever notified me?" Eggleston said.

Attorney Amy Geren now represents Eggleston. She said that because the state dropped the ball, Eggleston missed out on an opportunity to gain custody of his child. He is suing the state.

"They knew exactly where to find him. They just didn't make any attempt to notify him. If the custodial mother is not able to care for that child, the first choice should be to place that child with the non-custodial parent," Geren said.

This is Nebraska's first test case for a new law that allows state officials to give more than just a "no comment" on child abuse and neglect cases. LB 782, just signed within the last couple weeks, allows Landry to release information about children who are state wards.

Read More Here

Read more...

Israel Fathers Child Custody Rights Groups Intensify Demonstrations

By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency

Ra'anana, Israel ---- March 16....(INA) - Fathers and children rights custody groups in Israel protesting gender bias discrimination in court custody cases have intensified their public demonstrations.

Last week hundreds of divorced and single fathers met in Tel Aviv to demand joint and or equal custody in a non-violent protest covered by both Israel TV and several local newspapers. The fathers are demanding that the Israel Knesset, Israel family court judges and Israel child welfare departments adopt reforms in the existing Israel Family Custodian Act of 1962 which states that all children under the age of six will automatically have custody under their mother, unless the mother is violent, drug abuser or negligent.

Fathers 4 Justice Israel hijacked all media attention at the Ra'anana annual marathon

read more here

---

When will the world realizes that fathers are just an important mothers are. I can only said if they truly before that fathers don't have a place in a child life, then fathers shouldn't have to pay child support or provide medical coverage for the child.

Read more...

Fathers have rights, too, 02-10-08

The Family Court of Fall River, like thousands of others, seems to not only sanction, but ardently promote the estrangement of child and father. Further, the mothers, along with their lawyers, manipulate the court with the outdated "every woman is a victim" syndrome and false or exaggerated accusations, and offer up the children as catalysts to punish and impoverish the father.

This is scathingly evident in the case of unwed parents. The fathers of illegitimate children are "fathers" only in the eyes of the bank! Nowhere is this more apparent than a case in California of the unwed mother placing her child up for adoption, the father of the child petitioning the court for custody of his child, and the "wisdom" of the court denying his petition. This particular case is now pending in the Supreme Court. For most, the expense of such a pursuit of justice is completely prohibitive.

Signing an acknowledgement of paternity provides no parental rights to the father. The child, with the blessings of the court, becomes no more than a commodity for the unwed mother. Affording her the lifelong "right" and ability to abuse and harrass the system, the courts and the father of the child without repercussion or accountability. The family courts are overflowing daily with charges that are ludicrous, unfounded and out-and-out lies. Fathers by the droves are brought to task by vindictive, self-serving, deceitful mothers, many of whom practice irresponsible breeding as a means of income.

Yes, there are "dead beat" dads. Many simply choose to ignore their parental responsibilities. But, the majority are "created" by our (in)justice system.

Judgements in Family Court are hawked as in the best interest of the child, when, in fact, they are in the best interest of the court. The family lawyers are much like morticians, preying upon clients at a most vulnerable moment, a time when rationale is set aside. After all, what father is not willing to sacrifice all for his child? Ergo, thousands upon thousands of dollars are mindlessly placed in the hands of attorneys, who, with minimal exception, concern themselves with plans for their next boat purchase and wouldn’t know the best interest of the child if they fell over it.

What about the guardians ad litem? Case in point. After meeting with a "father" who provided extensive legal documentation regarding his child being subjected to frequent visits by an ex-con pedophile and a known heroin addict, the GAL met with the (un-wed) mother. She admitted that both were a part of the small child’s life on a regular basis, and that, "if it matters, I won’t let him go around them anymore." If?

The final recommendation of the GAL was the child should continue to live with the mother, even though there was concern about his safety and well-being (paraphrased). Guardians ad litem have no particular qualifications, if any, and yet the court utilizes and respects their recommendations. Again, where does the "best interest of the child" come into play? Perhaps in the next battle in the court? I doubt it!

Being a father, wed or unwed, is not a crime, except in the Family Court system. Being an unwed mother has lost its stigma, and rightfully so. It happens. If there is a "crime" involved, it is that the Family Court system violates rather than endorses the "best interests of the children."

Until we correct this mockery of jurisprudence, hundreds of thousands of fathers will continue to be estranged or incarcerated, hundreds of thousands of the vindictive mothers will continue to view their children as cash registers and hundreds of thousands of children will fall to abuse and neglect, or worse.

For the many mothers and fathers who work toward the "best interest of the child," blessed be. For the rest of you, bless the children; they deserve better. I hope you get what you deserve!

Read more...

What about Fathers Rights,

If I was 14 weeks' pregnant, I could have an abortion. I could simply decide on my own that another child would complicate my life in unacceptable ways. Too expensive, too inconvenient, not the right time - whatever the cause - I could make a call, schedule an abortion and be rid of my problem.

I could do this because I'm a woman, the potential mother-to-be. Fathers, however, do not share the same rights. Just ask Manishkumar Patel.

Patel, 34, of Appleton was charged in November with attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child and eight other counts for allegedly slipping the abortion drug RU-486 into his pregnant girlfriend's drink. She later miscarried - her second miscarriage in less than a year. (A warrant has been issued for Patel's arrest after he failed to check in with Outagamie County sheriff's authorities last week.)

Patel's actions, if proved, were wrong. No one ever should surreptitiously give a drug to another. But why can a father be charged with attempted homicide when a mother can choose legally to take the exact same drug with the exact same effect.

