I support equal rights, but for fathers too NOW's response

Fwd: FATHERS-L Fwd: I support equal rights, but for fathers too My
Posted by: "Nuhusky82@aol.com" Nuhusky82@aol.com nuhusky82
Thu Jul 8, 2010 11:49 am (PDT)

These are to responses one from Randall Frank and the other from Peter Hill to Christina Knowles of Mass NOW, please use them as examples of what to write to Mass NOW

From Randall Frank
Dear Ms. Knowles,

I feel I must chime in here.

You claim that, “Mass. NOW wants judges to retain the ability to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis without being tied to a presumptive custody mandate.”

But you cannot deny the data which unequivocally demonstrate that something on the order of ~85% of the cases in Mass (and many other states) end with awarding sole custody to the mother, creating in effect a defacto presumptive custody mandate. In fact, it’s worse than a mandate… because it’s going on extra-legally, circumventing due process and equal protection on a daily basis.

So if a shared parenting mandate is to merely begin with… to merely start with the presumption of shared parenting while still allowing for judicial discretion that merely must be written and therefore held to some level of accountability… if what you’re supporting is the Mass Bar assertion that this alone creates a presumptive custody mandate… then HOW can you support this assertion and NOT recognize the current data that clearly demonstrate that mothers are being awarded sole custody some 85% of the time, a defacto mandate and HOW can you not see that phenomenon as, in effect, AT LEAST as much of a presumptive custody mandate as the one you’re claiming that the MASS BAR and other orgs claim the HB 1400 shared parenting bill to be?

Please answer this and please do not shirk from this critically important question.

You may as well know that I was raised in a radical feminist household. My mother, Cheryl Frank and Jacquie Flenner (if you know your 70’s feminist history) co-founded the first shelter for battered women in the country, then called The Women’s House, in Champaign-Urbana, IL. So I was raised in the culture. As a very young man I was told, “You never hit women.”, not, “You never hit anyone”. If you think about the sickness of such a message, however well intentioned, being pumped out all over the place at that time… it really created a social landscape where men were just somehow bad and women were sort of a nurturing mother earth and definitely always better parents.

Ms. Knowles… I’m here to tell you that the current phenomenon of 85% of mother’s being awarded sole custody with children suffering from greatly diminished access to their fathers has been shown to be a form of institutional abuse against children… for profit…. and has been thought to be so by social scientists for at least the last two decades. This defacto, institutionalized discrimination against fathers isn’t really different in any fundamental way… from institutional discrimination against black people.

The wage gap, date rape, various forms of violence against women worldwide, claims that men have oppressed women for the last 40,000 years… none of these are reasons to block shared parenting.
To claim that some abusive men somewhere will gain an advantage from a supposed presumptive custody mandate that you erroneously claim HB 1400 to be… is to invoke a red herring. 20 million children across the US suffer greatly diminished access to their fathers in a country with 300 million and a 60% divorce rate and we can’t begin to claim that this phenomenon exists because of DV or bad men who are deadbeats and just don’t care about their children… we just can’t make this claim… not on a scale of 20 million children, and there’s no getting around the figures and the data. We have an entire generation of children growing up with displaced anger and at heightened risk for a whole host of social pathologies, because of the 85% phenomenon. There are credible studies that suggest to a high degree that a disproportionate level of rape and violent crime stems from offenders with displaced anger who grew up in fatherless homes.

Please rethink your position and support HB 1400.

Respectfully,

Randall Frank
System Administrator
MCSE, CNE, CCNA,CCA, Mile2, Network +, A+
CIT, Cornell University
130 Seneca Place
Suite 400
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-254-7229
607-273-4219 cell

From Peter Hill

Dear Ms. Knowles;

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If you READ House Bill 1400 it clearly DOES NOT take away Judicial discretion. It only states that a Presumption of Shared Parenting is the default, and if the Judge decides that IT IS not in the child's best interest, they can decide otherwise but must write a finding of fact why they do not. In addition, if there is abuse or neglect, by either parent, mother or father, again, the presumption does not apply.

Here is the bill for you to read. I believe if you actually read the bill you will see that is exactly what it says. Now the Boston Bar and the Mass Bar have an economic interest in keeping the status quo. They make a fortune off of dads fighting to be able to raise their kids. I get why they do not want this to change. I do not get why NOW would be against this, especially since you basically just said you support Shared Parenting. Please do take a closer look and I feel as a fighter for equal rights, NOW should support equal rights everywhere, not just when it is convenient for woman only. Some fit moms who are at an economic disadvantage and second wives too would benefit from this legislation. Please realize that in 2004 in a non binding referendum that 86% of Mass voters supported this. A recent online poll Shared Parenting was supported by 88% of men and 64% of woman, still a vast majority of woman.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht01pdf/ht01400.pdf

Please re read this bill carefully. IT DOES NOT FOR ONE MINUTE TAKE AWAY JUDICIAL DISCRETION.

