January 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Court denies father’s motion in child custody case

Marianas Variety; Jan.4, 2008

By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE Superior Court has denied a man’s motion to set aside a judgment  stating  he is the biological father of a minor child.

The court said it is statutorily prohibited from declaring the nonexistence of a father-child relationship and finds that such declaration would not be in the best interest of the child….(Full Story)
__________________
The ruling is ludicrous.  No one is asking for a declaration of the non-existence of a father-child relationship.  The request is to identify that the fingered man is not the the real father.

Posted in Family, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

December 26, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

“When motherhood gets you jail time” (a Dec. 19, 2007 TIME Story) and “Choosing jail over joint custody” (also a Dec. 19, 2007 TIME Story) comprise a two-part series.

The first of those stories was ranked this morning the most popular story, most-often e-mailed-by-readers-of-Time. Half an hour later, at 8:30 a.m., the rank for the story had dropped to 3rd place in the list, right after “Who Is Killing Mexico’s Musicians?” and “Spain’s Holiday Cry: Down With Santa!”.

Given the high level of interest in the price to be paid for motherhood, it is important to note that “When motherhood gets you jail time” is a misnomer.

Still, even though inaccurate, that headline was a good choice by TIME, a choice that was bound to manufacture concern for the mother (who nevertheless wants to use her motherhood for criminal intents) and accounted for the story’s high popularity ranking. The second story with the more objective and mundane title “Choosing jail over joint custody” evoked far less concern and resulted in the second story not even ranking in the TIME’s top-25 list.

Yes, motherhood, apple pie and women’s sole right to possession of their children do it every time, they turn criminals into saints. Women’s obligations and the rights of children and fathers come in distant last.

The mother for whom the TIME manufactered concern chose jail over revealing the whereabouts of a son to the boy’s alleged father. The mother had apparently thought that having a child, if not through immaculate conception but then at least without a father being a part of that child’s life (she even decided that the boy should not have his alleged father’s name) entitled her to government support payments. It normally would, but in Wisconsin not without a paternity test having been done to ascertain that the fingered man is actually the biological father of that boy she had.

The two stories in TIME, neither the popular first one nor the unpopular second one whose headline proclaimed that the budding welfare mom is breaking the law by interfering with a court order, did not report whether the expunged father is in truth the biological father or whether DNA tests proving his paternity were even done.

That would seem to be an extremely important issue from a practical viewpoint, but from the perspective of sainted motherhood, apple pie and Christmas it is not.

Let’s get real. The mother should be in jail at least until she quits breaking the law. Society should be kept safe from such women. It is unfortunate that it costs far more to keep such a welfare mom in jail than it does to simply put her on the dole, but in the long run it would be far cheaper for society to jail her and to keep her there until she no longer engages in her crime of defying a court order that grants a father access to his child. It seems that the vast majority of women would choose freedom of movement over their perceived right to choose to refuse to comply with court orders that grant visitation rights to alleged or real fathers of children.

The name of the criminal mother is April Griffin, not Virgin Mary. No amount of manufacturing concern by Time or by anyone else will change that.

Nevertheless, we should get to know whether the alleged father of the adamantly hidden child is truly the bio-dad. On average, chances are one in three that he isn’t. That is not just a minor detail, it is the major issue in the case. Could that be the reason why April Griffin is hiding the boy — to avoid incriminating herself in having committed the crime of paternity fraud?

–Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Shared Parenting, The New World Order, Child Abduction, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

December 23, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The upgrading of the remaining web pages at Fathers for Life that had to be changed to the standard page design for the website is just about complete now.  It appears that only a single web page still needs to be updated.

During the process of doing that I came across a number of things that had escaped my attention.  One of those was the mysterious absence of a table of contents for web pages relating to the topic Shared Parenting (that has now been corrected; see http://fathersforlife.org/ToC_shared_parenting.htm)

Another one was that a number of links in the index of a web page that discusses the concept of “Fatherlessness, in the best interest of the child” were not changed when the file name of one of the web pages containing that discussion had been changed some time ago.

That web page seems to be an important read for anyone who believes that case law can be used to reverse the evolution of case law pertaining to the changing nature of the legal right to paternity that took place during the past 200 years or so.

