February 6, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Divorced father seeks equal protection
Custody challenge cites discriminatory decisions
Posted: January 28, 2009
10:09 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A case is developing in a Tennessee divorce dispute that one attorney believes could impact custody decisions nationwide because it calls down the authority of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to help fathers who are good parents and want to remain involved in their children’s lives….(Full Story)

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Paternal Rights, Shared Parenting, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence | Print | 5 Comments »

September 23, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Amelia [not her real name] wrote:

Hi,

We are wondering if there is anyone in Winnipeg Manitoba to contact for some information or assistance in dealing with a nasty custody battle. The legal fees are huge and we are getting know where.

Amelia and Jim

Hello Amelia,

All custody battles are nasty, except for those people who like to engage themselves in them because those battles provide some gains or an income.

Legal fees are not truly ever huge, but lawyers fees most often are. That is because lawyers have and maintain a monopoly on the services they provide. Even though judges are lawyers, too, they seem to cost not so much to normal mortals, except when one begins to consider how much social engineering is being done by the judiciary, what the costs of that are and that all of those costs are being paid for through tax revenues that are being sucked out of our pockets.

It has been that for at least the 20 years I have been involved as an activists in issues such as those that threaten you now, that there never was any individual activist or fathers rights organization that anyone could be referred to in Manitoba.

Previously, a directory of Canadian equal parenting organizations never showed any listings for Manitoba. Still, Manitoba divorces, divorce courts and custody battles are just as devastating and destructive as are those in other provinces. However, as the identified directory shows, there is now one such organization in Manitoba, although I am not sure how or whether they can or will be of help to you.

If all else fails, consider that there is nothing preventing you from starting an effective and practical organization in Manitoba. Given the considerable number of inquiries about such (non-existent) organizations in Manitoba we received in Alberta over the years, the demand for services, advice and comradery offered by such an organization certainly appears to exist. It needs to be nothing more than the opportunity for parents in comparable circumstances to meet on a regular basis. It seems that a newspaper ad, run for about a week, would result in a good list of interested individuals.

Be careful about selecting a lawyer. We have often been asked for advice on that, so often that we posted some generic advice on how to select a lawyer, contained in the following articles.

• How to select a lawyer
• Request for help with excessive child support
• A case of paternity fraud

Hope that helps,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Organizational News, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Shared Parenting, Family | Print | 1 Comment »

September 11, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

A few comments (inserted between the lines of and after the article from Statistics Canada that is quoted in the following) are in order.

Gay pride. by the numbers

By Statistics Canada
http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_118-eng.htm

Each summer, gay and lesbian pride festivities are celebrated in towns and cities across Canada.

The rainbow flag that symbolizes gay and lesbian pride is just as colourful as the individuals who make up the community. Like all people in Canada, gays and lesbians are of many ethnicities, cultures and backgrounds, and have various education levels and occupations.

That those “gay and lesbian pride festivities…in towns and cities across Canada” are being celebrated each summer is not entirely a voluntary circumstance.  The festivities and gay-pride parades are being imposed under influence of the full force of the federal government, whenever a mayor of  a city dares to refuse to declare a gay-pride week or -parade.  Costs of fines and legal fees incurred for failure to comply or for simply contesting the diktat by the federal government typically ranged from about $20,000 to about $65,000.

Mind you, the majority of Canadian mayors play along without urging by the State.  Statistic Canada fails to identify whether that is because a given mayor does so entirely voluntarily or on account of fear of punishment. Still, although some Canadian mayors (e. g.: London, Kelowna, and Edmonton) resisted the federal pressure, they eventually buckled and followed the federal mandate to declare gay-pride festivities.

Still, some private organizations, that at first glance and logically appear to be pro-heterosexual, most definitely and eagerly participate because their sympathies openly lean in that direction.  Take, for example, Fathers 4 Justice (Canada) with the rainbow-coloured background in their side-bar menu, who for three years in a row entered a float in the Vancouver Gay Pride parade.  Of course, that carries a price.  The popularity ranking for their website is a dismally low 12,466,650th place of all websites in the world (three-month average ranking as of 2008 09 10).

Rainbow colours are common.  They show up in every rainbow and are most definitely not a gay monopoly.  The presence of a rainbow as part of the display on a parade float is not necessarily a sign of support for gay pride, as shown in the photo of the float of the Bruderheim Moravian Church in the parade that was part of the Bruderheim Centennial celebrating the hundredth year of the incorporation of the village (now a town) of Bruderheim.

