Our Time is Now (Fathers)

Does this ring true??

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

One day (soon) this once great country of ours is going to implode. We already have the highest male incarceration rate in the world. We have a tax base that relies heavily on male workers. We have an institution in place that does everything it can to abstain men from marriage and fatherhood. No more marriages, no more kids (read: male offspring), males continuously thrown in prison for victimless crimes - who's going to be financially supporting this country? Women/Mothers? Children? Politicians? Corporations? Forget Al Qeada. This will be magnitudes worse than anything a group of terrorists from a foreign land could even dream of inflicting on us.

From a Father's rights site

Lawyer penalized for writing child

According to the committee's records, while Werme was representing the father, she wrote a letter to his daughter despite a court order barring Werme, her client or his family from contacting the girl.

The court had issued the no-contact order because previous phone calls between the girl and her father were so upsetting they had exacerbated the girl's unspecified medical condition, according to committee files. In her January 2007 letter to the girl, who was then 16, Werme told the girl her relatives were lying to her when they allegedly told her she would have enough money to attend college if only her father paid his overdue child support.

In the letter, which is part of Werme's Professional Conduct Committee file, Werme told the girl there likely wouldn't be enough money for her even if her father won Megabucks and paid all of his child support.

Werme wrote to the girl that her father could offer only his love.

Child custody case to study constitutional protections

A court hearing is scheduled tomorrow on arguments that allege the basic child custody procedures used by judges in Bradley County, Tenn., are unconstitutionally biased in favor of one parent.

According to Thorne, the case before Circuit Judge J. Michael Sharp is testing the court procedures used in the child custody case of 3-year-old Kate Hopkins, which began in 2007.

After more than two years in court and five different judges, the case is set for trial beginning May 27 in Sharp's courtroom. But Sharp is hearing the constitutional issues before the rest of the case is heard.

Attorney Jeffrey Miller will argue on behalf of fit Tennessee parents and their children, and an attorney from the Tennessee attorney general's office, Warren Jasper, is expected to argue on behalf of the standard procedures.

According to a statement from Thorne, one of the procedures that will be challenged is the "80-day rule" created by local judges. It automatically takes effect as soon as a child custody case is filed, allowing one parent only 80 days a year with the child while the other parent is allowed 285 days – regardless of circumstances.

The rule, Miller argues, discriminates against one parent, violating the principle of equal protection as well as due process, since it is imposed without a hearing.

Click here read more about this case.

Fathers in the news

Thursday, March 19, 2009

This week in the news

Fathers held a protest at airport
Advocates for fathers sue trail court over child support

Remembering The father of Joint Custody "Cook worked to push through the nation's first joint-custody law in California, paving the way to changes in other states."

James Cook obituary: The obituary of joint custody advocate James Cook in Thursday's Section A said a 1980 California law made joint custody a first preference in custody decisions. The law states that it doesn't establish a preference but allows discretion in choosing "a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child" and emphasizes that courts in granting sole custody should consider whether the custodial parent is willing to allow "frequent and continuing contact" with the noncustodial parent. —

I'm Back, Lets reconnect..

Sorry at I have be away. I had another major project that took up alot of my time. I'm backadn I hope to get this blog rolling again.

I'm also looking for a few other father's rights blogger to helpto try this into a community fathers blog.

If you are interest, just email.. sanfather@gmail.com,

Counselors lie in court and face charges

Friday, December 19, 2008

The attorney for two Lufkin counselors indicted for lying under oath during a child custody case compared the grand jury charges to a bologna sandwich on Thursday.

"There's an old saying that a district attorney could have a grand jury indict a bologna sandwich," said defense attorney John W. Tunnell. "This case is a bologna sandwich."

Tunnell's clients Mark Sutton and Juanda Morgan, who are married to each other and have a counseling practice together, have both been indicted for aggravated perjury. An Angelina County grand jury handed down two counts of the charges against Sutton and five counts against Morgan.

Angelina County District Attorney Clyde Herrington was not available for comment Thursday, although he usually does not comment on cases that are currently under investigation.

Sutton testified in a child custody case earlier this year that the father of the children involved had raised his voice "in a very loud and harassing manner" during the course of a counseling session, according to an indictment handed down by a grand jury Tuesday. Morgan testified that during her counseling session with the father "he began to yell very loudly at me," the report stated. Sutton and Morgan also said under oath they would characterize the father's type of behavior as consistent with a person who has rage, the report stated.

A tape recording of the session, reviewed and investigated by a Texas Ranger, revealed "such statement as being false," the report stated.

Morgan responded to a request for comment made Wednesday in a phone message left Thursday morning. She said she and her husband would not be avoiding comment on the case.

"This is a story that really affects the entire mental health counseling community here in Lufkin, in my opinion," she said. "Even though it looks like my specific problem at the moment, I think it indicates what a lot of mental health professionals are up against when occasionally a parent expects you to be a hired gun on the stand rather than a mental health professional."

The indictment issued Tuesday is not expected to affect the custody court case, which has already been resolved. The father did get custody rights to the children.

The counselers lies but yet it won't affect the custody case, Why, it should? Just goes to show what Father don't matter, and only seen as ATM's

LAWS OF EVE - Application for maintenance of children

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

In a recent Supreme Court decision (PEC v DRC) which was delivered on April 4, the judge was asked to consider an application by a mother for increased contribution towards maintenance by the father of the couple's eight-year-old child. Three issues were considered by the judge:

1. What amounts to reasonable expense in respect of an eight- year-old child?

Whenever the court considers a maintenance application on behalf of a child, there is an attempt to identify what sums are incurred exclusively for the child's benefit. Therefore, expenses such as rent, mortgage, cost of hiring a helper and utilities are usually apportioned between the child and the other person or persons who share that home with him or her.

In the case of DRC's application, the judge was of the view that an allocation of half of the mortgage and the utilities to an eight-year- old was unreasonable. Instead, the judge concluded that a third or a quarter of those expenses was exclusively incurred for the child's benefit.

2. If an application for maintenance is made pursuant to the Children (Guardianship and Custody) Act, does the court have to consider the applicant's means?

There are alternative statutes under which applications for maintenance may be made. One such statute is the Children (Guardianship and Custody) Act, which speaks only to the examination of the father's means by the court. In some other statutes, such as the Maintenance Act, the court is directed to consider the means of both parents.

In the case of PEC v DRC, the application was made by the mother and her attorney-at-law argued that she did not need to provide information regarding her income, because the court only needed to consider the father's means. However, the court did not find favour with that argument and ruled that both the means of the father and the mother should be considered.

3. If an application for maintenance is made pursuant to the Children (Guardianship and Custody) Act, can the court have regard to the provisions of the Maintenance Act?

The judge was of the view that because the court was concerned to ensure the best interests of the child, he was not constrained to confine his considerations to the statute under which the application was made. He stated that, "the court should not be hampered by procedural trappings, but should approach its task with practicality". Therefore, the judge ruled that the principles outlined in the Maintenance Act, which indicate that there is equal obligation for parents to maintain a child, remained applicable.