August 13, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Collapse of Social Order — Causes, Consequences and Culprits

MailOnline
2011 08 11
Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value

By Melanie Phillips

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals, national identity, enforcement of the drugs laws and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as Right-wing nutters who wanted to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age….(Full Story)

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Religion, Child Abuse, Divorce, Men's Issues, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

August 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It is difficult to find a better introduction to the issues addressed in this Facebook album on Justice for Men than the following YouTube video (7 minutes, 37,468 views as of 2011 08 03) http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=57EWApOypIQ&feature=p​layer_embedded

Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, whether you have or are a husband, father, brother, son, uncle or granddad, you need to watch the video.

From the introduction to the YouTube video: “…Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide and protect have been having the unfortunate consequence of obscuring the needs of men. This short video will give you an introductory glimpse of some men’s issues.”

Men’s Issues

www.youtube.com

What are men’s issues? Watch this short flash video to get a beginning idea. Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide…

Posted in Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Suicides, Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Single-Parent, Marriage, Books & Films, Men and Women Work, Abortion, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Child Abduction, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

June 8, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Avoiceformen.com
2011 06 07

It is now seriously suggested that women’s prison close

By Paul Elam

Great Britain is about to lend new meaning to the pussy pass.

At least, that is the recommendation in a report issued by the Women’s Justice Task Force which has concluded that offering healthcare services, housing and drug abuse treatment to female criminals is better than holding them to the same standards of punishment to which they hold men….(Full Story)
_________________
Comment by F4L:

If women with children should be at home and not in jail, then the question remains why that should be so. Perhaps the report justified the recommendation by arguing, based on the evidence the authors selected, that it is better for such women’s children to be brought up by women criminals than by the government or by the children’s fathers.

How will that play out in a court of law, in a hearing in which it will be settled what is “in the best interest of the children”?

Millions of anti-father decisions in child-custody cases were rationalized by asserting that they were in the best interest of the children. Still, although there is plenty of evidence that father-custody is almost always better and in the best interest of the children, it has not ever been established in any court of law that obligatorily awarding child custody to mothers is in the best interest of the children.

The reality of the recommendation is that it comes after the fact and only establishes as a rule what is already being done with women criminals. Virtually all women criminals that should be serving time (94% in the US and 99% in Canada) are on the loose. All that will happen when the recommendation of the report is accepted (and that will most surely be not only in the U.K. but in all developed nations) is that the remaining small proportion of women criminals who had the misfortune of being incarcerated will be let loose, too.

Sex ratios of incarcerated prisoners

Unites States: 16 Men for every woman (Note 1)
Canada: 99 Men for every woman (Note 2)
_______
Notes:

1. About 12 years ago, the ratio for federal prisoners in the U.S. was 17.6 men for every woman. I don’t know what it is now, but it is quite likely larger now.
2. That was the sex ratio of prisoners in the Canadian federal prison system about 12 years ago.  The total capacity of all six Canadian women’s prisons then was 258 inmates, while the women’s prisons housed only 150 women criminals, men’s prisons held 13,500 prisoners who were double-bunked.

Those ratios take into account only convicted and incarcerated criminals. The disparity of the ratios exists because, compared to men, women are,

• Far less likely to be suspected of having committed a crime, and, if suspected,
• Far less likely to be indicted, and, if indicted,
• Far more likely to have their crime plea-bargained down to a less severe category of crime, and, when having successfully done that,
• Far less likely to be brought to trial, and, if brought to trial,
• Far less likely to be judged guilty, and, once found guilty of crimes of equal severity to those committed by men,
• Far less likely to be sentenced to being incarcerated, and once incarcerated,
• Far more likely to be serving a shorter sentence for a crime of equal severity, and, once serving a sentence,
• Far more likely to be released early on parole.

We don’t know how many women criminals there are. All we know is that women are as human as are men and are as likely as men are to commit crimes and that vastly fewer women criminals are serving time in jails or prisons.

Judicial crime statistics are the worst possible source of criminal statistics, as they indicate only one of the consequences of judicial bias, namely how many prisoners of either sex were caught, brought to trial, convicted, found guilty and sentenced to serve time in incarceration. Judicial crimes statistics pertaining to both sexes are a good indicator of judicial gender bias.