Here are some selected numbers on assorted topics related to gay life in Canada.

Same-sex couples across Canada

How many gay, lesbian and bisexual persons are there in Canada?

Statistics Canada does not have the definitive number of people whose sexual orientation is “gay” or “lesbian” or “bi”, but the agency does attempt to quantify some estimates in various surveys.

Nevertheless, a little farther down in their article, Statistic Canada do identify percentage figures for Canadians in the age range of 18 to 59 who declared themselves to be either gay or bi-sexual (1% and 0.7%, respectively).

Given that, a little farther down in its article, StatCan also identifies that of all Canadians 18 and older 1.5 percent identify themselves as being homosexual (gay or lesbian), it would seem that homosexual orientation is for a substantial portion of the gay population a matter of choice that is not necessarily fixed at birth but varies with age.

The Census, however, does count same-sex couples, both married and common-law.

Half of all same-sex couples in Canada lived in the three largest census metropolitan areas (CMA):

21.2% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Toronto in 2006.

18.4% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Montréal in 2006.

10.3% — The proportion of all same-sex couples who resided in Vancouver in 2006.

Source: “2006 Census: Families, marital status, households and dwelling characteristics”, The Daily, Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

That StatCan publication identifies that “In 2006, same-sex couples represented 0.6% of all couples in Canada. This is comparable to data from New Zealand (0.7%) and Australia (0.6%).”

Want to know how many same-sex couples (both married and common-law) are in your province, territory or CMA? Consult this 2006 Census Highlight table on Families and households:

Same-sex couples by type of union (married, common-law) and sex, 2006 Census - 20% sample data.

See also: “Table 3: Persons in same-sex unions by broad age groups and sex” in Families and Households Highlight Tables, 2006 Census.

---

Same-sex spouses

45,300 — The number of same-sex couples in 2006. Of these, about 7,500 (16.5%) were married couples and 37,900 (83.5%) were common-law couples.

53.7% — The proportion of same-sex married spouses who were men.

46.3% — The proportion of same-sex married spouses who were women.

Source: 2006 Census, Family Portrait: Continuity and Change in Canadian Families and Households in 2006.

See also: 2006 Census information on same-sex common-law and married couples; 2006 Census, Marital status.

774 — The approximate number of same-sex marriages in British Columbia in 2003, representing 3.5% of all marriages in the province that year. Nearly 55% were female couples and roughly 46% were male couples.

Source: Spotlight on Same-sex marriages in the Media Room.

---

A Canadian first

The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), Cycle 2.1, was the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation.

1.0% — The percentage of Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported that they consider themselves to be homosexual (gay or lesbian).

0.7% — The percentage of Canadians aged 18 to 59 who reported that they consider themselves to be bisexual.

Several concepts can be used to measure sexual orientation. These include behaviour, that is, whether a person’s partner or partners are of the same or the opposite sex, and identity, that is, whether a person considers himself or herself to be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

The CCHS uses the concept of identity. Data from other countries suggest that the number of people who consider themselves to be homosexual is much smaller than the number who report having had sexual relations with someone of the same sex. However, people are more willing to answer questions about identity than about behaviour.

Source: “Canadian Community Health Survey”, The Daily, Tuesday June 15, 2004.

---

Sexual orientation and victimization

According to the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS), gays, lesbians and bisexuals reported experiencing higher rates of violent victimization including sexual assault, robbery and physical assault, than did their heterosexual counterparts.

The number of gays, lesbians and bisexuals who felt they had experienced discrimination was about 3 times higher than that of heterosexuals. Furthermore, 78% of gays and lesbians who experienced discrimination believed it was because of their sexual orientation compared to 29% of bisexuals and 2% of heterosexuals.

1.5% — The proportion of Canadians aged 18 years and over who identified themselves in the GSS as being homosexual (gay or lesbian).

94% — The proportion of Canadians aged 18 years and over who identified themselves in the GSS as being heterosexual.

5% — The percentage of respondents to the GSS who did not state their sexual orientation.

Source: Sexual orientation and victimization, 2004.

1 in 10 — The proportion of hate crimes that were motivated by sexual orientation.

