top

Hope for the Future

Is there hope for families in America?  Is there hope for fathers and fatherhood?  Is there hope for divorced parents without custody?

Five years ago, anyone mentioning Afathers rights@ in America was treated like a leper.  It was not politically correct, not even safe in some cases, and was a good way to get yourself in trouble.

Largely through the efforts of the National Fatherhood Initiative, under Lancaster=s Don Eberly and the very able Wade Horn, things have really started to turn around.  Fathers rights is now more than ever highlighted, partly by the story of Elian Gonzalez, which, though highly politicized, still carried as its core issue the issue of a father=s right to be a father.

 

What Can You Do to Change Things?

 

Five years ago, LNCP, LYNCUP=s predecessor, was recommending contacting state legislators.  We had various campaigns going, for example, in support of a House bill that would have made joint custody a presumption in family courts.  This bill never made it to the floor.  Later, there was a senate bill with the same intent.  That too seems to be dying in utero.

After writing letter after futile letter to lawmakers in Harrisburg, and after interacting with numerous fathers rights groups in the state, I finally came to the sad conclusion that, if things were left up to state legislators, nothing meaningful would happen for many, many years.

The reason?  The reason is complex, but I believe it all boils down to the fact that the federal government pays generous rewards to states on the basis of the dollar amount of child support collected every year.  This money is absolutely not for children.  It can be spent any way the states please.

This reward system is viewed by many as an invasion of states territory.  It is this system, plus enormous propaganda efforts on the part of the legal system, which stands to lose big time if parents are rendered non-adversarial after divorce, in addition to feminist efforts to fan the flames of the gender war, that keep our children hostage to a truly inhuman system.

So with all this political power against us, what hope could there possibly be?

I believe our hope lies more with the federal government than with the state government.  Any state that adopts a rebuttable presumption of joint custody will ultimately receive much less federal reward money for collecting child support.  Under joint custody, less money changes hands between parents, and this is certainly as it should be.  However, state governments don=t necessarily see it that way.  For example, if Pennsylvania adopted joint custody legislation, then it would receive far less money per capita than states that do not have such legislation, because under the current adversarial and patently unfair system, one parent comes out the winner and the other the loser.  One parent is the commander-in-chief of the child, while the other is a visitor and a walking wallet.

I believe we must focus on federal legislators, and have already contacted both Senator Rick Santorum and Joe Pitts, both of whom are conservative federal legislators with strong beliefs in family.  Of course, it cannot be assumed that a legislator with Aconservative credentials@ will actually be sympathetic to the cause of divorced fathers.  Sometimes they seem to be the biggest obstacle.  They often take the stance that if politicians help divorced fathers, then they are in fact supporting divorce itself.  In reality, however, this is far from the truth.  All of the fathers= groups I belong to, including some international ones, oppose divorce tooth and nail.

Paradoxically, the concept of joint custody advocated by almost every fathers rights group would almost definitely result in a lower divorce rate, considering that around 80% of divorces are filed by women, and we strongly believe that this is due to the enormous perks given to women in the divorce system.

I urge you therefore to write your federal legislators and ask them to support a federal law that would mandate joint custody for any state aspiring to receive funding as a reward for collecting child support.  This is, after all, the only fair thing to do, because as things stand now, states have every reason to keep children away from the non-custodial parent, particularly since child support is generally reckoned according to the amount of time spent with the child.  Non-custodial parents who spend a certain amount of time with the child are eligible for a reduction in child support payments.  Thus, both the states and the custodial parents have a strong incentive to keep children away from the non-custodial parent.  Solid scientific studies show that children need both parents.  In particular, studies show that fatherlessness is linked to all social ills.  The more time a non-custodial father spends with his child, the brighter that child=s future will be.  

The NFU's Wade Horn is in favor of joint custody and has said so in a list of
recommendations sent to all the state governors. Travis Ballard, President of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, and practising attorney, has written a very complete brief in defense of joint custody from the standpoint of both child psychology and law.

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to Congressman Joe Pitts.  I would urge you to follow essentially this line of logic when contacting your lawmakers.  

To find your lawmakers= addresses, phones and e-mails, go to: http://www.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep.

 

Letter to Joe Pitts:

 

Good morning, Mr. Pitts,  

As chairman of Lancaster Non-Custodial Parents, I read messages from divorced fathers and a growing number of women sympathetic to them every day, incl out-of-state ones. Most of these people are Republicans.      

In the wake of the Elian Gonzalez saga some of these men are now unsure about their political allegiance, feeling that now the Democrats may be more pro-father. I doubt this, but also believe politicians must, now more than ever, show which side they are on.

For years all of these groups have been backing the idea of joint physical custody and asking state legislatures to introduce presumptive joint custody legislation. State legislators have a major problem with this, however: federal funding for child support collection. If there were a presumption of joint custody in family courts, they reason, our state would get less of these funds because under joint custody, less money changes hands since both sides care for the child.

The federal government has no such problem. Indeed the practice of awarding custody primarily to mothers costs the federal government billions in the form of these child support rewards.

In addition, a presumption of joint custody after divorce is very good for our country. Here is why:

Under the present system where the mother comes out the big winner and the father the big loser in divorce, over 80% of divorces are filed by women. By contrast, under joint custody there is no grand prize and no winner or loser. The children win. In this system, the group that files most these days will have less incentive to do so. Divorce will be reduced. Nor is joint custody something that will generally make divorce more desirable for men, because the system requires hard work and juggling of schedules on both sides. It is difficult to implement, and both parties almost necessarily have to live near each other, something most people naturally don't want to do after divorce. So joint custody does not make divorce attractive and in fact will serve to keep families together, something I think you as a conservative can appreciate.

Children need fathers. Numerous solid scientific studies have shown this and you know it to be true from your work with the NFI. Children need to stay close to their fathers after divorce. They need constant reassurance that dad still loves and cares for them.

By reducing the number of divorces, presumptive joint custody will help families, particularly women, who, after divorce, typically need to work full time plus do a full load of housework. Women also find it difficult to find a new mate after divorce, since men tend to hesitate to accept someone else's children.

Finally, as mentioned above, a presumption of joint custody will reduce the financial burden on the federal government by reducing the amount of child support collected. This amount now goes into the billions.

If the federal government must invade the territory of states, something many oppose, then at least it must appear to be balanced and fair. The child support reward money is something that appears to help mothers (whether it really does is another matter). There is no matching spending program to help fathers. Indeed I am glad there is none. Because what I am suggesting is NOT a spending program, but a saving program. Yet it will be welcomed by fathers groups everywhere, and by a growing number of women's groups (such as Women for Fatherhood, of which I am an honorary member) that understand the importance of fatherhood.

I am so certain that my idea is sound that I would recommend you talk it over with Wade Horn of the National Fatherhood Initiative. I have spoken in the past with Mr. Horn and believe he understands this issue as well as anyone in the country. I am sure he will support the idea and help you find ways to refine and implement it.

I would also be very happy to meet with you at any time and respond to any of your concerns.

Sincerely,

Don Hank