It is not practical to make judicial bias applicable to an identical extent to men criminals, because then we would have a catastrophic number of job losses in the judiciary, in its adjuncts and in its support and service industries.

There is an aggravating factor that makes it necessary to be absolutely lenient with women criminals. To keep a woman incarcerated costs approximately 2.5 times as much money than to keep a man incarcerated for an equal length of time.

All of those are arguments in support of letting women go free if they have committed crimes.

Of course that promotes chaos and anarchy, and of course it is damaging to all of society and to the well-being of the children by such women criminals, but is it reasonable to argue that the comfort of some women should be sacrificed, so that society can be protected against them and to deter other women from committing crimes? Is that not looking at things the wrong way when it comes to promoting women’s rights?  Should women’s rights and privileges not trump the welfare of society, even the future of civilization?

Those are age-old questions, and the answers to them were expressed and written down more than 2,400 years ago.

For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.
–Aristotle, in Politics

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Paternal Rights, Child Murder, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 3 Comments »

April 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In the early days of the Internet, when web browsers first came on the market, I found that I had problems finding information about advice for fathers who are being put through the wringer.  There were then few websites, but there were bulletin boards.

The first time I looked for whether there  was a fathers rights organization in or near Edmonton, Alberta, it took me about six months for someone to put me on the right track.  The lead came to me in a round-about way, in the from of advice from someone in the USA.

That experience led me to start the website for Fathers for Life.  I figured that it was wrong that any man in need of help and advice would have to look for months to find it.

Now I get help requests from all over the world, but mostly from the USA and from Canada.  Most of those come through e-mail, but some of them come by phone.

Early this morning I had a call from a man in Michigan whose boys had been placed in foster care because of a drug charge.  He is holding a good job now and his life is on the straight and narrow, while he had the misfortune to be a passenger in a vehicle the driver of which was charged with possession and transporting drugs.  Of course, he got charged and now mentioned that he had been advised to plead guilty, so as to get off easy.  Well, for one thing, getting off easy involves having another offence added to his criminal record.  Guilty or not, the charges he faces are at least legally warranted.  That is not the case with the woman who called me last night.

The woman called because she wanted to know whether there is any way by which her son can protect himself against false allegations of domestic violence.  He apparently went through a separation and divorce, and his ex got custody of his boy, of course, while he has standard visitation rights.  Now his ex is charging him again with domestic violence in connection with an assault she alleges he committed when he came to pick up his son.

It appears that there were witnesses who will testify that no assault took place at the time of the exchange of the boy, but now the mother of the father asked what he can do to protect himself against further wrongful allegations of violence by her son, and how an end can be put to that apparently widespread practice of women making such allegations against men and fathers whom they want out of their lives for good, except for the child-support money they will be forced to fork over.

We got into a little bit of a discussion on that, during which I provided a run-down of the causes and history of the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence.  She still wanted to know what can be done to put an end to the widespread practice of making false allegations of violence and the associated injustices perpetrated by the courts.

I told her that there is no protection against that, no magic bullet, no remedy but to abolish feminism as the driving political force for the policies that make false abuse allegations so exceedingly effective and so often used effectively by women.

I explained to the woman that we live in a country that is becoming ever more socialistic, and that the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence has the same Marxist roots that brought about increasingly oppressive feminist jurisprudence in the USSR.  Her response was that she came from [one of the nations] in the former USSR, but that terrible injustices such as those we have here now in relation to false abuse allegations never were a problem in the area of the USSR she came from.

I disagreed with her on that, but I will let you be the judge.  Have a look at Matriarchy in USSR.

See also:

• The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926, and
• History of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws

Posted in Divorce, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

December 29, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

CBC News

Father charged with 2 counts of 1st-degree murder
Tuesday, December 28, 2010 | 4:54 PM MT

….A funeral service was held on the Kehewin Cree Nation for the boys, who were three and six when they died nine days ago.….

The boys’ father, Jason Bruce Cardinal, 31, has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder. The boys were found dead in a north Edmonton townhouse early Dec. 20….

The boys were living with their mother, but Alberta’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services was involved with the family.

The children were in the care of Alberta’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services, but were not permanent wards…..

(Read more)

Posted in Child Murder, Child-Custody Awards, Family | Print | No Comments »

December 24, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

It reads more like one hell of a divorce.