Thanks. I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

Dr. Peter G. Hill

In a message dated 7/8/2010 12:09:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, christina.massnow@gmail.com writes:

Dear Dr. Hill,

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts on presumptive custody legislation. While we have differing views on this issue, I wanted to follow up on why Mass. NOW does not support presumptive custody legislation.

Mass. NOW is deeply supportive of both parents being involved and active in their children's lives whenever possible and appropriate. We support shared parenting as a concept when both parents are in a position to take care of a child. For most families, shared parenting is absolutely in the best interest of a child. However, this is unfortunately not always true: sometimes parents are absent, abusive, or find themselves in life circumstances that are not conducive to raising a child at that point in time.

"Shared parenting" legislation creates a default situation that may not be appropriate to apply in every case. Currently, judges have the discretion to examine each individual situation, consider all factors involved, and make a decision based on the best interests of the child. "Shared parenting" legislation takes away this discretion, and creates a presumption of shared parenting where it may not be appropriate. Mass. NOW wants judges to retain the ability to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis without being tied to a presumptive custody mandate. Our friends at the Mass Bar Association and the Mass Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, along with a host of other reputable organizations committed to the well being of children and best practices in law, share our opposition to presumptive custody.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with Mass. NOW.

Sincerely,

Christina M. Knowles
State Director and Lobbyist

Mass. NOW
Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization for Women

1105 Commonwealth Avenue
Suite 201
Boston, MA 02215

work: 617-254-9130
fax: 617-254-9134

www.massnow.org

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, <CHIROHILL@aol.com> wrote:

Thank you for your response.

I would be more than happy to hear why NOW does not support equal rights for fathers. Please feel free to forward your information for me to review.

It is to bad that you are not open for a frank discussion, not that I am at all surprised. It says a lot when people refuse to have an intelligent discourse on any topic.

Dr. Peter G. Hill

I

In a message dated 7/6/2010 10:58:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, christina.massnow@gmail.com writes:

Dear Dr. Hill,

I received your second message. My personal cell phone is strictly for reporters and legislators, as is made clear on my office answering machine, and as I mentioned to your receptionist. Please either email me or leave messages on my office phone. I presume you got this number off my office machine, but the office number is 617.254.9130.

I received your email, and thank you for your thoughts oh the issue of presumptive custody.

Mass. NOW will not be engaging in discussion over this issue, so it will not be possible for us to meet or otherwise discuss this. If you are interested, I will gladly provide you with more information on why Mas. NOW does not support presumptive custody, either via email or phone.

Best,

Christina Knowles

Christina

From: CHIROHILL@aol.com

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:57:52 EDT

To: <christina@massnow.org>

Subject: I support equal rights, but for fathers too

Dear Ms. Knowles;

My entire life I supported and worked for equal rights for woman. I have supported NOW in the past both financially when I was in College and with my time.

To see an organization that has fought long and hard for equal rights, be hipocritical, and try to deny equal rights to fathers and men makes no sense to me.

Kids need their dads too after separation and divorces. Kids without dads have higher rates of suicide, higher rates of teen pregnancy, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse and higher rates of teen violence, gang violence and intimate partner violence when they get older. Just look to the kids in Mattapan and Roxbury who pull the trigger and walk with knives. Studies show they are the kids without a dad in their life.

NOW's position just exacerbates and contributes to father-less-ness. Who benefits from this? Woman do not either in the long run.

I urge you to re-examine NOW's position against Shared Parenting. There is NO good reason why just because a fit parent separates and divorce that a father should be relegated to a VISITOR instead of a parent. It is counter intuitive and counter productive for society. We are not talking about abusive or neglectful parents, but FIT parents.

Why does not equal rights apply to men. Judges DO NOT now have to explain why they do not give joint physical for fit parents.

Please take a closer look and support equal rights, not just for woman, but for men and fathers also. I do not get how you can fight on one hand for equal rights but when it is at the expense of fathers, your push for equality goes out the window. This is wrong.

Dr. Peter G. Hill

cell 617-763-3370

Boston Copley Square Chiropractic
304 Columbus Avenue
Boston, MA 02116
617-536-9119
www.chirohill.com
Twitter: Chirohill

www.communicationhelper.com

www.blogspot.communicationhel per.com
781-325-1848
Twitter: Commhelper

--
---
Christina M. Knowles
State Director and Lobbyist

Mass. NOW
Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization for Women

1105 Commonwealth Avenue
Suite 201
Boston, MA 02215

work: 617-254-9130
fax: 617-254-9134

www.massnow.org