If you think that today’s fathers have a right to their children, that “in the best interest of the child” children have rights to have fathers in their lives, and if you wish to find the answer to the question,

Does a child have the right to have its father in its life and to bond with him?,

you may wish to read the discussion pertaining to Fatherlessness, in the “best interest of the child”.

It would truly be appreciated if anyone who feels that the conclusions drawn in that discussion can be disproved were to post his response as a comment to this blog entry.

Thanks, and once more a Merry Christmas to all,

Walter

Posted in Men's Issues, Child Murder, Abortion, Shared Parenting, Family, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

November 15, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The following is a response to a complaint about real case of paternity fraud in the US. The names and locations have been altered to protect the victims of the fraud.

The man who wrote the original complaint is experiencing the whole gamut of the weapons of the divorce industry:

• Paternity fraud;
• Child abduction and move-away by the mother (involving an eight-hour trip - one way - by the father if he wishes to see the child whom he has come to see as his own);
• False allegations of domestic violence, to keep they alleged fathers at bay and away;
• The defrauded man duped into paternity;
• The mother of the child refuses any child access to the alleged father;
• The defrauded father has become very strongly bonded to a child who is not his, for whom he pays child support, but a child whom he no longer gets to see, and more.

If anyone reading about that case here has any good advice or pointers, please post a comment to this blog entry.

Here is my response to the man’s complaint:

Hello Bill,

Sorry for your troubles, but thanks for writing.

Don’t blame your misfortune so much on a miscarriage of justice due to your lawyer’s ineptitude as on a justice system in which the cards are stacked against you.  That is because you are a man.  The family-law system hates men.

That is nothing personal, but the more difficulties men encounter due to the justice system, the more money the players who inhabit the system and make it thrive can extract from men.  Family law grew into a social cancer.

The most important thing you can do is to get in touch with a fathers-rights organization in Flatbush, Tennessee.

It is highly likely, almost certain, that you must file your case in a Tennessee court, as Flatbush is the place of residence of the biological parents of your child.

However, do everything you can to keep the case out of family court. Family courts were a response by the legal system to the large back-log of divorce applications that occurred in the 1960’s as a consequence of the implementation of the concept of “no-fault” divorce (in whom the fault for the divorce is always placed squarely on the shoulders of the man). Family courts are not in existence to help families and to dispense justice for families.  They exist to pursue their original reason for existence: to help speed up the destruction of families.  In family courts the precepts of normal courts — to follow the rules of the courts and the rules of evidence, your right to be judged a jury of your peers, your right to face your accuser, your right to own property, your right the enjoy the earnings of your labour and your right not to be forced into indentured labour and not to have you forced into forking over your earnings to third parties — have all been abrogated and no longer apply.

You need to get in touch with that fathers-rights organization in Flatbush to learn from them what you can do to help your case.  You will most likely learn more from them than you can learn from a lawyer.  More importantly, you can ask them and learn from them how to go about finding a lawyer that can help you the best to win your case.  However, your chances of winning are slim.  That is because you are a man.  The system hates men.

That was in relation to your wish to obtain custody of your daughter.

As to what you must do to get compensation from your lawyer and to get him punished or fined for lack of action, for botching your case, and for being a bad lawyer all around, you will have to file that case in New York.  That case will have to be brought to court in New York, perhaps in New York State.

I do not know who in New York will be able to help you.  I am not aware of a fathers rights activist who may be able to point you into the right direction on that.  It will not hurt you to ask more fathers rights activist about it.

A word on your choice of lawyer in the very specialized field of family law:  Family law is not specialized because lawyers receive much training in family law (at some universities, family law is covered in no more than a day), but because it has become a sector of the justice system that, along with many other government bureaucracies nurtured by and living off it, grew into an enormously large and profitable industry that mainly extracts money from men and pretends that is justice, all under the excuse that it all is “in the best interest of the child.”

The relationship between you and any lawyer working for you is like that with any other contractor you hire. You are the boss and pay the bills and his wages.

A lawyer works for you according to your plan, your schedule, your objectives, your instructions and your supervision.  For you to miss out in any of those aspects is an invitation to disaster and much like giving the lawyer a signed, blank cheque.

Moreover, you must select and choose a lawyer like you would any other contractor.  With a construction or building-renovation project you may engage in a formal and tender and bidding process.  You would receive bids for a given job from more than one contractor.  You would evaluate the bids and pick the most promising contractor.  If you were not to do that, you would have no assurance that the contractor you hired would be the best for the job you want him to do.  If you don’t follow a similar process when hiring a lawyer, then there is no possible way that you can be sure to have hired the best lawyer possible.