…Catherine once tried to run over Larry with a van. “This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart,” Judge Quinn remarked dryly.

No kidding…, but there is much more in the article.

Toronto Globe and Mail

December 16, 2010

In family court, a judge turns to ridicule to defuse the rage

By KIRK MAKIN

A feuding couple and their ‘high-octane hatred’ prompt a highly unusual judicial roasting

(Full Story)

In a novel twist, Judge Quinn granted the wife, Catherine, sole custody of the feuding couple’s 13-year-old daughter. However, he ordered Larry to pay Catherine just a dollar a month in spousal support.

That appears to have been a good decision, as the daughter seems to have become alienated beyond repair against her dad.  However, although the article identifies a-dollar-a-month in spousal support for the ex-wife, nothing is mentioned about how much child support the father will have to pay for kids he no longer will be able to see.

Besides, will all of the actors in the drama have seen the last of the case?  Surely there is nothing preventing someone from launching an appeal. You want to take bets on who will launch one of those?

At any rate, you will want to watch this video:

Parental Alienation ~ Emotional Kidnapping

Listen well to what Alec Baldwin says as he is being interviewed in the third video in the series. It shows how hard it is even for men who were put through the parental-alienation grinder to get away from preconception and perhaps even all-out indoctrination about men’s paternal rights.

At minute 2:22, Alec Baldwin states that men have to earn 50:50 custody. Why would that not be true of women?

At minute 3:12 Alec Baldwin mentions that he has no respect for men who abuse women and fight for custody to gain power, out of spite and for no other reason than to hurt women. Well, why does that not cut both ways?

The point that one needs to pay attention to is that if not even the target in a case of parental alienation feels that equal rights come into the picture when awarding equally or equitably shared parenting, then why would he expect the judges to have more objectivity than such a victimized father does?

Posted in Parental Alienation, Child Abuse, Child Support, Judiciary, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

October 31, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

This discussion thread deserves input from many people, it seems, even though it will be difficult to figure out at this start of it where it may lead.

The title of the thread is taken from a message I received a couple of days ago from Stephen Hicks.  Let’s take the definition of the scope of this discussion from that title and try to stay within that.  Any comments that will stray too far from that will be considered to be off-topic.  We need a bit of focus on this, or else we will wind up expanding this discussion to include all and every aspect of human nature.  In general, the blog rules for Dads & Things will apply.

10/29/10

Dear fathersforlife:

I am working locally in Hawaii with my state representatives to change the laws so that men AND women share equal punishment for child sexual molestation, hence women enablermolesters.  Women for too long have felt “entitled” to the kids even after betraying them by either abusing them themselves or blaming their spouse without reporting it.  These women deserve prison and loss of custody of their children to foster care.  They have already betrayed their kids by not speaking up about abuse immediately and their kids will never trust them because of that.  I was abused at home and in the Boy Scouts (Eagle Scout, disabled veteran).  My sister was molested in the home and another relative was molested in the Boy Scouts.  My mother was an enablermolester and acts as though there was no harm no foul - stereotypical thinking by someone who is not facing twenty years in prison for 1st degree child sexual assault.

I have gotten feedback from veterans councelors that women also, are child molesters and physically beat their kids.

If you are able to correspond with me or if you have anything to share, please do.  I have a website: healingpleasuresmodule.com and blog as sterrers on twitter.com, wordpress.com, evolver.net and blogger.com

Sincerely,

Stephen Hicks

I responded 29/10/2010 6:55 PM

Hello Stephen,

Thanks for writing.

I know what you are writing about, having experienced some of it first-hand.

There are quite a few problems that will prevent effective exposure of the issue of sexual and physical abuse by women.  One of those is the inhibition instilled by ingrained western chivalry.  Men will not admit that women can be sexual abusers, and women, knowing better, will not leave their position of superiority and permit that position to be downgraded.  The other is that it is not enough to expose the truth, but it is also necessary to reach the masses and to convince them of what the truth is all about.  When you try to do the latter, the first inhibition immediately kicks into action.  The vast majority of people will not be able to undo thousands of years of indoctrination and social tradition: women are saints, need to be put on pedestals, worshiped and protected from all evil — even from themselves.