56% — The proportion of all hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation that are marked by violence. This percentage was higher than the proportion of incidents motivated by race/ethnicity (38%) or religion (26%). Common assault was the most frequent type of violent offence.

As a result, incidents motivated by sexual orientation were more likely than other types of hate crime incidents to result in physical injury to victims.

Source: “Study: Hate-motivated crime”, The Daily, Monday, June 9, 2008.

---

Health

More likely — The probability that gay men, when compared with heterosexual men, would have consulted a medical specialist or mental health service provider.

Less likely — The probability that lesbians, when compared with heterosexual women, would see a family doctor or undergo a Pap test.

Source: “Study: Health care use among gay, lesbian and bisexual Canadians”, The Daily, Wednesday, March 19, 2008.

---

Physically active

31.4% — The proportion of homosexuals and bisexuals who reported that they were physically active in 2003, compared with 25.4% of heterosexuals.

According to the Canadian Community Health Survey, homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to find life stressful.

Source: “Canadian Community Health Survey”, The Daily, Tuesday, June 15, 2004.

---

Gay parents

3% — The percentage of all male same-sex couples who had children aged 24 and under living in the home in 2006.

16% —The percentage of all female same-sex couples who had children aged 24 and under living in the home in 2006.

Same-sex couples represented less than 1% of all couples (married and common-law) in Canada.

Source: “2006 Census: Families, marital status, households and dwelling characteristics”, The Daily, Wednesday, September 12, 2007.

Less “than 1% of all couples (married and common-law) in Canada” is a bit of an overstatement.  StatCan could easily have been more precise, as its figures presented in their article and related documentation quite clearly permit to calculate that, given that there were 7,059,830 couple families, 45,300 same-sex families comprise 0.64% or two-thirds of one percent of all couple families.  It would have been more appropriate for StatCan to mention that same-sex couples represented the far more precise two-thirds of one percent than the imprecise “less than 1% of all couples (married and common-law) in Canada.”

9% — The percentage of married same-sex male couples who had children in the home in 2006. Less than 2% of men in same-sex common-law unions had children.

24.5% — The percentage of married same-sex female couples who had children in the home in 2006. Less than 15% of women in same-sex common-law unions had children.

Source: 2006 Census, Family portrait: Continuity and change in Canadian families and households in 2006: National portrait: Census families.

---

You want to know what?!?

Times change… and so do the questions asked by Canada’s national statistical agency.

• The 2001 Census was the first census in Canada to provide data on same-sex partnerships.
• The 2003 Vital Statistics - Marriage Database was the first source of data on same-sex married couples in Canada.
• The 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey (Cycle 2.1) was the first Statistics Canada survey to include a question on sexual orientation.
• The 2006 Census also included a question on same-sex common-law partnerships.
• Consultations are under way for the content of the 2011 Census, including the questions on same-sex married couples.

Statistics Canada goes to great lengths in assuring its questions—including those questions related to sexual orientation—are relevant and feasible.

In testing questions targeted to specialized populations, Statistics Canada found that the positive rapport between the agency and with various groups and individuals, coupled with assurances of anonymity, contribute to respondents feeling very comfortable with the interviewing arrangements.

This trust has led to a situation where respondents are willing to reveal personal details about their lives, and to answer questions honestly.

The consultations on questions with specialized populations also provided many useful insights into the issues being investigated.

Source: Experiences in testing questionnaires with specialized populations.

---

For information on this page or more data, contact Media Relations.

At any rate, it appears that, all official claims, assertions and expectations to the contrary, concerns about Canada becoming more and more a homosexual nation or that homosexuals represent an important, very influential and rapidly growing sector of the electorate are vastly overrated.  It is recommended to read the document identified by the second-last link in the StatCan article, Experiences in testing questionnaires with specialized populations.

It is difficult and even impossible to understand why Canada’s gays should require “Innovative Methods for Surveying Difficult-to-reach Populations“.  Given that census forms and Gay-Pride parades have become ubiquitous in Canada, the assumption that Canada’s gays are difficult to reach is incredulous and appears to be a figment of StatCan’s imagination. Canadian Gays are no more difficult to reach than are any other Canadians.  In fact, it seems that they are somewhat easier to reach than other Canadians.

The methods described for sample selection as per Innovative Methods for Surveying Difficult-to-reach Populations raise concern that a selected population sample is not representative of the general population of Canadian gays.  Even though any survey results will reflect attributes of the selected survey sample, the rules of the mathematics of statistics do not permit to draw from them any conclusions about the population from which the sample was selected.  The fact that such a sample is not randomly selected does not permit the projection of any survey results found in the sample to the population from which the sample was selected.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Shared Parenting, Gay issues, Family | Print | 4 Comments »

August 23, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

CANADA

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

Cross Canada campaign to support Equal Parenting and Vellacott’s Motion M-483 arrives in Saskatoon

For Immediate Release                                                             August 22, 2008

SASKATOON – Maurice Vellacott, M.P Saskatoon-Wanuskewin has tabled a Private Members Motion (PMM-483)  which  proposes changes to the Federal Divorce Act to enshrine the principle of Equal Parenting during and after divorce.

Fathers 4 Justice Canada (F4J Canada) has supported such legislative changes since 2003 and believes that such change is long over-due. To educate and gather popular support from fellow Canadians for this important legislative action, F4J Canada has launched a cross-country tour with the support and assistance from local groups and company sponsors.

F4J’s cross Canada campaign arrives in Saskatoon this Friday, August 22, before moving on to Regina on Saturday. The F4J Superheroes will be stopping at Diefenbaker Park at the WAM (We Are Many) arts and environmental festival that opens Friday at noon and will have many big name entertainers there. After the festival opening ceremonies, the F4J Superheroes at 12:30pm will be meeting up with Saskatoon-Wanuskewin MP, Maurice Vellacott at the Diefenbaker Park at the south-east corner of Ruth Street and St. Henry Avenue.

Mr. Vellacott welcomes all his constituents, Saskatoon residents and visitors to stop by and visit with him and the F4J Superheroes, at Diefenbaker Park, at the south-east corner of Ruth Street and St. Henry Avenue, during the WAM festival this Friday, August 22, from 12:30pm through the early afternoon.

Children and adults will receive bracelets promoting truth, justice and equality, temporary tattoos with a message about M-483 and the opportunity to have their picture taken with some of our now famous Everyday Superheroes and the F4J Barney Mobile. Pre-addressed/postage paid postcards will be available for all who want to support M-483 and equal parenting.

“We invite all concerned Canadians to join with us and make their support known and visible in spreading the message that the time has come to act,” said Vellacott.

M-483 is currently scheduled for its first hour of debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday, October 8.

– 30 –

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or 297-2249

Posted in Divorce, Organizational News, Paternal Rights, Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Family, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | No Comments »

August 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Press Release:

FATHERS-4-JUSTICE (CANADA)

202-812 12th Street, New Westminster, BC V3M 4K1

National Coordinator: Kris Titus
T (888) F4J-CANADA or (888) 345-2262
E officefathers4justicecanada@gmail.com
W www.fathers-4-justice-canada.ca

Cross Canada Crusade to Support “Equal Parenting after Divorce”

Maurice Vellacott, M.P Saskatoon-Wanuskewin has tabled a Private Members Motion (PMM-483) which proposes changes to the Federal Divorce Act to enshrine “the principle of Equal Parenting After Divorce”.

Fathers 4 Justice Canada (F4J Canada) has supported such legislative changes since 1998 and believes that such change is long over-due. To educate and gather popular support from fellow Canadians for this important legislative action, F4J Canada will be launching a cross-country tour with the support and assistance from local groups. We invite all concerned Canadians to join with us and make their support known and visible in spreading the message that “the time has come to act”.

F4J Canada’s Everyday Superheroes Teamwill begin their crusade in Vancouver, BC on August 18, with a kick-off planned for August 17. The heroes plan on visiting major cities across the nation - from British Columbia to Newfoundland - during August and September. Their final destination is our Nation’s Capital. They plan on arriving in Ottawa ON on or before October 7, to coincide with the earliest date that the Honorable Maurice Vellacott M.P may present PMM-483 in the House of Commons.

Final plans are still being made, but at this stage we would like to ask your organization to help us in spreading the word about the F4J Canada Everyday Superheroes Team arrival in your town/city. Please see attached our CURRENT TENTATIVE Schedule with local contacts. Each local group may have additional event plans.

Of course all donations towards this momentous event are gratefully accepted!