As to going by the recommendation of someone who said you should pick that lawyer, “good advice” like that is cheap, and it is worth to you what you pay for it, but it may be worth more to the party offering the “good advice.”  Medical doctors pay a referral fee to other doctors who bring clients their way.  I don’t know whether lawyers operate that way, but I would be surprised if they did not.

As to how to find a fathers-rights organization, go to http://www.dvmen.org/dv-190.htm#help

Some general observations:

Given that your daughter is not your biological child, although you were duped into believing that she was, that will cause some special problems for you.  It appears obvious that you were duped in order to make you become involved in a strong emotional bond with your daughter.

The fact that the bond now exists lays you open to blackmail and extortion by the biological parents of the child.  Moreover, because you openly accepted the child as your own and are now even fighting for her custody and that of her sister, you are legally the father of that child and of her sister.

In all likelihood you will be paying child support until the girl comes of age or until she finishes her education, whichever comes later.  Yet, you may not ever see her again.  The “legal” system will insist that that is in the best interest of the child — not only that, but that your daughter is entitled to the level of comfort she became accustomed to while still in your care.  That means also that the child support amount will be increased over the years as your income increases.  It will be said that that is necessary because she would have the increase in the level of comfort if she were still with you, and that those increases in child support payments, too, are in the best interest of the child.

Moreover, it is relatively easy now to make you the father of not only the girl whom you believed was your daughter, but also of the one that clearly and quite openly was not your child.  That doubles the stakes in the game that you became involved in.

If the biological parents are in the state of existence you described, they will have a very strong interest in having you make those ever-increasing child support payments for as long as possible.  In fact, as far as they are concerned, the best thing that could happen would be for them to have your daughter(s) go to university for as long as possible.  They could well afford that, because you will be paying for it.

Your child support payments will be their major source of income.  It will be far better than receiving a government disability pension, and it is possible for them to use the power of the State to make sure the money you are able to pay will keep coming their way.

That will motivate the parents to refuse to hand the child(ren) over to you.  Against their resistance it will most likely be impossible for you to gain custody of your daughter(s).  The parents will have lawyers beating a path to their door to help them fight your application to gain custody.  You will be paying your lawyer out of your own resources.  Their lawyers will be paid out of the bottomless public purse.  You will therefore fight against an opponent with unlimited financial resources.

Under those circumstances it will be difficult for you to maintain the pretense that the girl is your daughter.  You will have little or no feedback from her to re-enforce your bond with her.  The question now is for how long you can keep up the pretense that the child is your daughter.  When that pretense ends, the child support you are paying will be seen by you for what it is, extortion money that you must pay because you were duped and defrauded.

If you were to consider all of that, you should then not fight for custody but for recognition of what happened.  You were duped and defrauded.  That is a crime.

You are not the father of that child and you should fight to have your status cancelled of having been made the father through fraud.  Your legal paternity is a fraud.

If you were to base your future actions on the fact of that fraud and if you were to attempt to put an end to it, you would have a very small but slightly better chance to have your paternity declared null and void than you have to gain custody of one or both of the girls.

All the best,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

October 29, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

This is the TV show you’ve been waiting for, The Parent Trap, on Dr. Phil.

Of course, there is a bit of a problem right off the bat with that show, because it is called “The Parent Trap”, not “The Father Trap”. However, that does not matter much, because paternity fraud is now on the map, and soon you will perhaps even see it on Oprah.

Ruth called me to watch the show, and I only got to see a portion of it, but that doesn’t matter.

I saw Carnell Smith, a falsely alleged father - of four children I believe, with three of the four children not being his - who got defrauded and who, in spite it being known all around that he was not the father of those children, still was being forced to pay for them, who sued and won. Mind you, I doubt that he got much out of it, although his lawyer surely did.

I saw Marc Angelucci, who testified that 30 percent of the Association of American Blood Banks’ more than 300,000 annual DNA test for paternity find negative for paternity by the alleged fathers.

I saw a defrauded father and his wife (Enrique and Mia), whom the judicial child-support extortion racket raked over the coals for a daughter that isn’t theirs.