Indoctrinations that existed for as long as did civilization cannot be undone overnight and perhaps not even within one or two generations.

About bringing about laws that provide for equal punishment for men and women who commit crimes of equal severity, we have those laws already in place, except for some laws where, confronted with the reality that women are as likely to act criminally as men are (and in some cases far more so), the inevitable consequences, namely that women need to be punished as severely as men required first of all that women are also guilty of committing certain crimes.  You’ve got to be realistic about that.  The problem is with the application of those laws in an objective and equitable fashion.  There is again the obstacle of western chivalry which creates the mental and emotional disability to find women guilty or deserving of equal punishment, or, when those realities proves to be unavoidable, new categories of crimes for women need to be invented to have legal avenues that eliminate the need to treat women as fully equal to men.

A prime example of such a crime is child murder.  For men who commit child murder, there is no escape, no excuse and only the full punishment that the law demands.  For women who commit child murder there is the re-classification of the crime to the category infanticide, a category of which only women can and routinely avail themselves, with punishment very rarely requiring more than a nominal sentence, conditional incarceration, with full release in exchange for time already served before the trial, if any time was served at all.

The history of the contortions that society went through with rationalizing the necessary escape from the reality of women committing almost exactly 70 percent of all child murders (with men on the other hand committing about nine percent of those types of murders — with corresponding and comparable proportions of serious physical child abuse) was addressed in an article I wrote more than ten years ago: “Infanticide or “Post-natal Abortion“”.  The article contains quotes from a chapter of Patrica Pearson’s book, “When She Was Bad”.  You should have a good and careful look at that, so you will realize what needs to be overcome.

If that article is not enough to convince you of the existence of the windmills you attempt to tilt against, have a look at the results of a site-specific search for “infanticide” at our website.

That is the situation with respect to a problem that is well-established and has been proven throughout history.  The problem of exposing women’s guilt in cases of sexual child abuse they commit is far more difficult to overcome.  It has not ever been exposed to even a tiny fraction of the extent of child murders by women.  Men who as children experienced sexual abuse by women (most often by their mothers) will wave it off and at best perhaps claim that it was good for them, while women will refuse to admit that women can be human to such an extent that they can be as beastly or even more so than men can be.

What suggestions do you have for making a full exposure of the reality of that issue; not only that, but to get society to accept that it exists?  For one thing, to my knowledge the problem of child-sexual-abuse by women has not ever been formally researched.  I would welcome solid evidence to the contrary you can provide.

All the best,

Walter Schneider

On 29/10/2010 10:00 PM, Stephen Hicks responded to that:

Hello Mr. Schneider:

Thank you for a wonderful letter. I rushed to Google to find a Canadian statistics- based site that you are probably aware of: child-abuse-effects.com/female-sex-offenders.html  It is a real primer on all the issues you describe.  In Google there are multiple stats on Female Sex Offenders that I’m sure you are aware of.  And cases where wives were convicted or sex acts along with spouses.

My mother was “just doing her job!”  And she still feels she wouldn’t have done things any differently, that is, my step-father had he been caught would have done the time, and she would have retained custody as a teacher and devoted mother.  I lost trust in her and consider that she was an enablermolester although I’ve forgiven her.  Had their been a law to cover her “category of crime”, she would not have such a cavalier attitude about both her oldest kids being molested (I was also beaten up).  However my mother “trolled” for a professional spouse to have three more kids and that was her priority - she was abused also.

As you mention, most young children are killed by women (nearly 2000 in the U.S.last year).  They are young, poor and uneducated predominately.And you’re right, they aren’t considered dangerous murderers like men.

Genocide Laws have changed to include atrocities in War AND Peace-time.  There  is currently a United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (signed by South Africa and not by the U.S).  The U.S. has not signed on to the ICC, International Criminal Court of the UN last I checked.  In Hawaii twenty years ago a domestic abuse case would end up with the men arrested 99% of the time.  Now both are charged and arrested and they can’t drop their allegations.  Men used to do the time for most all drug-related crimes and now women are certainly catching up for lost ground.

