June 20, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Randy wrote:

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/dad-vs-daughter/#clip61356

You have to ask: “Why have kids?” This is not right on all levels.

Randy,

I am aware of that issue. It is only the latest in a long string of similar issues.

Women are generally under the illusion that the father-hostile social engineering that is being done by judges is in the interest of equal rights for women, or, more specifically in this case, to promote “the best interests of children.”

The reality of it is that both men and women increasingly lose their parental rights to Father State, with women to be breeders and child raisers (according to state-imposed rules), and with fathers being forced to be fathers in absentia and providers through increasingly onerous taxes on paternity, with the State calling all of the shots with respect to how children must become indoctrinated to become obedient servants of the State. The feminist-dominated and -controlled education system plays a big part in the continuing and intensifying indoctrination of children.

Unfortunately, the answer to your question of “Why have kids?” is that increasing numbers of adults have fewer and fewer children, with many, now going on 30 percent, having no intention of ever having any children at all. Except for those who are unaffected by feminist social engineering to bring about the depopulation of Mother Earth, the consequence of it all is that the developed nations, and increasing numbers of developing nations are dying out. I addressed that in many of the articles at Fathers for Life and its blog (e. g.: Demographic Winter).

There is nothing new under the sun. The methods for disfranchisement of parents were a big part of the Bolshevik agenda in the early days of the USSR. That was the wish to deconstruct the institution of the family, so that out of the resulting ruins and rubble of society a bigger and better socialist state could be constructed. That resulted in social calamities that were in short order addressed by the USSR, in order to extricate itself from the social chaos of its own creation.

Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called sexual freedom.
See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926
(See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws)

In the long run, the USSR and its affiliated nations never escaped the escalating chaos that it had caused for itself by its early family-hostile policies. For instance, the population of the Russian Federation is currently in the order of 140 million and will by 2045 have shrunk to 70 million. Incredibly, though, the Russian divorce laws were imported, verbatim, to the USA in the mid-1940s and became, through the efforts of feminist law societies, part of family-hostile legislation and law in the USA, from where they were then exported to all nations in the so-called “free” West.

In the last days of his regime, Hitler had these thoughts on disfranchising parents (especially fathers but even more so bachelors who refused to become fathers) but with the aim of producing new human material for the construction of a bigger and better German army. Do the current fascists in power in the developed nations have goals that are any different?

–Walter
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men's Issues, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

June 20, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

DMR wrote:

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Please help!  I want to know where to start…

My husband and I were separated at the time my son was conceived (we have since gotten back together).  He turned 2 in April.  In May, the biological father sued me for paternity and custody when he found out that we had moved to Texas in March.  I am in the military and my husband moved to Texas to get settled.  My son was going back and forth between his biological father and me from December to May.  He was supposed to come back with me to move with me in July and then I was served.  The biological father was fine with us not suing him for child support and making him available for visits, but now doesn’t want us to leave the state with him, wants us to change his birth certificate, and he wants full custody with us having visits because he says he is more stable because I move with my military assignment.  My husband loves our son and wants to raise him as ours.  We want to know what we can do to fight this.  We don’t have much money.  Any help would be appreciated.

Hello DMR,

We can’t provide any sort of legal assistance for your case.  Besides, one of our major aims is to help natural fathers with advice on how to obtain visitation rights to get reasonable access to their children. In about 85 percent and more of the cases of child-access and -custody disputes, the court decisions are directed against natural fathers.  That does not mean that I am biased against you.  I am simply stating facts.

The question in your case appears to be whether your interests should count for more than the interests of the natural father of your child.  Moreover, there are also the interests of your child in regard to his right to know and to be with his natural father.

From my perspective, I would have advised the natural father to obtain an injunction against you to move away farther than a half-hour drive from his residence.

The reality of the custody issue in your case is that you will in all likelihood be able to refuse reasonable or all access by the natural father.  From the perspective of the natural father and that of your child, that would be a great injustice.

Nevertheless, the courts will in all likelihood find in your favour.  It does not appear that you will need much help by anyone.  It will probably be possible for you to represent yourself in court.  However, there will most likely also be a guardian-ad-litem who will ostensibly represent the interests of your child, which will most likely be your interests.

The question in regard to that will be who will be paying the costs of the guardian-ad-litem and of any expert witnesses that may be called into play.  Very likely it will be the natural father who will be ordered to carry those costs.  After all, the courts are heavily biased against men.

I suggest that you get in touch with an equal-parenting-rights organization in Texas, so as to determine what your options are.  Mind you, the venue for the custody hearing will most likely be the home-state of the natural father of your child.

At any rate, you may wish to check this directory for organizations of interest to you in Texas.

You mentioned the child support issue and the fact that you did not demand child support payments.  You may be happy to hear that a decision in regard to that is not necessarily up to any agreement you reach with the natural father.  Texas law on that is most likely no different than the laws relating to that in any other state.  You need to contact Child-Welfare-Services (or whatever government office deals with child-support claims and child-support enforcement in Texas) to find out what your options are.

There is another consideration that, in view of the unlikely event that your current marriage will remain in effect until the death of either you or your husband, you should inform your husband about.

Your current husband will quite possibly have become the “legal” father of the child he did not cause to be conceived.  In regard to that, there are some issues your current husband should get to know about, regardless of how your litigation with the natural father of the child ends.

1. You may not be able to obtain child support from the natural father on account of your current husband being considered to be the legal father.
2. Your current husband may not ever be able to shed his paternal duties to the child he did not father.
3. If your current marriage breaks up (the probability of that happening is on average quite high), your current husband will be ordered to make child-support payment to you for the child he did not cause to be conceived by him.  That principle is called paternity by estoppel.

In many localities a paternity test is a prerequisite to contesting paternity. Unfortunately, virtually without exception, the principles of estoppel (”a legal bar to alleging or denying a fact because of one’s own previous actions or words to the contrary”, such as when paternity was voluntarily assumed — “in loco parentis”) and the “presumption of lawful paternity” (through which paternity is assigned, not necessarily to someone willingly assuming it) come into the picture.  That means that any child born into a marriage is presumed to be the child of the husband of the wife that gave birth to the child, simply through the fact that he is her husband. (Source)

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Paternal Rights, Family | Print | No Comments »