I saw the fanatical feminist (Gloria Allred, America’s most prominent feminist attorney and president of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund (WERLDEF)) who raved on about the feminist doctrine that paternity fraud is a good thing because it is all about the children, and that any man who pays for them will do, because he is the right one as long as he pays. The audience’s sympathies just weren’t with her. They laughed her out of the house, but she stayed on anyway and kept on talking and interrupting anyone whose turn it was to speak. I guess she is not used to using courtesy and stops talking only if she hears a judge’s hammer hit the desk. She appeared to be deranged and without reason.

Note to Gloria: Feminist “law” can be imposed (you, women like you, and the judges and politicians who support and promote your agenda proved that) but it does not create justice - and the way you dressed up on the show made you look not a year younger than the 66 years that wear you down. Chuck the red jacket; it doesn’t become you. The original communists from whom you got your agenda never wore red. Chuck the red jacket.

I saw and heard Dr. Phil state outright that the child with whom the alleged father was being extorted and defrauded is a fraud victim, too, because she never gets to know the biological father whom she has a right to know. It would be a good thing to remind Dr. Phil or Oprah of that (the Dr. Phil Show is one of HARPO’s productions, owned by Oprah Winfrey that is), the next time either one has a show covering alleged deadbeat dads who don’t get to see their children.

The jig is up, the truth slipped out, and the feminists and feminist judges stand there like dummies with egg all over their faces, just as feminist Gloria Allred did today on the Dr. Phil show.

As most people in their right mind know, there is only one sex in the victims group comprised of victims who are further victimized by being forced to pay and to hand over the money to reward the women who are the perpetrators of paternity fraud.

These men and often their second wives as well are not only paying for the upkeep and raising of a child that is clearly a cuckoo and has absolutely no blood relation to either one of them, but they must pay the money to the cuckoo who laid the egg in their nest.

There is more. The feminists say that the child is all that matters, because the child is being brought up by the “father” whom she or he got to know as the father. The feminists say that, and feminist judges say it as well. They say it often, in spite of the paying fathers not being able to see the child he is paying for, because that child lives with the child’s biological mother and with the biological father who moved in back together (after the mother successfully and with the help of feminist judges managed to get another man, any man, not necessarily any man the offending mother ever met, to pay child support), with the child not even being able to see the “father” who pays the child support.

But there is still more, and I cannot list it all here. Just one more important thing. Mothers who commit paternity fraud can pick (and they have picked on a large number of occasions) the name of a man whom they allege is the father of their child right out of the phone book, and those men still must pay the money that is being extorted from them.

Interestingly, the courts and the child-support-enforcement agencies have no way to find those “fathers” when the court hearings take place in which those men are condemned to pay for the children that are not theirs. On the other hand, when those “fathers’” paycheques are garnished, the judicial powers and the powers of the child-maintenance enforcement system have absolutely no problem with finding them. By then is is too late for those men, and they cannot extricate themselves anymore, unless they have a hundred, two-hundred or more thousands of dollars to spare to hand over to the lawyers (and don’t forget, judges are almost without exception lawyers too).

Those men quite likely will never get to see the children whom they did not father and whom they never even knew existed. Yes, men had been vasectomized for years, since long before a given child that they are being forced to pay for was conceived and never once saw the child whom they were alleged to have caused to be conceived, and they still must pay, and the feminists and the feminist judges still insist that they are the only fathers the poor children ever knew and became accustomed to, and that all of that is in the interest of the child.

You can access good, detailed and exhaustive information on the Dr. Phil show: Parent Trap, http://drphil.com/shows/show/962

Perhaps more importantly for any of you who like to express their opinions in writing, you can post a message about paternity fraud and the show, The Parent Trap, at Dr. Phil’s message board.

Posted in Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

August 27, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud (110 kB PDF file)
BY RONALD K. HENRY; Family Law Quarterly, Volume 40, Number 1, Spring 2006

This is the best overview yet written by anyone I saw on the scope and nature of paternity fraud and related issues. — WHS
From the article:

The bottom line in the drive to find some man, any man, to drive up the paternity establishment rate is that “fairness was not a high concern.”….