I consider kids to be hostages in a child abuse home.  New category of crime - mayhem:  willful and permanent crippling or disfigurement of a person;  needless or willful damage.  There is a statute for mayhem in Hawaii.generally applied to spouses in lieu of aggravated assault.  In Hawaii the age of consent is 14 so coupled with a 35% rate of reporting for abuse, it’s no wonder the whole state has only 3,234 registered sex offenders.  Raising the age has fialed in the past (a cultural thing).

The Hawaii AG told me that of the 60 million kids 14 and under the DOJ Uniform Crime Reports lump them together with aggravated assault (nearly one million last year) rather than elaboating on the types of crime and the risk behavior.  This should change, as the average person doesn’t want to think about Church and Boy Scout abuse and certainly doesn’t consider their neighbors child abusers.  Emotional battering is physical abuse and could qualify as mayhem.  Accessory to child abuse is no different than accessory to murder.

You know the statistics on child abuse from your research and the emotional scars that are caused by parental figures, close relatives and close friends over the years.  They finally got Al Capone on tax evasion didn’t they?  Your idea of new categories of crimes coupled with creative sentencing have a lot of merit - I don’t have illusions about rapid changes in the system.  Millions are writing about their experiences for healing purposes and to leave a legacy of sorts to others.  Both my sister and I are in our late fifties and still healing - the step-father committed suicide in 1966.

My website is a famiily community service project of sorts, harping on the issues and guiding people to resource lists besides the government.  If women were charged with serious crimes related to child sexual molestation and beating and emotional battering, it would seriously affect the tax base of the United States.  The U.S. needs a Natiional Level Department of Childrens Affairs as our Department of Health and Human Services is spread out all over the place and doesn’t fund child welfare properly or truant officers for that matter (U.S. high school drop out rate of 30%, President Obama mentioned boostup.org)

I’ve received compliments for including your conservative site on my website and I was impressed with it and haven’t studied it.  I would love to have a better organized website but am a novice and my relatives are very busy (I am a disabled veteran and happy with life, knowing I can only do so much without being a glutton for punishment)

The issue of Man/Woman Hate is a good research project along with that of researching just how many children are molested by women.  I believe much aggravated assault is caused by women hating men for what they do to the children.  Women hate themselves AND what they allow to happen in the house.  And they definitely hate men.

You’ve given me a very good idea - all the facts are in Google, they haven’t been presented very well - piece-meal is not very convincing.  I don’t want to see every child abuser in prison, but they should pay a career price, a monetary damage and lose custody of their children at least.  Twenty years probation is a VERY difficult task in creative sentencing.  In Hawaii, 1st degree sexual assault of a child (no penetration alleged) mandates a twenty year prison term.  Quite often numerous crimes have been whittled down by a plea bargain to one count.

I’ll keep in touch, thanks for caring.

Sincerely,

Stephen Hicks

My response, 30/10/2010 10:15 AM

Hello Stephen,

Thanks for writing back.

There is much in your response that I agree with  (actually, everything except that Google is a good source for research on violence statistics), but some of it and of what I stated earlier requires more comments and input by others.

Would you agree that our exchange should be posted as a discussion thread at Dads & Things?  Unfortunately, few people make comments there.  I have no idea why that is.  Both our website and blog have plenty of visitors, but few people comment that they post to the blog.  I wish that it were different, and an exchange of ideas like the one we are having may be just the thing to get more people to offer their opinions.

On the other hand, I receive a fair number of e-mails  and phone calls from people who write to me and call about various topics, but that is a bit of a waste of time or, better, a certain amount of hiding the truth from many.  Our blog would help much more to spread the message, which, I once thought, would be a good reason for launching it, so that the discussion would be brought out into the open.

Sorry for not being able to get into more detail on any of this right now.  I will get back to it after I get back from our seniors club facilities, where I will have to do a bit of tidying up to get things ready for a group of people who will hold a memorial service there this afternoon.

I shall return to this later today.

All the best for now,

Walter

Stephen Hicks said, 30/10/2010 5:22 PM

Subject: Appropriate laws and creative sentencing for female child sexual enablermolesters

Hello Mr. Schneider:

You are correct about Google, I was less than impressed.  I did find fathermag.com  female-offenders.com/bibliography.html  and crime.about.com/od/sex/ig/female-pedophiles/

You eloquently stated the basic female issue regarding the long-standing pattern of child abuse and I’m not in a position to do a scholarly study.  I can work locally with my representatives to pass legislation leading to fairness - as you point out when you say that the women don’t usually do the actual crime.  “I was just doing my job!” and accessory to 1st degree child sexual assault spanning years hold some weight and qualify for mayhem and hostage-taking and cruel and unusual punishment, however.

