|
| |
Hi, I'm here, still in San Francisco.
Lou Ann
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Fathers' Manifesto
wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry <lahenson@msuvx2.memphis.edu>
> To: Fathers' Manifesto <manifesto@christianparty.net>
> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 2:16 PM
> Subject: Fwd: Forwarding an excellent article from Lou Ann Bassan
(rather
> long)
>
>
> >Everybody needs to read this article at least three times!
> >
> >Almost everything I have argued for is in this article. I don't
know who
> >Lou Ann Bassan is---but I would love to send her note for such a
well
> >written piece.
> >
> >I will post this to my website with all credits to her sometime
this week.
> >
> >Larry
> >
>
> Thank you both Larry and Lou Ann for this article.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> John
> >
> >---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
> >Date: 11/10 11:50
PM
> >Received: 11/11 3:25 PM
> >From: Will Steeves, goid@ican.net
> >
> >At first, this piece does seem to be a father fathers' rights article,
but
> >then it quickly becomes much, much more. Indeed, it reminded
me of that
> >time, six years ago, when I first began to realise the inherent
hypocrisy
> >of
> >the law allowing a woman to unilaterally choose to deprive a man
of a
> >wanted
> >child (I of course support the right to choose, but there are few
things
> >worse than being a pro-choice man who gets to witness the loss of
a wanted
> >child), while at the same time forcing an unwilling biological father
to
> >spend half of his productive lifetime paying for someone else's
unilateral
> >choice to have a child.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Children: Mealtickets for Moms
> >>
> >>If one parent is allowed to be supported for 18 years through the
> >>provision of child support, what happens when the child support
ends?
> >>
> >>The supported parent has no skills, no self-esteem, no retirement
> >>benefits, and will likely end up on welfare.
> >>
> >>by Lou Ann Bassan
> >>Copyright (c) 1996 by Lou Ann Bassan
> >>
> >>A custody battle is one of the most horrific experiences that parent
and
> >>child can be subjected to. With the advent of no-fault divorce,
we have
> >>seen the "fault" element shifted to allegations against one parent
by
> >>the other, with the intent to deprive a parent of custody
and/or
> >>visitation. For example, allegations of child abuse (emotional,physical,
> >>and/or sexual), spousal abuse, domestic violence, or substance
abuse are
> >>common in contested custody cases, as is the phenomenon of parental
> >>alienation of affection.
> >>
> >>Child support guidelines, which mandate support far in excess of
the
> >>actual cost to raise a child, and which ignore the custodial parent's
> >>obligation for equal financial responsibility, are the fuel for
the
> >>fire. Parents fight over a mere one percent timeshare in order
to be
> >>declared the custodial parent, and thereby win the custody jackpot.
The
> >>custodial parent is the mother in more than 90 percent of cases;
this,
> >>in turn, has resulted in the national social crisis of a Fatherless
> >>America.
> >>
> >>The time has come to dramatically revamp the issue of child custody.
The
> >>financial incentives accompanying an award of custody must be
> >>obliterated. If parents agree on joint physical custody, each parent
> >>must be responsible for the child when the child is in his or her
> >>custody. The child shares in the parent's standard of living
when the
> >>child lives with that parent. When both parents are equally financially
> >>responsible for the cost of raising the child, each parent is encouraged
> >>to work to his or her full potential, instead of trying to minimize
> >>earnings in order to collect more in child support or to avoid
having to
> >>pay child support. If one parent is allowed to be supported for
18 years
> >>through the provision of child support, what happens when the child
> >>support ends? The supported parent has no skills, no self-esteem,
no
> >>retirement benefits, and will likely end up on welfare. This problem
> >>threatens to become a significant burden to our society, especially
due
> >>to the skyrocketing rate of births to unwed mothers, who are ineligible
> >>for spousal support, never having availed themselves of the institution
> >>of marriage.
> >>
> >>A parent with a comfortable level of discretionary income should
have
> >>the discretion to spend it on the child as he or she sees fit,
without
> >>the government mandating a transfer of funds to the other parent
to
> >>equalize households. In cases where the parents have grossly disparate
> >>incomes, there should not be any transfer of money, unless both
parents
> >>agree, and agree without the intervention of the state. To do otherwise
> >>only reinstates the financial incentives for sole custody. Life
is not
> >>fair; a child must be instilled with the value of our American
work
> >>ethic, and should learn the rewards of work from seeing such with
his
> >>parents. A child should not be conditioned to an unrealistic expectation
> >>that as an adult a check will arrive in the mailbox without the
> >>necessity of working for it.
> >>
> >>What is the responsibility of a parent who abandons a child. There
> >>currently exists a blatant double standard: a mother gives up her
child
> >>for "adoption," but a father "abandons" his child.
> >>
> >>If one parent seeks sole custody, that parent must be willing to
accept
> >>sole financial responsibility for the child. If one parent seeks
sole
> >>custody, it can be assumed that that parent is attempting to excise
the
> >>other parent from the child's life. It is here that the subject
of
> >>parental alienation of affection comes up. When a custodial parent
> >>inculcates hatred and hostility in the child against the other
parent,
> >>the custodial parent seeks to sever and destroy the parental bond
with
> >>the child. This is, then, tantamount to the death of the noncustodial
> >>parent, and the custodial parent should not expect financial recompense
> >>from the other parent -- just as he or she wouldn't expect recompense
> >>from a corpse. To require the noncustodial parent to pay child
support
> >>in such a case is simply punitive. Both parents have an equal
> >>responsibility to raise their child, emotionally, physically, and
> >>financially, and one parent cannot choose to have all of the emotional
> >>and physical responsibility, with none of the financial responsibility.
> >>Putting the onus of financial support on the parent who seeks sole
> >>custody would automatically remove the financial incentives for
sole
> >>custody.
> >>
> >>A variation on this theme would be to have a default custody percentage
> >>of 50/50, regardless of how much time the child is in the physical
> >>custody of each parent. For example, even if one parent were to
seek
> >>sole physical custody, s/he would only have a default custody of
50
> >>percent, while each parent would remain equally financially responsible.
> >>In this fiction, neither parent would be acknowledged as having
more
> >>than 50 percent physical custody. This scheme, in fact, satisfies
both
> >>the equal financial responsibility of each parent, while removing
the
> >>financial incentives for sole custody. Further, it would not require
> >>protracted litigation, or psychological evaluations, or therapists,
or
> >>any of the adjunct court attaches that have created an industry
> >>surrounding the issue of custody battles.
> >>
> >>What of the case where one parent abandons the other parent and
child?
> >>First, each adult must be responsible for himself or herself, which
> >>narrows the question down to what is the responsibility of a parent
who
> >>abandons a child. There currently exists a blatant double standard:
a
> >>mother gives up her child for "adoption," but a father "abandons"
his
> >>child. In essence, however, each abandons the child. Does this
justify a
> >>penalty against a parent? A mother gives up her child for adoption
to
> >>social workers, and incurs no penalty. Yet, a father abandons his
child
> >>and becomes a hunted animal for the rest of his life. If a mother
can
> >>give up her child for adoption to social workers, then a father
should
> >>have the same right to give up his child for adoption (for example,
to
> >>the mother). Again, the custodial parent should be solely financially
> >>responsible, because, again, the situation is akin to the death
of the
> >>other parent.
> >>
> >>The issue of choice must also be addressed. Women have the right
to
> >>choose whether or not to have a child; men do not enjoy that right.
When
> >>a woman makes a unilateral choice to have a child, she alone is
> >>responsible for needs of the child. A man should not be forced
to fund a
> >>woman's unilateral choice. This issue becomes more concrete when
> >>examined in the context of welfare. The majority of AFDC recipients
are
> >>single mothers whohave exercised a unilateral choice to bear a
child
> >>that they, apparently, cannot afford. AFDC is obstensibly
in place for
> >>the best interest of the child; yet it is the father who is expected
to
> >>pay child support and to reimburse the government program, while
the
> >>mother is absolved of all financial responsibility and is not expected
> >>to repay a dime. Father custody in lieu of welfare should be the
first
> >>option; this, in turn, will alleviate some of our more pressing
social
> >>issues, such as the high rate of births to unwed mothers, our
> >>skyrocketing welfare rolls, and our crisis of fatherlessness.
> >>
> >>At this point, you are probably wondering, "But, what about the
best
> >>interest of the child?" The "best interest of the child" is an
> >>anachronism. It means nothing, and everything, to the parties and
all
> >>those involved in the judicial system. It presumes the existence
of the
> >>child in a vacuum, outside the purview of the child's two parents.
It is
> >>engendering the most bitter and acrimonious litigation; it is here
that
> >>the insidious issue of "fault" has landed, with parents accusing
each
> >>other of the most horrific acts -- simply to gain an advantage
in the
> >>custody battle.
> >>
> >>Society is making a terrible mistake by concentrating only on the
"best
> >>interests" of one element in the dynamic of a family, while ignoring
the
> >>other two critical elements: the mother and the father. Society
needs to
> >>be concerned about all three persons, and not focus discreetly
on only
> >>one; society needs to focus on what is best for the family as a
whole
> >>(albeit divorced or separated), which ultimately will benefit society
in
> >>general.
> >>
> >>A moveaway case is one in which the custodial parent seeks, for
various
> >>and sundry reasons, to move outside the general geographic region
with
> >>the child, thereby disrupting the child's life and severing the
parental
> >>relationship with the noncustodial parent.
> >>
> >>In line with the concept of "best interest of the child," we are
seeing
> >>an attempt to shift the debate to "what is in the best interest
of the
> >>custodial mother is, de facto, in the best interest of the child,"
> >>particularly with regard to the issue of "moveaway."
> >>
> >>A moveaway case is one in which the custodial parent seeks, for
various
> >>and sundry reasons, to move outside the general geographic region
with
> >>the child, thereby disrupting the child's life and severing the
parental
> >>relationship with the noncustodial parent. Again, the financial
> >>incentives for such an action need to be obliterated. As discussed
> >>above, the default custody percentage would fit nicely on this
problem,
> >>as neither parent would be acknowledged to have more than 50 percent
> >>physical custody, regardless of the reality. The issue is then
narrowed
> >>to the effect of fatherlessness on the child; it is becoming more
and
> >>more clear that those effects are devastating, not only to the
child,
> >>but to society in the long run. The solution would be that upon
a
> >>mother's application to move away, physical custody is automatically
> >>changed to the father (with the same 50/50 default custody percentage),
> >>without the necessity for full-blown litigation on the "best interest
of
> >>the child."
> >>
> >>Requiring both parents to live in close geographical proximity
until the
> >>child is 18, as an alternative, however, invokes the spectre of
being
> >>unconstitutional; and, further, involves the state in micromanaging
the
> >>affairs of individuals. The state needs to proactively eliminate
all
> >>financial incentives and rewards for custody; it needs to get out
of the
> >>business of child-rearing; and it needs to reduce the litigation
> >>surrounding children. By so doing, the playing field will become
more
> >>level, parents will have to rely on their common sense and their
own
> >>inner resources, and will more quickly come to a resolution regarding
> >>their child that is best for all parties involved. When agreement
> >>between parents cannot be reached, default custody provisions must
kick
> >>in along with default financial responsibility, whether it be sole
> >>financial responsibility of the custodial parent or whether the
> >>responsibility be shared equally by the parents.
> >>
> >> ------- end forwarded material -------
> >
> >
> >I realise that this is a long article, but after reading it, I thought,
> >"how
> >can I find this person?"
> >
> >W.
> >
> >---
| |
|