In Los Angeles County, eighty percent of paternity establishments are entered by default judgment, whereas for the State of California as a whole, the number is sixty-eight percent.  California is not alone. The United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS/IG report) reported that “seven states’ child support agencies report half or more of paternities established in their states occur through defaults.” The inspector general further reported that “[t]wentyfour percent of local offices in focus states report half or more of paternities in their caseloads are established by default.”
(Full Story)

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

January 21, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: [Mention] New Book Coming: “Taken Into Custody”
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:13:57 -0500
From: Stephen Baskerville

Please forward this message to your lists.

I recently signed a contract with a current affairs publisher for a book tentatively entitled Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. This will be a major exposé on all facets of the divorce/custody machine — including child custody, constitutional rights, child support, domestic violence, child abuse, feminism, government fatherhood/marriage programs, and more. It will document the politics behind the machinery — the conflicts of interest, the corruption, the money, the extremist ideology — and demonstrate why this is more than simple “gender bias” against fathers.

Taken Into Custody will be the most comprehensive and forthright exposé yet published by a major publishing house of the depredations of the divorce industry. I say this conscious that I am standing on the shoulders of others: Sanford Braver’s Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, Warren Farrell’s Father and Child Reunion (among his other books), Jeffery Leving’s Fathers Rights, Jed Abraham’s From Courtship to Courtroom, Robert Seidenberg’s The Fathers Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle, Richard Doyle’s Save the Males, Judy Parejko’s Stolen Vows, and others.

Without these pioneering efforts, I would never have been able to write this book. Yet these writers were either pressured by their publishers to tone down their language or forced to self-publish. This is the first book from a major publisher that has been permitted to speak the unvarnished truth about the divorce machinery: its destruction of families, its violations of the Constitution, its disregard for due process of law, its voracious appetite for children, parents, and families. This is no tirade however but a thoroughly documented study of the most repressive government machine ever created in the United States.

For examples of the kind of forthright account you can expect in this book, look at the published articles at www.stephenbaskerville.net.

Taken Into Custody is scheduled for publication in July for $24.95, but you can order it now for a special pre-publication price of $16.47 at Amazon.

I would be grateful if you would please place these links on your web sites and forward this message to everyone on your lists.

Stephen Baskerville

Stephen Baskerville, PhD
President
American Coalition for Fathers & Children
1718 M Street, NW, Suite 187
Washington, DC 20036
www.acfc.org
info@acfc.org
800-978-DADS (3237)

For more than 70 articles and studies in mainstream publications on the abuses of the divorce industry, see www.stephenbaskerville.net.

Posted in Shared Parenting, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Divorce, Education, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

September 22, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

By Ronald K. Henry
Family Law Quarterly of the American Bar Association, vol. 40, no. 1, Spring 2006

From the article:

If paternity fraud were a “one in a million event,” we might shrug and say that the random strike of paternity fraud is no worse than the random strike of lightning. The reality is that the lowest estimates of the number of paternity fraud victims [in the USA] are in the tens of thousands, and I believe that the number may be in excess of one million. The scandal is that the child support enforcement bureaucracy has consciously chosen to make no attempt to quantify the problem.

Ronald K. Henry

The full story, thanks to the Equal Justice Foundation, is accessible here.

Posted in Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

September 21, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Paternity fraud (falsely alleging that a given man fathered a specific child and thereby using that child as a source of income) is rampant.

More than 300,000 DNA tests are performed annually by the American Association of Blood Banks. The tests prove that 30% of the alleged fathers are not the biological fathers of children they are alleged to have caused to be conceived. However, feminist jurisprudence ensures that the falsely alleged fathers pay almost without fail for children that are not theirs.

The Association of American Blood Banks found that in one year, out of more than 300,000 DNA tests for paternity, the men who were fingered as the fathers were not the biological fathers in about 30 percent of the cases. Doesn’t it make you wonder what the percentages will be if DNA testing for paternity is mandatory at the birth of every child?

The Association of American Blood Banks reports that for 310,490 DNA tests made for paternity in 2001, “of the cases reported 90,227 were reported as exclusions or a rate of 29.06% exclusions [i.e.: paternity was proven to be falsely alleged].” (Source: Annual Report Summary for Testing in 2001, prepared by the Parentage Testing Program Unit, October 2002, Association of American Blood Banks, Table 2 — PDF file, 129kB) [The data from the AABB also show an annual increase in the proportion of falsely alleged paternity of about one percentage point each year. Does that mean that increasingly women lie more often or cheat more often, or both? –WHS]

Posted in Propaganda Exposed, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »