Many women acknowledge the need for fathers to be involved with their children. They are aware of the terrible consequences of fatherless children not just to society but to children’s lives as they unfold toward adulthood. When you look at this issue you will discover, simply passing laws to "strengthen" marriage while on it's face is a good idea, it completely misses dealing with the liberal feminist agenda to destroy the family. One of the central attributes of the family, is the setting aside of our personal priorities in favor of the whole. Liberalism and Feminism espouses values that are directly the opposite: self indulgence and self fulfillment, without accountability to consequences to others under the guise of victimization.

As you know, there are many related issues going on with children of divorce and out of wedlock births. Women need to speak to the root causes of fatherlessness to dispel the myths and stereotypes. Women need to support the view that fathers have a role to play other than being a paycheck. Unfortunately, while the Court's may proclaim "The Best Interest of the Child", we find the demonstrated track record is merely lip service for public consumption. As you delve further into the causes of fatherlessness you will find judges and feminists at the core of this problem.

As second wives and conservative women’s groups observe the children of divorce they recognize the need of children to have equal access to both their parents. If we are to stop the liberal feminist agenda of destroying the family unit, we must first start with parental responsibility of both sexes. It is feminist supporters who encourage divorce with false claims of independence and victimization and reward them with custody, house and income. Women are being deceived into divorce by a clever ploy appealing to the temptation of short gains at the expense of their long term well being. We must also address the ethical misconduct of Judges who push their (liberal/feminist) agenda at the expense of children and men. Clearly, if judges are awarding 90% of child custody cases to women in divorce, then there must be an agenda. If judges are manipulating the rules to deny children a custody hearing to award child support in out of wedlock births then there must be an agenda. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

In the liberal feminist view of the world, fathers don't count other than money. In their view men as human beings have nothing to offer children, in fact to them men are a hindrance to women's independence and self-fulfillment. In their view, the family is men's institutional enslavement of women. We see this played out by the Judges consistently shoving men out of the household in the marriage situation. Once having ordered the father out, the Court refuses to honor its’ own Court Orders on visitation. Non custodial parents can file contempt charges to stop the interference. The response of the judge to the non custodial parent is essentially shame on you for not going along with the custodial parent since we choose her over you. As a result, over 70% of fathers are either hindered or prevented from seeing their children. So if you believe involvement by fathers is absolutely crucial to the development of a child, then we must confront those who for political and personal reasons are actively preventing visitation.

Many fathers want to be involved with their kids but are prevented by judges supported by feminists in a clever manipulation of the legal system. With unwed fathers particularly, the manipulation starts with the filing of child support demands by the unwed mother. In most cases, the male doesn't even know he is a father until the papers arrive telling him there is a hearing and to bring his 1040 form and pay stubs. The hearing starts in an adversarial mode by the judge requiring the accused male (I say accused since 30% of paternity tests show the particular male in question is not the father) to submit to a paternity test and begin paying child support immediately or face the consequences. These women were deceived by feminists that they and their children would be better off with money and no father.

The following is from New York Times Article May 8, 2005 The Fathers' Crusade By SUSAN DOMINUS

"On the other hand, divorced dads still face some serious image problems, a function of well-known statistics that are hard to spin. In the United States, in the period following divorce, one study has found, close to half of all children lose contact with their fathers, with that figure rising to more than two-thirds after 10 years. Although child-support payments have crept up in recent years, in 2001 only 52 percent of divorced mothers received their full child-support payments; among women who had children out of wedlock, the number was around 32 percent. Fathers' rights groups have a tall order explaining those statistics, convincing judges -- and the country at large -- that if fathers skip town, or refuse payment, it's a function of how unfairly family courts treat them rather than the very reason that the courts treat fathers the way they do. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, told me that fathers' rights groups are ''focused only on the rights of fathers, and not on the rights of children, and particularly, not on the obligations of fathers that should go with those rights.''

The disingenuous concern for children is demonstrated by the finger pointing of NOW against men when they cite statistics. They are fully aware that men are having problems seeing their children but promptly blame men for the problem by citing statistics on child support. It should be evident when someone does research to find the statistics cited that they also know surrounding conditions those statistics represent, otherwise the information is worthless. If NOW knows that if only 32% of out of wedlock mothers receive child support, then they should also know that the income strata of the majority of those fathers places them in the position of working poor and indigency. The same reasoning applies to the citing of 52% of divorced women receiving full child support. According to the Law, when a person fails to pay child support as ordered by the Court, they are a criminal. Obviously, if Child Support is raised to the point of impoverishing the non-custodial parent where they are forced to make a choice between homelessness and payment, take a guess what the result is? Would you as a non-paying parent be placing yourself in a position of getting arrested for a bill that you can not possibly pay?

What NOW hides behind its disingenuous claims using statistics is the agenda of women first at the expense of children and men. Then NOW turns around and says those groups protesting the inequity of the family law system are the ones being self centered in their approach! What NOW hides is the reality of when someone is allowed to exercise their rights as a parent, that they will automatically carry out their parental responsibility. NOW denigrates men by demanding the reverse with the presumption of parental unfitness by insisting that judges apply the law in a disproportionate manner against men to force child support payments instead of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility means meeting all the needs of the child, not just money, you can’t do that when you are shoved out of the child’s life.

Now we all understand that children have monetary needs, however, to the Courts, the only issue is money, there is absolutely no concern about the child's well being. To underline this, in out of wedlock births the Court skips the issue of custody which is supposed to address the real issues of the child's needs and the fitness and resources of both parents to provide those needs. The Court presumes the unwed father as unfit without any benefit of a hearing and they are not allowed to challenge this presumption; this is a legal manipulation of the rules. There are many cases where the unwed mother has waited years (3 to 10) to file for child support. My question is, who's best interest was the unwed mother serving by failing to inform the father that he had a child? We talk about the destruction of the family, but we fail to address the real issue of parental responsibility to the needs of the child.

How is it that an unwed mother can have 3 and 4 kids by as many different fathers and still be considered a fit parent? Please also consider beyond the obvious lack of judgment displayed and disregard to her existing children, that there is a monetary motive involved. If you are familiar with the child support guidelines, a non custodial parent must pay 25% of their gross income to the custodial parent. The mother who has children by different fathers is handsomely rewarded for her behavior by taking 25% of each of those incomes, tax free! Why contribute to society by working when you can have babies to support yourself without any need of a father or consideration of the effects on children? The feminist deception of self-indulgence and self-fulfillment flies directly in the face of every moral teaching.

Why are we in this situation? Welfare Reform. Remember our complaints that women were being encouraged to have more out of wedlock children to increase their welfare payments? Daniel Moynahan (a liberal himself) created a firestorm of protest from liberals when he raised the issue. Now the Judges have essentially privatized welfare through child support obligations. What's more, those obligations bear no relation to the welfare of the child. What is truly perverse is that the federal government encourages this behavior by giving bonuses to the States for every child support enforcement order. The States wouldn't get that money if Judges awarded shared custody because no money trades hands under such an order when both parents take full responsibility for the upbringing of the child, there is no profit motive.

When a man complains about the mistreatment of their children they are told shame on you for calling Child Protective Services. When a child has his head slammed against the floor repeatedly, the Judge lets the abusing mother off and puts the child back in her custody. Dogs and cats get more protection under

It seems that you as women have a fundamental choice in the culture war that the liberals and feminists have foisted upon our society. Do you stand by and let them harm people (children & men) not of your group because it doesn't affect you directly? Or do you oppose them on each and every issue knowing that if they succeed in convincing women as a group they are entitled to use others to advance themselves in life, women will turn away from the fundamental beliefs in God and loose their strength of character of selflessness by devolving to self indulgence. Isn't that the ultimate goal of liberals and feminists, wiping out faith in God and reducing women to self indulgence to the point of dependence on the State through child support orders? Why else do we hear of derogatory remarks toward men and people of faith, actions demonstrate intent, not clever arguments.

2 Peter 2:17-19 "These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. 18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, 19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved." Women need to be a voice for our children because we as men are without a voice to protect them.