Mr. Mens Rights

Mandatory Paternity Testing

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:51:00 GMT

Here’s a great news story. (Read it here.) This politician simply makes sense. We have discussed on this blog before how damaging cases of paternity fraud can be, and a law such as this would certainly reduce the incidence of paternity fraud. (If you haven’t read the article, State Rep G.A. Hardaway is promoting a bill that would require a paternity test for all fathers before their name is placed on the birth certificate.) In my eyes, a bill such as this makes good sense, and could end what I see as a significant issue.

But there is dissent. "I think it's a real affront to women to say that every baby born has to have a paternity test." says State Rep Sherry Jones. I submit that the affront to women is much less than the affront to a man who learns that he is financially responsible for another man’s child for the next couple of decades. While I can appreciate that this type of legislation is an affront to a woman’s right to privacy, the right to privacy must be weighed against the rights of others who may suffer as you exercise your own personal privacy. Yes, it is true that forcing all women to prove whom the father of their child is seems to call into question the character of the woman. However, there are too many incidents to be ignored that suggest that for at least some women, that character needs to be questioned. The reason that I like this law is that it applies the same standard to everyone-so no one’s character is being questioned, it is just a part of getting the document you want. If a law like this were passed, it would eventually be like taking an eye exam to receive your driver’s license-a little intrusive, but the safety gained by having only people who can see drive far outweighs the intrusiveness of the state testing you. The same would be true here. The benefit of protecting fathers and children would far outweigh the intrusiveness of requiring a paternity test. (I recognize that this is not a perfect parallel, but you get my point.)

I will follow this story with interest, and look forward to your comments.

Parental Alienation

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:03:00 GMT

So today I want to talk about parental alienation. Parental alienation is when one of the parents, either intentionally or unintentionally, turns a child against the other parent. Since this is a men’s rights blog, I will focus on how this can be detrimental to a father’s relationship with his child(ren).

Whether we like it or not, it is a reality of life that it is much more likely that the mother be made the primary residential parent than the father. There are a number of reasons for this, some that make sense, some that don’t. While there has historically been a bias towards mothers in custody issues, this has been reduced in recent years, although there may still be some residual bias. In many cases, the mother was a stay at home mother, and is better situated to take care of the children full time. It is a bit of a Catch-22 for fathers in this regard-you should work hard to provide for your family, but because you work a lot, you are deemed the parent less able to care for the children. In this sense, gender roles play a major role in who raises the children after divorce. The good news is that as two-earner households become more prevalent, this issue becomes less of a deciding factor, and levels the playing field for men somewhat.

So what happens when a mother who has been given primary custody (an outdated term, but one that we all understand), tries to turn the children against their father? The reality is that either party can feel hurt after a divorce or split, and when a person feels wronged, it is human nature to try and harm the person you perceive as hurting you. Sometimes, this will turn into a mother putting the wrong ideas into a childs head.

You may have heard about the Bridget Marks case on Dr. Phil, or one of the other shows that she did. This is the former Playboy model who accused her former boyfriend of molesting the children they had together in order to gain custody. You can view a transcript of a very good interview about this case, conducted by Glenn Sacks, here. In the case, the mother had coached the children to accuse the father of sexually inappropriate behavior. A family court judge made the determination that the allegations were false, and awarded custody to the father. On appeal, the court held that although the mother did coach the children to make false allegations against their father, she should still have custody. In part, the judges felt that the father traveled too much (he had agreed to relocate from California to New York when he was awarded custody initially), and that the children had bonded with the mother, and that should not be disturbed (even though she was poisoning them against their father.) This type of activity should be dealth with harshly. I for one would support incarceration for some period for those women (or men) who are found to have tried to effectuate more “favorable” custody rulings by coaching their children. (Making false reports is already a crime, as is perjury, but rarely are these types of cases prosecuted-it is very difficult to prove that someone had no belief in these types of claims, and the perpetrators will often be very sympathetic.) In the meantime, I would caution anyone who is in litigation regarding the parental rights they have towards their children to document everything, especially if the split with your partner was especially contentious. It is important to protect yourself from false allegations or your partner coloring your child’s perception of you.

False Claims of Rape

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:26:00 GMT

False rape claims. Let me start this conversation by stating that I know that some claims of rape are true. If someone has actually raped another, then there should be severe consequences. But that is not the focus of what I want to talk about today. Today, I want to talk about claims of rape that are false.