Sincerely,

Board of Directors

F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada

http://www.fathers-4-justice-canada.ca
http://www.mauricevellacott.ca

____________________

Itinerary for Edmonton: 

Time and Date: Noon, Aug 21, 2008 (Thursday)
Location: Edmonton, Alberta – City Hall
Contact: Melanie Greenfield - 780-710-1540

Edmonton Contact:

Melanie Greenfield – Director of Public Relations
ECMAS (Equal Child Maintenance & Access Society) Alberta
T(780)710-1540 E melanie.greenfield@gmail.com
W www.ecmas.org

Please be there.

Posted in Organizational News, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Shared Parenting, Family, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | No Comments »

July 21, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

OneNews.com

2008 06 17

Marcia Segelstein - OneNewsNow Columnist - 6/17/2008

Reluctant Rebel logoIt’s been many years since the late Senator Patrick Moynihan tried to sound the alarm about the problem of fatherlessness in the black community and its long-term implications.  Not only did his words fall largely on deaf ears, he was harshly criticized for speaking up about it.

Sadly, what Moynihan saw happening in the black community has now happened in American society as a whole.  With celebrities leading the way, it is now no big deal for women to have babies out of wedlock.  The very phrase “out of wedlock” sounds positively old-fashioned.  Accidental pregnancies can be aborted — or not — take your pick.  And these days, eyebrows are barely raised over intentional pregnancies by single women.  The New York Times Magazine ran a cover story called “Looking for Mr. Good Sperm” a while back on the trend among single women, tired of waiting for Mr. Right, to seek out instead the right sperm donor.  The author writes, “As recently as the early 60’s, a ‘respectable’ woman needed to be married just to have sex, not to speak of children.”  Imagine!  What a ridiculous notion that sex was anything more than mere recreation.   And as for procreation, who needs it?!  The sex part that is.  Technology’s come a long way, baby.   So guess who’s become obsolete in an ever-growing number of households headed by single women or lesbian couples?  You got it: fathers.  But is that bad?….(Full Story)

Posted in Divorce, Paternal Rights, Health, Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Family | Print | No Comments »

June 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Dictionary For Dads, Father’s Family Parenting Guide, by Kevin Beirne, MS, CSW, is a common-sense website for dads. It is one of the most practical and useful dad-websites I ever came across, with tips and advice for dads in a large variety of family situations.

It is a must that you visit Dictionary For Dads, and do not neglect to bookmark it. If you are a dad, whether married, common-law or single, you will need ready access to Dictionary For Dads.

Posted in Shared Parenting, Family | Print | No Comments »

June 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

James (not his real name) wrote:

I just stumbled upon your website and I was wondering if your organization sponsored programs for fathers. I am currently taking a class at [an American University] entitled Teaching Family Life Education. We have to design a parenting class and find a funder for our program. I was wondering if our program was one you would fund?

We are doing a Parenting Class for non-residential fathers on topics such as routine, social, educational and recreational ways a father can become more involved in their children’s lives. The program is 4 hours long and we are thinking a smaller group of fathers to ensure they feel comfortable to brainstorm and share their ideas. This program would be a one-time thing unless it was successful and people requested it to be held again.

One of my jobs is to find a potential funder for our project. I am not asking for money, nor will I ever ask for any money for this program. I am just trying to find a donor for our program. This is a program that we would be available for anyone to adapt and teach

Please let me know your thoughts so I can see if I’m on the right track.

Thank You,

James

Dear James,

Thanks for asking, but we cannot fund programs like the one you have in mind. We cannot fund any programs, as there is for us in essence absolutely no source of funding from any outside sources. Our small retirement incomes are the sole source of the funding that enables us to run Fathers for Life. That leaves no discretionary income of any sort to permit funding of anything else at all.

You request was for sponsorship, funding and potential funding, and for a donor. All those terms are quite logically and firmly connected with providing money for causes. Sometimes such terms relate to the providing of material goods other than money, but they may then also and still create legally binding obligations and responsibilities.

You explicitly stated in your request that you are not asking for money, and that you will never be asking for money for the program. Please be more specific about what you mean by using the terms funding, donating and sponsoring.

Let me now ask a couple of questions in return. Why do you feel it is necessary to teach non-residential fathers about the circumstances of their fatherhood (which is largely and predominantly fatherhood in absentia)? Why do you feel that fathers do, and that mothers do not, need the sort of training that you envision?

You appear to work in the context of a few misunderstandings in regard to fathers. Given that mothers - especially single mothers - are a much greater danger than fathers are to children in families, your training program targets the wrong audience. You should investigate sources of information that seem to have been deliberately excluded from the study material for your class, such as:

1. Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths : The Surprising Truth About Fathers, Children, and Divorce, by Sanford Braver, Ph.D. (Hardcover - 288 pages (October 1998) J P Tarcher; ISBN: 087477862X ) Review
2. Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS

It’s Official: The Experiment Has Failed

For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in : the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children. — Rebecca O’Neill

There is a large body of evidence in support of the good that the presence of fathers in the lives of their children will have on the outcomes for those children. However, the inferior outcomes in children who suffer from fatherlessness are rarely caused by the willful absence of the children’s fathers. Father absence is instead in the vast majority of cases caused by single mothers acting as gate keepers who, with the active support of our legislators, social services agencies and family courts, do their utmost best to keep fathers out and away from their children’s lives.

How would the training program you envision overcome that very great obstacle for non-residential fathers? Sanford Braver’s book contains a set of recommendations to governments that would greatly help in overcoming the aim of keeping fathers at bay. Moreover, Sanford Braver identifies, along with irrefutable facts, that non-residential fathers, if given a chance to have frequent and liberal access to their children, will voluntarily provide all of the participation in their children’s upbringing that your training program appears to envision but is hardly able or suitable to bring about.

It seems to me that, as far as improving the outcomes in children of non-residential fathers goes, you would achieve far better results if you were to design a training program for mothers that endeavors to have single mothers tear down rather than erect and maintain barriers to the presence of their children’s fathers.

Sincerely,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Divorce, Education, Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For many people the term divorce industry means absolutely nothing. It does, however, mean something to two minor sectors of the population:

1. Activist and advocates for pro-family rights and pro-fathers-rights consider the terms divorce industry and fatherlessness to be strongly related. They feel that fatherlessness is tearing apart the fabric of our once-functioning society. They have reason to believe that the divorce industry causes fatherlessness, that is: the removal and the consequences of that removal of fathers from the lives of those fathers’ children.
2. For feminists in non-governmental organizations and in government (whether elected or simply employees of the government bureaucracy), the divorce industry and the fatherlessness produced by the divorce industry matter not at all other than that they wish for the epidemic of fatherlessness to escalate and that they feel that the concerns by fathers-rights activists and by pro-family advocates are a nuisance that at the very least needs to be ignored.

Fatherlessness and the consequences of fatherlessness are growing inexorably, year by year. A steadily growing number of children in all developed nations - roughly a third and more of all children - have no fathers in their lives to guide them, to set rules, to be role models and protectors to their children.

Fathers very seldom abscond their families voluntarily. Virtually all fatherlessness of children is caused by the governments’ sponsorship, promotion and enforcement of anti-father and outright father-hostile sentiments and policies that are being actively promoted and put into play by members of the divorce industry.

When children are present in families, women file for divorce in roughly 75-85 percent of the cases (depending upon country), while without children in a family the dissolution of that family is being initiated by a woman in only two instances for every instance of family dissolution by a man.

The chart shown to the right depicts a typical composition of government departments and of government-sponsored private organizations and interest groups that promote and benefit from the government-promoted concept of fatherless families (a.k.a. sole-mother families or single-mother families). The chart illustrates the composition of the divorce industry in the United States (Source: Statement of Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina, [US] Ways and Means Committee, 2001 06 28; footnote 69)

Everyone possessing a bit of common sense is likely to have concerns about the escalating trend towards increasing fatherlessness. Those concerns are well-justified and born out by scientifically-valid findings from research studies done by reputable researchers, studies that meet acceptable academic standards, studies like those quoted in the statement by Bill Wood and Jay Gell to the US Ways and Means Committee. Note that those studies are not creations by fathers rights activists, but that fathers rights activists quote from studies by independent and objective researchers.

Nevertheless, the feminists - whose goal it is to destroy the institution of the family, thereby to create massive fatherlessness and the gradual deconstruction of our Christian cultural heritage - dismiss valid social research regarding fatherlessness as myths and substitute unsubstantiated opinions based at best on nothing more than advocacy research done on selective and biased study samples from whom no valid projections to the general population can be made. Nevertheless, they call such opinions “facts” and they call the scientific truth “myths”. (For example: MYTHS AND FACTS About Fatherlessness)

Such feminists apparently feel justified in replacing the scientific truth with a fanciful reality of their own making because they obstinately believe, imply and even assert that feminists never lie, are therefore always right, and that anyone who disagrees with their outlandish and unsubstantiated opinions must quite simply be wrong.

To discern which side in the debate is right - feminists who promote the deconstruction of our society, or people who wish to promote the constructive evolution and growth of the western cultural heritage and society - one should have a look at a few of about 50,000 web pages and articles that address the subject of fatherlessness and not merely buy into the claims regarding fatherlessness promoted by feminists and published by the largely feminist-dominated and -controlled media.

One of the most-important and most-comprehensive compilations of studies of the impact of fatherlessness is the following: Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS. It wins hands-down in refuting feminist claims that assert positive and constructive consequences of fatherlessness. It is not surprising that such studies do not support feminist claims and are therefore never mentioned by family- and father-hostile feminists.

Posted in Divorce, Education, Censorship, Shared Parenting, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 7, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog features an entry today that is very favorable of Stephen Baskerville’s book “Taken into Custody”, a damning expose of the widespread corruption in the government-designed and -run divorce industry: a conglomerate of racketeering involving not only legislators, judges, prosecutors, social workers, police and bureaucrats but also a host of private-industry adjuncts to the government’s sector of the divorce industry, namely: child-support enforcement and similar agencies (in whom many politicians have a vested interest); psychologists; psychiatrists; mediators; lawyers; bar associations; law societies; universities; journalists; reporters and other interests in the media, and so on.

As Professor Stephen Baskerville describes in his book, all of those parties, especially those connected with the family-court system, conspire to intrude and insert themselves into families - even into the most intimate parts of family life - to expunge loving fathers from their families and their children’s lives, to apprehend and control children for the purpose of financially and emotionally devastating fathers (but not exclusively just fathers), to control women (for example, so as to dictate to women that they must choose between being married to the fathers of their children or to lose their children).

“Taken into Custody provides overwhelming evidence that a major reason for the existence and cancerous growth of what Dr. Albert Mohler calls the “Divorce Industrial Complex,” is the overwhelming greed and corruption that permeates the divorce industry.

“Taken into Custody” was popular from the time the first printing was released in the summer of 2007, but even now, quite a few months later, its popularity and appeal are still growing.  Last night the reader reviews at amazon.com for “Taken into Custody” numbered 37. This morning their number had increased to 41, all of them favorable and five-star rated. The most remarkable thing about those reviews is that amongst them is not a single one written by a family- or father-hostile feminist.  Just a few years ago that would have been unimaginable, while a dozen years ago Stephen Baskerville would have had a very serious problem with finding a publisher willing to produce and distribute his book.

The vast majority of the reader reviews originated in the USA, but quite a few are from reviewers in other countries, such as the U.K., Sweden, Australia and one with an origin identified as “International”.

There is apparently as of yet no review by a Canadian reader. I should have written one, but have not yet finished reading the book, having received it, finally, and after two inexplicably failed attempts, just a couple of days ago.  I will make up for my missing review as soon as I am through reading “Taken into Custody.”

The fundamental issues discussed in “Taken into Custody” are not exclusive to the USA.  They are endemic of all English-speaking nations (as Stephen Baskerville identified with numerous examples and citations pertaining to many of those nations).  Still, they are applicable to - to mention a few such nations other than the USA - Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the countries of the former Soviet block, India, Japan, Egypt, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Germany, Canada, South Africa, and so on.  The preceding list of countries is based on what is being reported to and discussed with me by fathers and by pro-father- and pro-family activists from around the world.

If you haven’t yet obtained a copy of “Taken into Custody”, get one, and you will find out that - if you dare to dream of having a family - civil rights and liberties are only an illusion.  You will also find out that families make up the fabric of society, and that society is being destroyed when governments engage on a deliberate war that is designed to rip families apart.

As I am reading “Taking into Custody,” I cannot help but feel that the views I have held for years are confirmed.  We managed in the ostensibly “free” West to install absolute totalitarianism by the government bureaucracy.

Posted in Shared Parenting, Men's Issues, Divorce, Media Bias, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | 5 Comments »