Kids definitely are hostages in a child abuse-mayhem household.  Now that most kids have cell phones, I’d like to see the child welfare hotline phone number on their ID Tags.

A large number of people really don’t want to deal with the issue but it affects every aspect of our society and it’s illegal, not morally wrong or a sign of weakness in character.

I think ten to twenty years probation and loss of custody of children would be a creative non Draconian punishment and momentous deterrent for scofflaw women that are enablermolesters.  I believe at least 5-10% of our sixty million children aged 14 and under are being sexually molested and/or beaten and emotionally abused, according to specific guidelines..  That’s a huge number.  There are only 390 women in prison in New York for child sexual abuse and about 9000 men.  More than half are back in prison within a couple of years following release.  Note:  recently in Hawaii a woman care-giver was given twenty years in prison for severe child abuse (her abuse was demonic).

Although I wasn’t too impressed with Google there was one study saying that there are 64,000 female child molesters in the United Kingdom (co.uk/society/2009/oct/o4/uk-female-child-sex-offenders).  China and India each have approximately 100 million unmarried men due to infanticide.

In a nation that spends $2.1 trillion plus on health care and $1.3 trillion plus on VA health care, we should go easy on emotional battering which leads to aggravated assault in adults and a whole set of issues for children.

On the lighter side, speaking of music besides youtube, you might try pandora.com, kaparadio.com (Hawaiian) or ananda.org (Hindu).  I’m in great health and my sister and I are looking 25 years ahead, we shall see!  (she’s a performance artist and professor at San Diego State University).

Sincerely,

Stephen Hicks

Any additional responses by Stephen, me or anyone else will be posted as comments to this discussion thread.  You will have to subscribe to this blog to be able to post comments.  That is necessary to prevent spam.  –Walter

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Women's Violence | Print | 4 Comments »

October 1, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Just about every day I receive requests for help with issues relating to child-custody and child-support, often quite a few of such requests on a given day.

The following message is an example, and my response is appended.

On 29/09/2010 1:07 PM, Tom [not his real name] wrote:

Hi guys,

I really need help right now...

The ex is asking for more money after almost 7 year of paiements being done EVERY month. She moved away 12 hours from here, in another province (i live in canada) with her new boyfriend in the army and now tells me she has the kids (2 of them, girl-11 and boy-8) more often blablabla...

No one can tell me what to do or what would i have really to pay... they all say i need to get a lawyer, wich i can not.... no money for that.

i'm 35, has a good job as a tehnician, always paid my pension... i've been screwd many times by layer...i still owe them money... i need help.... thinking about finishing it off real soon...

thanks,
Tom

Hello Tom,

Are you in touch with a fathers rights organization where you live?  If not, then check this directory.

Here are links to some articles that contain responses to help requests like yours (found by searching fathersforlife.org for “how to find a fathers-rights organization”)

• http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2008/04/24/father-custody-outcomes-in-children-of-divorce/
• http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2010/04/05/on-going-custody-battle/
• http://blog.fathersforlife.org/category/child-abduction/

The  actual search will produce links to many more such articles.

Make sure that when you try to find organizations you pick those that have frequent meetings of their members.  Attend those meetings and get to know some of the members and their issues.  You will then soon learn which of those organizations you find are best.

The men you will meet are at various stages of their custody and support battles.  You will learn more from them than you can learn from any lawyer.

Try to get advice on what to do to represent yourself in court.

Get your case into a Court of Queens Bench or into a Court of Justice other than the Family Court.  If you need to know why that is so, ask me again, but I suggest that you first try to discuss that with the Fathers rights organizations you find in your area.

Still, if you need to ask me, there is little more I can tell you than what is contained in this article: Freedom, Equality, and Society’s Treatment of Men and Families.  That article was found through this search for articles on the subject of the history of the family court.

You may think that I am throwing a lot of reading material at you, and that that does not really help you.  If so, consider that you need to understand the context of the difficulties you find yourself in.  If you don’t understand that context, then you will not be able to find a solution, and, most importantly, you will not be able to tell your lawyer what he needs to do for you.