There are any number of motivations to make a false rape claim. To hide a consensual sexual encounter from a spouse or mate, to try and extort money, to try and harm a person you are mad at, or for many other reasons. There are commentators that would have us believe that there are very few cases where the claims of rape are false. This article by Wendy McElroy-See it here-http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html-takes what little concrete data there is and hypothesizes that as many as 1 in 4 rape accusations are false-that is, the wrong person is accused.

McElroy comes to this conclusion by reviewing FBI testing data. Out of 10,000 tests (where a suspect was named, and biological material was present and testable), 2000 were inconclusive, 2000 were not the suspect, and 6000 confirmed the accusation. These are chilling numbers. While there are no doubt some of these accusations that are truly mistakes where there was a rape, but the victim misidentifies the perpetrator. However, some of these accusations are acts of vengeance or hate or greed, or any number of other possibilities. One need not look far to find these cases. The Duke “rape” case may be the most well known of these false rape allegations. And while that case eventually had a positive result for the accused, let us not forget what the mere accusation cost them. The Duke lacrosse season was cancelled. All the Duke lacrosse players lost their ability to plat the sport, and most were rejected even when they attempted to go to other schools. And these are young men that were not even accused. For the actual accused, they were forced out of school, had to spend huge sums of money on their legal defense, lost job opportunities, had to deal with hatred being directed towards them from much of the community, and untold other indignities. And even now, after it has become clear that these young men did not commit the crime of which they were accused, and the attorney general of North Carolina declared them innocent, some still believe that they probably committed the crime.

This is why the false allegation of rape is such a terrible act. Even if exonerated, the reality is that even being accused of rape can and often does ruin the life of the accused. And what to do about those who cannot afford to bring significant legal talent to bear on the bogus prosecution, or who are unable to prove their innocence for other reasons. Rape is a crime that once an accusation is made, it really is more a situation of guilty until proven innocent than presumed innocent.

When false claims are discovered, there should be a rigorous investigation about the motivation for the false identification. If the mistaken ID was truly an error, then no further action is needed. I do not support the punishment of those who have been truly victimized and make a mistake. But in those cases where it can be shown that the accusation was made for nefarious reasons-for the possibility of a settlement in a civil suit, to harm someone the accuser is mad at, to simply gain attention, then there should be severe penalties. While making a false report remains a crime, it is the rare instance where an accuser is charged after making a false allegation.

Tell me what you think. If you have a story of a false rape accusation, please post it in the comments section, or contact me and I will post it for you. This is an important issue, and I look forward to your input.

Britney Spears vs. Kevin Federline--I Never Thought It Would Come to This

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:23:00 GMT

This causes me great pain. I was hoping to go my entire life without ever having to have a serious discussion about this subject. However, the subject has wandered into the area of men’s rights, and I find myself with the unenviable task at hand. That’s right, I am going to write about Britney Spears and her ex husband, Kevin Federline. While it is fairly common knowledge that Britney Spears has been traveling the Anna Nicole, Dana Plato, Danny Bonaduce, Todd Bridges, and all the other child stars who were unable to deal with the fame achieved as children. Now, arguably, she has reached adulthood, and has remained famous. But I digress. The reason I am writing about this is in regards to the recent custody problem that Mr. Federline faced in retrieving his children from Ms. Spears.

As this AP story shows, she would not give the children back, despite a court order requiring her to do so. See the article here. Here is the part that I found amazing. A police spokesperson said that no actual crime was involved, so Spears was not charged. I think that this is a blatantly false statement. There is clearly a case to be made for parental kidnapping. From PARENTAL KIDNAPPING: PREVENTION AND REMEDIES by Patricia M. Hoff, the definition of parental kidnapping is “the taking, retention or concealment of a child by a parent, other family member, or their agent, in derogation of the custody rights, including visitation rights, of another parent or family member.” See the entire document on parental kidnapping here. The incident involving Ms. Spears seems to fall directly into the category of retention of children in derogation of custody rights. My point isn’t so much that Ms. Spears should be charged. My point is that had this situation been reversed, I have no doubt that Mr. Federline would be charged with parental kidnapping, obstruction of a peace officer, domestic violence, false imprisonment, and any number of other crimes. The only difference I can see is that Mr. Federline is male, while Ms. Spears is a female. (At some point, it could have been argued that Ms. Spears had all the talent in the relationship, but at this point her capacity to do stupid things has spent all the talent capital she had.)

I bring this up because of some talk I have heard on various “news” shows. Particularly, Nancy Grace seemed upset that Federline would get access to the children while Spears lost custody (at least temporarily.) Now, I am not a Nancy Grace fan. (I do admit to watching her show occasionally, but as a person dedicated to the legal system, some of the things she says and advocates are simply to much for me to take-while lots are guilty, some are not, and as a lawyer she should at least give this concept lip service-but again, I digress.) Nancy was horrified that Britney Spears would lose all even visitation rights to her children. While she was involuntarily committed. A strange stance to take. I have no doubts that if it were Kevin Federline who refused to return his children after a visit, Nancy Grace would be calling for the firing squad.

Now, all this being said, I want to be clear that I am no Kevin Federline fan. I frankly think that both people in that relationship are clearly two of the more ridiculous characters out there. And if the allegations that he does not care for his other children is true, I certainly can’t support that. However, in the case making headlines, I have seen nothing from him that would make me think he is incapable of caring for the children, and lots of evidence that Ms. Spears should perhaps have limited contact at this point. Refusal to follow a court order, barricading oneself inside the home, refusing lawfully given police orders, are all indications of mental instability, or a total disregard for all authority. In either instance, the underlying problem should be cured before unfettered access to children is given.

Now, I hope that is the last time I ever have to write about those two. I am going to go wash my hands as they feel oddly sticky after writing this post.

Abraham Article on Paternity Fraud

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:51:00 GMT

I hope that everyone reading this had a great holiday, and got the chance to spend some time with their family. Thanks to everyone who reads this blog, and please keep coming back, I expect 2008 to be a great year for this blog.

There is a great article from about five years ago talking about paternity fraud, and how often it may occur. The article was written Carolyn Abraham, and you can read it here. There are a number of great quotes in this article, and more importantly, the articles does explore paternity fraud, and what some of the practical implications of paternity fraud are.

I took particular interest in the discussion about whether or not to notify the father. “If the case involves an expectant mother, Ms. Shuman explained, the hospital's legal obligation is clear: The developing baby is considered part of the mother and the results of the tests therefore belong to her.

After birth, the course of action is less clear, she said, but lawyers advise that the child is to be considered the patient, whose needs trump those of the parents. Since telling the father could trigger a breakup and leave the child without proper support, the hospital keeps the secret.” One of my frequently discussed themes is that when it is found that the “father” is not the biological father, the courts will usually continue to enforce support obligations against him. Apparently, the health care system has taken a similar view, deciding that providing a means for support is more important than letting a duped man know that he is not the father of his child. Worse, since the baby is considered part of the mother prior to birth, then the mother owns the information, with no responsibility to inform the man she is claiming as the father. This allows some women to actively dupe men, and essentially claim a large portion of their assets for the next couple of decades.

I also was intrigued by the discussion about research that dispels the myth that women are normally monogamous, and it is the men that cause all of these problems. According to the article, between 30 to 50 percent of women cheat on their partners. This is a huge number. Worse, the article states that experts think that between 5-15 percent of men tested falsely believe that they are the father of a child. This is a truly frightening statistic, and one that needs to be lowered.

The best quote of the article comes from sexual-behavior expert Judith Lipton. “"Reproductive deception is morally similar to rape," Dr. Lipton said. "If you trick someone into raising a baby not his own, and he puts 20 years of his life into an endeavour based on a falsehood, that is appalling.” This is a fantastically accurate and succinct description of the problem, and I thank Dr. Lipton for stating her view so emphatically.

Let me know what you think, I look forward to your comments.

Funny video

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:47:00 GMT

Okay, so this video is not directly about men's rights. But still worth watching. Enjoy!

Troubling sentence for murder conviction

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:14:00 GMT

This is an interesting case that shows the difference in how men can be treated quite differently, not only in the family law system, but also in the criminal justice system. Traci Rhode was convicted of 1^st degree murder (the worst kind, premeditated, bad stuff.) She was sentenced to probation. That’s right, probation. I know of shoplifters that have trouble getting probation, but murder in the first?

Now, to be fair, according to the articles I have read, there very well may have been reasonable doubt in this case. See http://www.thehawkeye.com/Story/No_prison_120707.But that should go to the verdict, not the sentence. So if the jury (who determined the sentence in this case, a relatively strange procedure) thought that she wasn’t proven guilty, then not guilty is the appropriate choice. But to offer probation for the most serious crime one can commit is bordering on the ridiculous. And the fine. She has to pay $10,000 in fines by 2016. Less than many used cars.

So why post about this in a men’s rights blog. I actually struggled with this. As a defense attorney, I certainly appreciate that with the limited info I have available, it seems that this was not the greatest prosecution ever, and that there may have been reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, then I expect juries to acquit. On the other hand, I thought about the likely result if a man had been found guilty of murdering the mother of his two children. I suspect the sentence would be significantly different.

In the case of Zakaria Oweiss, there was also some doubt, possibly reasonable doubt. Dr. Oweiss’ wife was murdered, allegedly by him. The evidence was sketchy, and there was doubt about who actually committed the crime. The jury argued about whether Dr. Oweiss, or one of his grown sons, had killed Dr. Oweiss’s wife. Eventually, the jury covicted Dr. Oweiss of the lesser offense of 2^nd degree murder. Dr. Oweiss was sentenced to 30 years in prison. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A49922-2003Mar18?language=printer .

I will try to keep my eye out for additional information on this case to see if there are any juror interviews so that we can further understand why the chose the sentence they did.

Putative Father's Registry

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:57:00 GMT

Virginia has recently created the putative father registry. On a website explaining the registry, the goal is said to be to protect father’s rights. See the website here http://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/ap/putative_brochure.pdf . But if we think through the registry, I think that we will find that the real goal of the registry is to make it harder for biological fathers to assert their rights when the mother decides to give a child up for adoption, have a new partner adopt the child, or when the mother will in some other way terminate parental rights.

The registry works like this: By putting your name on the registry, you “protect” your rights as a father. From the registry brochure-“Timely registration entitles you to notification of termination of parental rights or adoption proceedings for a child

You may have fathered.” So, register every time you have sexual congress with a woman. Again, from the brochure-“You may register as many times as you would like for each potential pregnancy or different child. If you have multiple relationships with the same person or more than one female that you are involved with you need to register for each.

If you have multiple relationships with the same person you can indicate the time period on the registration from in the space provided in the dates of possible conception.” So, register for any time period in which you have sexual relations with any female. “If you have multiple relationships with the same person…you need to register for each.” Does this mean what it says? Register every time that you have sex.

So what does this tell us about the state’s goal? While the stated goal is to protect father’s rights, what is the reality of this goal? If every time an (unmarried) man had sex with a woman he registered with the state, what would this mean in administrative costs? The 2006 population estimate is a little of 7.6 million people, 50.8% of these people being female (making 49.2% male.) 35.5% of people are either over 65 years old or under 18 years old. This means that roughly 2,460,000 men would be eligible for this registry. See the numbers here http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51000.html . 31% of men were unmarried in 2000-see the numbers here http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=347051 . So that means 762,000 or so men might find a need for this registry. (This number excludes those that are married and having affairs, who also would arguably need to register.)

So why the exercise in math? While there are not a lot of trustworthy statistics on how many men are sexually active outside of marriage, it is probably safe to assume that it is more rather than less. So being conservative, let’s say half of these men have a non-marital sexual encounter 2 times a year. (This makes the math easy for me, I do not endorse that this figure is reasonable, I tend to believe that it is rather low.) So every year, 762,000 thousand individual registrations would be required. This is a staggering number, and probably a very low estimate of the numbers really involved. Does Virginia really think that every year 762,000 men will register whom they had sex with? Or is it more likely that Virginia thinks that every year 762,000 men WONT register? If the men don’t register, time and expense can be saved when woman want to have their children adopted or otherwise terminate parental rights.

This article has some interesting quotes- http://hamptonroads.com/node/301231 . “Frankly, I think we're being too kind to these men. Guys who don't stick around long enough to find out whether they've caused a pregnancy have terminated their paternal rights.” This overly simplifies a complicated issue. One, this statement ignores the fact that the ONLY person who knows that a pregnancy has occurred that also KNOWS who the father may be is the woman. Why aren’t we worried about being too kind to women that don’t notify the potential father? Why do we need a registry to make it easier for women to avoid notification? The answer is we don’t. A registry commanding men to release the most intimate details of their life in order to protect what the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right (the right to procreate) is a gross overstep of governmental power, and is wrongheaded in its application. Simply stating that men who don’t know that they have fathered a child don’t deserve the child is unfair. Men don’t always know. Example: A man has a five year relationship with a woman. He loves her, and never abuses her or does anything untoward towards her. The man and woman live together, and have sexual relations regularly, but have never married. One day, the man comes home to find a “dear john” letter, telling him that his girlfriend has left, does not want him to find her, and that she does not love him. So the man goes about his life. He follows her wishes and does not seek her out. Unknown to him, she left after she had become pregnant. She gives birth, and decides to put the child up for adoption. So, if this man did not register his five year relationship, then he is out of luck. And when should he have registered? What if he registered the first two years of the relationship, and then stopped because he felt like he was in a committed relationship? What if he never registered because he believed (Rightly, if you ask me) that the frequency and number of his sexual encounters are NONE OF THE STATES BUSINESS. But if he didn’t register, he could lose all rights to his child BY DEFAULT.

And 35 other states have done this. This policy brief explains the “logic” behind these rules. http://web.missouri.edu/~umchescfprwww/punativefatherpolbrf.pdf . These quotes from the brief blew me away. “Notice of pending adoptions is not required for unwed fathers who have not filed or not filed in a timely manner with the Putative Father Registry or otherwise established paternity legally” and “Sexual intercourse serves as notice of possible conception. A lack of knowledge of a pregnancy or birth does not constitute an acceptable reason for failing to register.” Again, the mother knows who the father may be, yet the responsibility falls completely on the potential father.

I understand that establishing paternity is an important state goal, and I even understand the need for some final point where adoptions can occur. But to remove any responsibility for notification from the mothers, and to place an unduly burdensome requirement on men in order to protect a most basic of rights is not the answer. To give a counterpoint to this registry, what if the state enacted a rule where all women had to name all potential fathers of children they have had, and if it is found that they left the actual biological father off of the list, then the mother would lose all parental rights. I believe that we would hear much more about this type of rule, and the outcry would be tremendous. Being unfair to women is not the answer, just as being unfair to men is not the answer. The easy solution to a problem is not always the right solution. Here’s to hoping that at some point those in power choose to adopt reasonable solutions, not the easy to sell solutions.

Unbelievable

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:21:00 GMT

Ok, so first, read this- http://msbreadwinner.com/ .

So, lets think this through. Ms. Breadwinner worked hard, and her husband supposedly did nothing, so she should not have to pay support. Ms. Breadwinner thinks that this is a unique position to be in-although, by her quote “That’s equality for you”, we know that she recognizes that this really isn’t a unique position, it is only unique if you are a woman who is ordered to pay support. Men have been forced to pay spousal support for years, and frankly, in many cases, it is the right decision. If a woman has been a homemaker (or not), and is suddenly without her primary source of support, then it would be unfair, unsafe, and unethical to leave her with no recourse to provide for herself. Support is supposed to allow the spouse to get in a position to take care of themselves. In many cases, the support has a defined beginning and ending point, and in virtually all cases, the support would end if the spouse remarried, etc… So why is Ms. Breadwinner so upset that she might be forced to pay support? Because she does not feel that her husband did enough to contribute to her income? Let’s look at a few cases that Ms. Breadwinner did not discuss.

Paul McCartney (Of Beetles fame) married Heather Mills in 2002. At this point, McCartney was already VERY rich, and Ms. Mills has done nothing to add to this vast fortune (at least nothing of consequence-all of the money making work was done 3 or 4 decades ago). Yet she reportedly asked for $20,000 A DAY!!! So, times 365 days in a year-that is $7,300,000 yearly. In support. The divorce finally settled for over 60 million dollars. See http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2007/01/heather-mills-paul-mccartney-divorce-settled-gold-dug/ . That is a tremendous settlement for a short term marriage. Any claims that Heather Mills had anything to do with the amassing of this fortune are laughable (I choose not to comment on any claims of abuse, as those claims are not relevant to this conversation.) So there is one case of a woman seeking support where she did nothing to “deserve” it.

Jeff Gordon, a famous NASCAR driver, was divorced from his wife Brooke in 2003.

“Brooke Gordon filed for divorce in March, citing "marital misconduct." The racer has countersued, saying he should not have to equally split the couple's estate because he risked his life to collect it.

Jeff Gordon had to reveal his worth in an affidavit filed to comply with a Florida law that requires assets amassed during a marriage to be split evenly.

Brooke Gordon has asked for exclusive use of their Highland Beach, Fla., mansion, valued at $10.2 million, as well as alimony, two cars and periodic use of their boats and an airplane. She also wants her husband to continue to pay the salaries of their housekeepers, maintenance workers and chef.” See http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2003/01/24/Sports/Gordon.Divorce.Sells.Out-351140.shtml .

The Gordon case is especially instructive, as not only did Brooke not have to do much to help him amass his fortune (Brooke was Miss Winston when Gordon met her, in Victory lane, so she apparently did not teach him to drive the car!!!) When she asks him to continue paying housekeepers, chef, maintenance workers, etc…one must wonder, what did she contribute to the marriage (That is worth millions in homes, airplanes, etc…) But Ms. Breadwinner does not want to discuss these cases, because she thinks that men having to PAY support is ok, but no men should RECEIVE support.

I bring these cases up not as a shining example of men being abused, because neither man will suffer anything approaching financial ruin even with these exorbitant monetary requests. I bring them up to illustrate the hypocrisy of Ms. Breadwinners assertion that real men would not ask for support.

In this day and age, many men have taken the role of primary caregiver for the children of the family. These men give up employment opportunities, educational opportunities, essentially all of the opportunities that women cite giving up when asking for spousal support. Why shouldn’t these men receive the help that the law provides for? So men, don’t listen to the likes of Ms. Breadwinner. Whether her husband deserved support or not is not the issue, the issue is the broad claim that real men don’t ask for support. Let’s put that to rest, and determine what real men do.

1. Real men take care of their family. Period.

2. Real men ask for help when they need it. (Note that even John Elway had to throw the ball to someone.)

3. Real men read this blog. (Ok, so this is shameless plugging on my part, but so what?)

4. Real men protect themselves and those they care about. If that means receiving spousal support while re-establishing oneself after divorce, then so be it.

5. Most important, real men don’t define themselves by what Ms. Breadwinner, or Mr. Men’s Rights, or by what anyone else says. Real men know that they are who they are, and can only work to improve themselves, but can never be what someone else wishes they were.

When shouldn't the biological father pay support?

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:28:00 GMT

Okay, so this is an interesting case. Basically, the mayor of a city in Broward County fathered a child via his (or one of his) mistresses. 17 years go by, the woman has certified that her ex husband is the father, and all seems ok. Then, when the child is now 20 and in college, the woman sues the mayor for child support.

What I think is really important here is that the mayor did not know that he was the father of this child for the entire time from conception until 17 years later. He never had an opportunity to develop a relationship with the child. And now, when the chance to develop any meaningful parent child relationship has passed, the mother seeks child support. It looks like she was seeking support because her ex husband never paid any of it.

The court found that even though the mayor was the biological father, he did not have to pay any child support because there was an existing order for support in place. While it does not sound like the mayor is an angel in any sense of the word, I must say that this ruling makes a lot of sense to me, at least when we look at how these cases normally go… Woman tells man that he is the father, he isn’t, but he can’t ever escape his duty to pay for a child that isn’t his. Here-the non-biological father never pays, so the mother seeks money from elsewhere-the biological father. Treating men as a means for support only misses the point-a father/child relationship is important to both the father and the child.

I will never defend fathers who neglect that relationship, especially if it has been previously developed. However, when a father has been denied the right to this relationship by the unilateral acts of the mother, I cannot find fault with him when he doesn’t want to pay her a bunch of money to put “his” child through college. It would be like telling any of you to send me many thousands of dollars-you don’t know me, and while I assure you I am really a deserving guy, you might want to know me personally before giving me tens of thousands of dollars. Oh, by the way, the mayor did offer $17,000 to settle the case, but that amount was deemed insufficient by the mother. I am glad to see that this court, however unintentionally, placed a premium on the father-child relationship, recognizing that fathers have a right to know their children, and are not simply an “ATM” for paying the mothers bills with no access to the child.

You can read the article here http://www.browardtimes.com/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=742&Itemid=1 .

Television tackles paternity fraud

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:15:00 GMT

I just finished watching an episode of Law and Order, SVU that dealt with the issue paternity fraud. The basic situation goes like this-there is a murder, after investigation, the detectives find out that a child who witnessed the murder is not the biological son of the father in the case. The wife was having an affair, and now the biological father tries to assert that he should have custody of the child. Drama shows being what it is, the father (non-biological) goes a little nuts (okay a lot nuts) and kills his wife after she asks for a divorce and the biological father tries to assert custody rights. It was good to see this issue dealt with on a major television show, although it certainly put the defrauded father in a questionable light-it becomes very hard to have empathy for murderers, no matter the reason for the killing. That being said, the result in this (fictional) case is not hard to fathom-a man, raising a child that he loved and cared for, suddenly faces the prospect of losing the child, of not being able to see his child, and simultaneously has to deal with the betrayal of his wife, the actions of her lover, and it is not so far fetched to think that a normally non violent man would resort to violence. The episode also did a good job of describing the legal morass that paternity law is-the child is of the marriage, so the husband is presumed to be the father, cannot escape child support payments, etc… I applaud NBC and the producers of Law and Order, SVU for tackling (however briefly) such an important and controversial issue. If you saw the episode, (or just want to comment on the issue)-please post in the comments section. As always, I look forward to hearing from you.

Male Abortion

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:56:00 GMT

So I was listening to my local talk radio station the other day, and the host was discussing “Male Abortion.” Male abortion is an idea where the male would have the right, within a certain amount of time, say six months, to disavow any financial responsibility for a child. While this sounds extreme, women essentially have this right already. If a woman finds herself pregnant, she may elect to keep the baby, have an abortion, or to put the child up for adoption. Her male counterpart must abide by these decisions. If she keeps the child, support payments it is. If she decides on abortion, then the man will never know his child. Adoption allows the man a few more rights, although he must be identified as the father, etc… Why shouldn’t the man have some rights when it comes to child rearing? The talk show host posed this hypothetical. A man and a woman enter into a “one-night stand.” All contact is consensual. Going into this one night engagement, the woman knows that should she become pregnant, she can avoid any financial responsibility, if she so chooses. As the law stands, she also knows that she can get financial help from the man she chose to be with.

Proponents of male abortion say that a man should have at least similar rights to the rights of the woman. She has a few months to make her decision (before an abortion becomes infeasible), so why shouldn’t the man be able to make the same decision? Both parties to the “transaction” had the same knowledge; both people knew that a pregnancy could occur. Why should it be that the man bears all the risk in this transaction? The woman can stop the pregnancy if she so chooses. Mr. Men’s Rights agrees that women have to be decision maker when it comes to abortion, any other solution is impracticable. But why should the father be devoid of all rights? He already has no choice if the pregnancy is terminated, should he also be devoid of rights if the pregnancy is taken to completion? The practical reason that this hasn’t happened is pretty straightforward, at least in my opinion. The state has no interest in paying for these children. If men are allowed to “opt” out of child support responsibility, then there is a chance that there will be children for whom there is not sufficient support. While a fair concern for the state, we would not put up with this type of state interest pre-empting a personal interest. (Think about the brouhaha about illegal wiretaps-now imagine instead that the government decided that 25% of your income-over and above taxes-were going to be taken as terrorism prevention support payments.)

The argument that I heard being made against this type of law was that men had been “doing this” to women for so long it was fair to punish them now. I take issue with this type of thinking for a number of reasons. One, so if women “do this” to men for long enough, then perhaps eventually men will be able to force or prevent abortions, never pay support, etc…? The retribution argument never makes sense to me, especially when we are punishing people who have not done the “crime.” Second, I am not sure what “doing this” really means. If the contact is consensual, it seems to me that the male and female “did this” to each other. Lastly, inequality is inequality, unfairness is unfairness, and wrong is wrong. Perhaps it is time to look at changes in the law to allow for more men’s rights when it comes to reproductive issues.

A New Article to Check Out

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:23:00 GMT

There is a very good article by Tresa Baldas that was on Law.com last year. You can read the article here http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144414531354 . This article does a good job of summing up the two sides in the paternity fraud debate-is it fair to the children, or in the “best interest of the child,” and is it fair to the duped fathers.

The last paragraph is perhaps the most interesting, describing a New Jersey case, where the man found not to be the father used the state Parentage Act to try and recoup child support payments from the biological father. The case is RAC v. PJS, and can be found at 380 N.J. Super. 94 (N.J. App. Div. Aug 31, 2005). The biological father is fought the case based on the fact that he was also duped by the mother.

Based on the current law, however, I do not see what relevance that would have. Men find out all the time that they have fathered children years ago, and that the mother has now decided to seek child support from the father. There is no argument that the mother did not know she had the child, nor can the mother argue that she did not who the father was. In fact, the mother is the only one who knows who the potential fathers are. It seems to me that this father may be on the hook. Unfair, definitely, but the way the law is currently, the biological father will have to pay. The decision of the New Jersey court can be seen here http://www.famlawconsult.com/readercases.html , and basically states that the ex-husband had a right to recovery for the child support, did not have a right for fraud or infliction of emotional distress claims, and that the mother did not have to pay any contribution to the biological father because she had paid her share of the support.

Roe v. Wade for men?

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:15:00 GMT

Mr. Men’s Rights here. Today, let’s talk about an interesting case that was brought up in the comments section. The case is called “Roe vs. Wade for Men” by The National Center for Men. You can see the press release regarding this case here. http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml.

The case was brought on behalf of Matt Dubay last year, and basically argued that men should have the same reproductive rights as women, namely that men should be able to avoid fatherhood. This is a truly interesting question. While women have the right to choose whether or not to continue an unwanted pregnancy, men have no right to assist or give input as to this decision. Granted, if the woman so chooses, she can allow the man to take part in this decision, but legally, she is insulated from any wishes or desires that the man has. Just as she can decide to terminate a pregnancy that the man may want to continue, she may also decide to continue a pregnancy that the man would just as soon see terminated. I won’t delve into abortion here-that’s not the issue here. Here, the issue is the ability of one party to a mutual act being able to force responsibilities on the other party, without any reciprocal ability on the part of man to force responsibilities on the woman.

Now, the reality is that someone has to have the final say so. If men were allowed to litigate whether or not a pregnancy should continue, or should be terminated, the length of time required would essentially eliminate any need for the trial. Getting things done judicially is not a fast process, and trying to accomplish this task in less than 3 months (the first trimester) would be impossible.

However, the harder question is should a man who voices his desire to not be a part of raising a child be able to decline? The state certainly says no, if there is a child, he must at least financially participate. The reason for this is pretty simple-the state does not want to raise the child, so making the biological father pay keeps the state from paying. This logic has been extended even further, so that even men who are found to NOT be the father are required to continue paying support, even when the men have no relationship with the child. The thought being, that as long as someone other than the state is paying, no problem. Just don’t make the state pay.

While this makes sense for the state, it is of little comfort to the walking checkbook that is strapped with a monthly bill for the next couple of decades. And don’t forget that somewhere, there is a man who really did father a child who is not paying, and who certainly has a right, and under the law a duty, to take care of his child. I look forward to a lively discussion on this topic, so post in the comments section. Oh, and for the record, Mr. Dubay’s case was dismissed at the trial level, and his appeal was unsuccessful in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Currently, Dubay and his lawyers are seeking an En Banc review of the decision.

Opening Statement

jrmyreed@gmail.com — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:02:00 GMT

Hello all, welcome to the Mr. Men’s Rights Blog.

My name is Jeremy Reed, and I am attorney practicing in Denver, Colorado. Part of my practice involves family law, and I have developed a keen interest in men’s rights, and how these rights are enforced (or not enforced) in our society. Because I think that this subject needs to be discussed more fully, and more often, I decided to start a blog dealing specifically with this important issue.

I am establishing this blog because the issue of men’s rights is one of great importance to our society. While I don’t have any children yet, and am happily married, I have watched members of my own family go through the hassles and economic terrorism that the current system enables women to exact. Even when the mother of the children in question is acting in good faith, the system can be hard on fathers. If you are looking for a blog that will bash women, then this is not the blog for you. If you are looking for a blog that will excuse bad behavior by fathers, then this is not the blog for you. As a victim of an absent father who ignored his responsibilities, I don’t condone fathers who abandon their children. However, situations are rarely black and white, and there is a definite trend towards blaming men for all the ills that befall society. For example, paternity fraud is a major problem in society. Worse, when a man realizes that a fraud has been perpetrated against him, the system definitely favors women who have committed what I view as the ultimate betrayal. I don’t mean the relationship with another man, although that is certainly a terrible betrayal. Worse than that, though, is allowing a man to believe that he has fathered a child, only to find out later that the mother failed to disclose the other relationship(s) that could have led to the conception. The system takes the view that as long as someone is supporting the child, that is good enough, and it doesn’t matter who. Consider this, in most states, a father has six months to contest the paternity of a child. If he is married to the mother, it is presumed that the child is his. The “father” might find his wages garnished for the next 18 years or more, while the mother is subject to no sanctions of any kind. And while it is noble for the courts to talk about the best interests of the child, this viewpoint only works if child support is used to support the child. What if the child support is used to support a nicer car for the mother? Or lavish vacations? Or any number of luxury items that enhance the mothers state of existence, but do nothing for the child?

Paternity fraud will be a continuing topic of discussion on this blog, and I welcome your questions and comments. But paternity fraud is only one area of fathers rights that deserve attention, so I will be exploring what is reasonable for child support, what is fair when it comes to parenting time, how can a father become the primary caregiver, and any other issues that pertain to fathers rights. If there is an issue that you would like discussed on this blog, please feel free to post in the comments section or send me an email.