The legal answer is because Wisconsin is one of 37 states to have a fetal homicide law. In Wisconsin, it is a felony to intentionally destroy the life of an unborn quick child. Under the law, feticide is a Class E felony, carrying a penalty of up to 15 years in prison and fines up to $50,000.

Yet under Roe vs. Wade, women are free to destroy their unborn child at almost any time. Is this fair? Is this right?

Even if you agree with the legality of abortion - which I do - how do you reconcile the fact that mothers-to-be are allowed to stop a pregnancy from progressing to birth while fathers are not? Does the fetus not share the DNA of both mother and father?

Fathers, I think, get short shrift. Because a mother carries the child, she has all the power. She can decide to keep the child or not. The father has no say, although the decision has lifelong implications for both of them. Should the mother decide to keep the child despite the father's wishes, he will be forced to provide financial support for 18 years, whether or not it is convenient to do so. Should she decide to abort a child that he would rather keep, he has no recourse - only empty arms and an empty heart.

It appears Patel had no intention of loving or caring for his unborn child. He was married to another woman. If he and his girlfriend had talked about it, perhaps they could have prevented the unplanned pregnancy, much less two of them. Instead, Patel allegedly took matters into his own hands.

His case deserves our attention. Patel's alleged actions may have been reprehensible, but fathers are parents, too. Let's hope this case draws attention to the rights of fathers everywhere.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Read more...

An unusual 'Safe Haven' situation

Link to post

LAKE WALES - Thursday morning, firefighters in Lake Wales took in a baby boy given up by his mother under the Safe Haven laws.

Thursday night, the baby's father came to the station, frantic, wanting the baby back.

Firefighters and police say they had no idea what to do at first.

"Neither one of us had ever heard of this before," said Lake Wales Police detective Lynette Townsel. "We didn't know the protocol for it -- we'll be honest, we didn't know how to handle it at first."

Through emergency phone calls to the creator of the Safe Haven program and the Department of Children and Families, they learned the boy must stay with state workers who have custody now. 

Adoption attorney Jeanne Trudeau Tate said that once a parent has given up a child, they have to go through a judge to get him back.

"The question is, does [the father] have a right to step forth? Yes. Does that mean he automatically gets the child back?  No. The court still has to determine it's in the child's best interest and that his actions have not created a situation where his parental rights should be terminated," Tate said.

In the meantime, Lake Wales Police Officers said they felt the "Safe Haven" system worked correctly in this case, because no matter what happens to the baby boy in the weeks to come, he is safe, which is the first priority.

The question is, will he be able to get custody of the child, and if so will the mother be force to pay support?

Read more...

Ex-girlfriend's lawyer: Dail should pay support

A Goldsboro attorney says even though Dwayne Allen Dail was wrongfully imprisoned, he is still obligated to pay for his child.

But the attorney representing Dail says state law holds that jailed mothers and fathers aren't subject to back child support payments.

Goldsboro attorney Sarah L. Heekin is representing Goldsboro resident Lorraine Michaels, the mother of Dail's biological son.

Dail was exonerated in August by a Wayne County Superior Court judge after spending 18 years in prison for a rape DNA evidence showed he did not commit.

Now that Gov. Mike Easley has pardoned him, Dail might be entitled to $20,000 per year for every year he spent behind bars, adding up to $360,000.

Ms. Heekin said she was limiting all comment on the case to one written statement:

"Prior to his incarceration Mr. Dail and Ms. Michaels were in a long-term relationship. After Mr. Dail's conviction and incarceration, Ms. Michaels gave birth to their biological son. For the whole 18-plus years of Mr. Dail's imprisonment, Ms. Michaels was a single parent and the sole means of financial support for their minor son. As most people are now aware, Mr. Dail's sentence was life imprisonment and thus no action for child support was ever filed.

"Since his release, Mr. Dail has not indicated any intention to provide support to Ms. Michaels thus, in order to fully protect my client's statutory rights, it was necessary to file an action ... prior to the minor's 18th birthday," Ms. Heekin said in the statement.

But Goldsboro attorney Shelby Benton -- who represented Dail as a public defender at his late 1980s trial -- says state law doesn't encumber Dail with child support payments.

Mrs. Benton, who attended Dail's exoneration proceedings, is representing Dail again after telling the wrongfully convicted man and his son "if they needed anything, call me."

"We will be vehemently defending the action," Mrs. Benton said. "The state says if a person is incarcerated, child support abates."

A look at N.C. Statute 50-13.10 seems to support Mrs. Benton's statement.

No "arrearage" -- fancy lingo for the state of being behind in payments -- can build up when a person is in prison, the law states.

"A child support payment or the relevant portion thereof is not past due and no arrearage accrues ... during any period when the supporting party is incarcerated, is not on work release, and has no resources with which to make the payment," the law states.

Other exceptions to child support arrearage are after the supported child's death, death of the supporting parent, or when the child lives with the supporter because of a court order.

Another exception is "an express or implied written or oral agreement transferring primary custody to the supporting party."

Read more...

The attacks against fathers

The attack against fathers, and fathers' rights, began before the existence of the fathers' rights movement as we know it today. This movement is a "backlash" against government corruption, the organized and intentional destruction of the institution of family, and 10s of billions of dollars being stolen from government coffers as well as from fathers and children; organized crime. Even those who still do not understand the connection between the battle for fathers' rights and their own lives may eventually want to know where their money is and whether they can get it back. They will certainly not want to continue paying extra taxes merely to support criminal gangs.

Read more here

Pbw,fr,mnd.

Read more...