Don’t think that it will help you to hire a lawyer and have him do all of that for you.  If that is the way you feel will help you, then you may as well sign a blank cheque and let him fill in the amount.

Your relationship to a lawyer is similar to that between you and a building contractor.  You are the boss and will have to foot the bills.  He work for you, and to be able to do that right, you will need to give him a set of blueprints, agree with him on a price for what he must do for you, when, where, how and why it needs to be done.  (For more on that read some of the articles you can find by searching for “how to select a lawyer”.)

Moreover, you will need to make sure that your lawyer does all of that at the right time, in the right place, in the right way and for the right reasons.

You may think that all of that is a lot of work.  If so, then you are exactly right.  The money involved, alone, makes it important enough that you do all of that work.  Moreover, you will have to make sure that the right things are being done for your kids.  After all, that is why you became a father, right?

Regards,

Walter

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Child Support, Divorce, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »

September 16, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

On 16/09/2010 12:33 AM, [Name omitted] wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

Hi

I’m a father of two girls … My common law wife took off with the girls 18 mths ago. My life has been he’ll.

I was the stay at home dad … Took care of kids and also worked and gave all money to wife for investments and expenses.

When she left she put a retraining order against me even though I had done nothing …. She simply told me she wishes to move away and is determined not to have me involved in my girls lifes.

I have went bankrupt and the judge states I can see my girls 6 hrs per week.  I’m currently on social assistance yet the judge does not feel I should get spousal support even though my ex earned over 120k last year. Judge Curtis is known as a pro feminist and my lawyer says there is nothing left to do. My girls want an ocl involved as they wish to live with me but the judge says no.

What r my options?

Who can help?

This will probably be too long to be displayed on your cell phone, but the next couple of paragraphs should show.

Fathers for Life has a few articles on how to select a lawyer.  Check those out and pick a lawyer accordingly.

To explore your option in Ontario, you need to get in touch with Ontario fathers-rights organizations.

Don’t just pick one.  Check out several, specifically those that have frequent meetings of their members.  You will learn more from them than you can from a lawyer, as they will have reached various points of progress (or lack of it) in their battles.  A directory is here.

Get your case out of family court and into a Court of Queens Bench.  Family courts are not there to solve family problems but to speed the easy dissolution of families. (Read more on family courts.)  Here is a summary of what family courts are all about:

[When no-fault divorce became a reality, it] became soon apparent that the courts could not cope with the flood of divorce applications that caused ever-increasing waiting periods before divorce decrees could be issued.  To expedite the dissolution of marriages, family-court systems were implemented throughout the developed nations.  Nothing much would have been accomplished by merely shifting venues and leaving the rules of the court intact.  Therefore the family-court systems were made to operate without jury trials, without the traditional rules of the court, without rules of evidence, and without the mandatory and constitutionally-guaranteed right of respondents (usually fathers, in family courts) to have legal representation [or even to face their accuser].  Many procedures that had been put into place over the centuries to ensure that anyone could be assured a fair trial thus vanished in the family courts.

That, too, was nothing new.  All totalitarian regimes that were obsessed with the eradication of enemies of the state did the same when they created their people’s courts.  We can’t be certain that the example of the people’s courts in totalitarian states was used as a model for the more recent creation of the branch of the judiciary in which the rules of law could be held in abeyance and circumvented.  One thing is certain; all of that worked fine and produced fine results.

The enormous and overwhelming backlog of divorce applications got soon cleared, and the process of the dissolution of marriages has been operating with great speed and efficiency ever since.  In some countries (e.g.: the U.K.) the process operates behind closed doors, ostensibly to protect the interests of the children, although it should be quite obvious to anyone reading this who is being protected….(Source: Freedom, Equality, and Society’s Treatment of Men and Families)

All the best,

Walter
Fathers for Life
Dads & Things

Posted in Civil Rights, Maternal Rights, Violence by Proxy, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Child Abduction | Print | 2 Comments »

September 15, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Today I came across a story about an Australian judge having awarded child-visitation rights to two gay men who took turns donating sperm to two lesbians.

The story appeared on the German-language blog http://www.in-australien.com, apparently a gay-rights-oriented blog, at http://www.in-australien.com/baby-mit-4-homosexuellen-eltern-das-gericht-fallt-ein-urteil_103692

The story is dated Sept. 15, 2010 and mentions that the court decision involves a lesbian couple in Melbourne, with no identification of where the two gay men hail from.  The judge in the case is ostensibly Linda Dessau, but I have no clue as to which court she resides at.

Although I spent a considerable amount of time searching for English-language verification of the story, I have not been able to find any such thing.  Do any of you know anything about this?

Here is a translation of the German-language article into English (it is an edited version of one produced by Babel Fish, but I did not spend very much time in correcting grammar, wording and syntax):

Baby with 4 homosexual parents: The court delivers a decision

In Australia, a lesbian and a gay pair were transformed into four homosexual parents of a cute baby. The Australian court responsible was able to deliver a verdict in this case that awards  rights to all parents  enabling them to be allowed to care for the baby. Originally, the two lesbian life-partners  simply wanted to have a child of their own. A gay couple made itself available as sperm donors, with both men alternating  with their sperm donations. The project was successful, and thereby, approximately two years ago, a small boy came into the world. That evoked such great parental emotions in all four parents who had been involved that now none of them can do without the little tyke and, accordingly, wished to spend as much time as possible with the newly-born.

For that reason, with the passing of time ever more disputes developed  between the two pairs of parents, so that now a court had to decide in the situation. The four tried to find common grounds on parental responsibility and visitation arrangements, in order to do justice to themselves and to the small baby. However, they could find no agreement that would satisfy all parties. Justice Linda Dessau was therefore to decide what was to be the best for the now already 2-year-old child. Because all four persons love the small one dearly and deal responsibly with him, she decided that all participants should be awarded the right  to be allowed to spend time with the boy. The child is to have the possibility in each case of becoming acquainted with all four parents in order to experience their parental love.

The court hands down a clear verdict

 The baby was born in Melbourne and lives until today together with his two mothers here. The two men  had moved to Melbourne already before the birth of the child, in order to have regularly contact with it. After two years all parents had developed such strong feelings that everyone wanted to spend equal time with the infant. Since the baby had  so far lived with the two women and these thus more were involved in its life, the mothers pleaded that the small boy was to live further with them. The judge said, however, that the two men are not just simply sperm donors, but that both feel true feelings for the boy.  On the basis of those facts the judge decided that the boy may live further with the women, although the two men should receive regular visitation rights, to see their offspring grow up and to be able to provide him with their paternal support.

Well, I am not an expert in matters of such a confoundedly confusing parental situation in which a judge declares the physically-impossible, that there can be two mothers and two fathers of one child.  All I have to go by is my many years of experience with raising sheep.  Furthermore, tit-for-tat, I would like to, just as homosexual-rights-activists are fond of doing, project from the parental practices in the animal world to  those that come into play in civilization.

Even King Solomon found parental disputes by mothers in such issues extremely confusing but devised a practical solution that enabled him to rule which of two competing “mothers” was the natural one who truly deserved to be the one mother whom the boy in that case was to be assigned to, so as to preserve the standards that made society work well.  Judge Linda Dessau appears to have assumed powers of judgment that vastly exceed the wisdom possessed by King Solomon.  Nevertheless, my experience in such matters with the sheep that we raised over the years will almost certainly lead to the situation in this case where reality will bite all the participants in the butt.

The hormone oxytocin exerts a powerful influence in such cases, powerful enough to evoke parental influences and feelings for all ostensible parents involved.  However, within a relatively short time the confoundedly confusing parent-child relationships always and without fail lead to disastrous outcomes that are often even fatal (most definitely in the case of sheep and especially in regard to “child abuse” by sheep as a result of maternal confusion).

The experimentation with human standards in such matters must come to an end.  Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end, most definitely in the animal world in the wild and in husbandry.

Aside from that, I wonder why I can’t find any references to this particular case of  the confusion of homosexual-rights with normalcy in civil society.  Should one not think that this case should have made the news where it took place?

Can anyone help out with some more information on this case?  Is the whole story perhaps just the creation of a new urban myth in the making?

–Walter

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Maternal Rights, Child Abuse, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Gay issues, Child-Custody Awards, Health, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »