Morella's Anti-Father Resolution
Richard Bennett
December 5, 1997
The Honorable Connie Morella
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Re: Opposition to H. R. Con. Res. 182
Dear Congresswoman Morella,
As a young man growing up in Texas during the era of school
desegregation, I was exposed to my share of bigotry and ignorance.
African Americans, I was told, are genetically inclined to be lazy,
dishonest, and violent. African Americans were not allowed to vote,
unless they could pass a literacy test and pay a poll tax, which
frequently was impossible. Rarely, if ever, did African Americans
hold elected office, own homes, or send their children to college.
While the races do not yet enjoy equality of opportunity, I had
mistakenly allowed myself to fall into the happy belief that the
wholesale stereotyping of groups of people on the basis of false
beliefs, bigotry, and ignorance was a thing of the past. This belief
was shattered when a friend sent me a copy of your H. R. Con. Res.
182, "A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress with
respect to child custody, child abuse, and victims of domestic and
family violence." The resolution, which borrows heavily from NOW's
Anti-Father Resolutions of 1996, would wave a magic wand over the
custody problems of children in divorced families, and make them
substantially worse.
Mrs. Morella, I am a divorced father, and my three teenaged daughters
are the light of my life. I don't have custody of them at the moment,
although I did ask for joint custody after my ex-wife divorced me,
while she asked for sole custody. According to your resolution, this
makes me equivalent to a wife-beater, doesn't it?
This is, after all, the implication of your resolution's assertion
that "fathers who abuse their children's mothers are more likely to
dispute custody and visitation than are fathers who are not violent."
I've heard this statement before, although a few of the terms have
changed. It used to be "blacks are more likely to rape than whites,"
and it was used to justify mob lynching, in much the same way that
your resolution seeks to kick ALL fathers, not just a small number of
abusive fathers, out of their children's lives after divorce.
To top it off, it's not even factual: only seven percent of
"batterers" sought any form of custody in the Liss and Stahly study
"Domestic Violence and Child Custody" (printed in Hansen and Harway,
"Battering and Family Therapy, A Feminist Perspective", Sage, 1993)
while Maccoby and Mnookin ("Dividing the Child", Harvard University
Press, 1995) reported that custody is contested in nearly fifty
percent of divorces overall. Abusers don't want custody, Mrs.
Morella, they want fresh victims.
Please understand that the relationship of parents and children is
created by God and protected by the United States Constitution as a
"fundamental liberty interest." It is not something to be lightly
discarded, absent good cause and due process, and certainly not in the
name of misguided and misinformed attempts at social engineering.
Parents who seek to continue in the same responsible roles they played
for their children in the intact family should not be stigmatized as
wife-beaters, potential wife-beaters, or "acting like wife-beaters;"
they should be hailed as heroes for enduring the trauma and the
expense of custody proceedings, they should be supported by the state,
and they should be counseled, educated, and helped through
low-conflict legal mechanisms such as mediation, which produce better
long-range results for the children than the litigation your
resolution seeks to entrench.
Are you aware, Mrs. Morella, that the Census Bureau reports that
parents with Joint Custody pay over 90% of their court-ordered child
support, while parents who don't see their children pay less than 45%?
Are you aware that parents who have their children ripped out of their
lives suffer high rates of unemployment and mental illness, as a
direct consequence of this action? Are you aware that, compared to
children in two-parent families, children in the sole custody of a
single parent are:
* 5 times more likely to commit suicide
* 32 times more likely to run away
* 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
* 14 times more likely to commit rape
* 9 times more likely to drop out of school
* 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
* 9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution
* 20 times more likely to end up in prison
* 5 to 30 times more likely to suffer child abuse
Please consider that the world created by your resolution is many
times more likely to be brutal, violent, and filled with hatred and
bigotry than the one we live in today, contrary, I believe, to your
intentions.
Domestic violence is certainly a serious issue, in all of its forms:
spousal and partner violence, child abuse, and elder abuse, and I
agree with you that government's intervention has so far been
ineffective, resulting in little more than a modest decline in the
number of husbands murdered by wives over the last twenty years. I
don't believe, however, that your prescriptions are the right ones.
A friend of mine, Erin Pizzey, has been working on this problem since
she founded in 1971 the world's first shelter for battered women,
"Chiswick Women's Aid" in London, and since she wrote the first book
on domestic violence, "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear."
Mrs. Pizzey has told me that there is most often no connection between
the violence of a couple toward each other and violence against their
children. Very often, she tells me, she has been able to create a
loving relationship between father and child, once they are removed
from the "mother's chaos."
Lenore Walker confirms this in "The Battered Woman," where she reports
that while a third of both battered wives and abusive husbands have
physically abused their children, the remaining two-thirds have not.
There is no basis in the research for the belief implicit in your
resolution that automatically kicking fathers out of their children's
lives upon a divorce filing will make things better for the children.
If only it were that easy.
States have considered the "primary caretaker presumption," and have
generally rejected it. In California, this happened as recently as
1996. It was a well-considered rejection, led by two mothers with
experience as family law attorneys. The "best interest" test has to
prevail, Mrs. Morella, or we chain children to abusive but marginally
fit mothers with no one to take their side, to keep their watch, and
to protect them from the boyfriends, lovers, and step-fathers who will
inevitably take their turn at mother's side. As a recent Heritage
Foundation study shows, children living with a mother and a cohabiting
boyfriend are 33 times more likely to suffer child abuse than children
living with both of their natural parents.
Sharing is a virtue, and a difficult value to teach our children. Let
us not shrink from the serious responsibilities we face as parents,
and you face as a lawmaker, to help our children come to embrace high
challenges and strong values through our proper nurturing, guidance,
love and support. Parents who learn to share custody of children
model this value for their children, to the great benefit to all
concerned. Parents unwilling to share, communicate, and cooperate
deserve a lower status, but only when they have proved themselves
obstructive.
Please withdraw your resolution before it adds fuel to the fires of
revenge burning within the souls of those few divorced parents - and
the professional Father-bashers - who seek to use our children as
pawns to advance their own interests.
Sincerely,
Richard Bennett
Vice President
Coalition of Parent Support
--
Richard Bennett http://www.bennett.com
Co-Parents email list - mailto:coparent...@lists.best.com
freedom 23
Richard Bennett wrote:
This letter received a standing ovation in my living room just now.
I have a website dedicated to stopping atrocities like this legislation.
With your permission, I would like to add your letter.
--
*******************************************************
*Support the rights of divorced fathers to be parents!*
* Surf to http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5066 *
* The site NOW doesn't want you to see! *
***Current*Events**Helpful*Tips**Chat**Wall*of*Shame***
.
.
Phil
Richard Bennett wrote:
(Snipped for bandwidth)
Very good!! I applaud your letter.
I wrote one also, but yours is the better of the two.
Phil
Paul
The Less-than "Honorable Constance Morella" is past President of the
Maryland Chapter of the N.O.W. Why do you think her bill spouts so much of
the falsehoods and clap-trap?
Paul L
Richard Bennett <Ric...@Bennett.nospam> wrote in article
<3489d37b...@nntp.best.com>...
Richard Bennett
freedom 23 <free...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I have a website dedicated to stopping atrocities like this legislation.
>With your permission, I would like to add your letter.
Sure, feel free to reproduce - just add a link to the COPS web site,
www.copss.org, if you don't mind.
RB
Richard Bennett
"Paul" <pal...@amgelfire.com> wrote:
>The Less-than "Honorable Constance Morella" is past President of the
>Maryland Chapter of the N.O.W. Why do you think her bill spouts so much of
>the falsehoods and clap-trap?
>Paul L
Right, she quotes from the following junk:
--garbage follows--
NOW's 1996 National Conference Resolutions
FAIRNESS IN COURTS DEALING WITH FAMILY MATTERS
WHEREAS, an estimated 40% to 50% of men who frequently abuse their
spouses also seriously abuse their children (Finkelhor,
1990; Gondolf and Fisher, 1991; Walker and Wolovick, 1994); and
WHEREAS, nearly three-fourths of all spousal assaults nationwide
involve separated or divorced victims (House Hearing, Violence
and the Law, 1987); and
WHEREAS, abusive fathers often ask for custody in order to gain
control in divorce cases (American Psychological Association Study
on Family Violence, 1996); and
WHEREAS, women seeking relief from domestic violence through divorce
are often required to give primary or joint custody of their
children to the abuser due to gender bias in the courts (Minnesota
Supreme Court Justice Rosalie E. Wahl, 1993);
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that state and local National Organization
for Women (NOW) chapters are encouraged to take steps to make the
justice system and the public aware of this trend by working with
existing women's shelters and court advocates to establish court
watches, document cases of court gender bias, document cases of
abusers gaining custody and issue press releases;
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that state and local NOW chapters be encouraged
to take steps to change the justice system, protect women and children
from domestic violence by calling for review of suspect judges, work
to recall or defeat judges that do not treat domestic violence as a
serious issue, and lobby for laws that require courts to take domestic
violence into account when determining custody.
NOW ACTION ALERT ON "FATHERS' RIGHTS"
WHEREAS organizations advocating "fathers' rights," whose members
consist of non-custodial parents, their attorneys and their allies,
are a growing force in our country; and
WHEREAS the objectives of these groups are to increase restrictions
and limits on custodial parents' rights and to decrease child
support obligations of non-custodial parents by using the abuse of
power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers; and
WHEREAS these groups are fulfilling their objectives by forming
political alliances with conservative Republican legislators and
others and by working for the adoption of legislation such as
presumption of joint custody, penalties for "false reporting" of
domestic and child abuse and mediation instead of court hearings; and
WHEREAS the success of these groups will be harmful to all women but
especially harmful to battered and abused women and children; and
WHEREAS the efforts of well-financed "fathers' rights" groups are
expanding from a few states into many more, sharing research and
tactics state by state; and
WHEREAS many judges and attorneys are still biased against women and
fathers are awarded custody 70% of the time when they seek it per the
Association of Child Enforcement Support (ACES);
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the National Organization for Women
(NOW) begin a national alert to inform members about these "fathers'
rights" groups and their objectives through articles in the National
Now Times (NNT); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a part of this alert, NOW establish a
clearinghouse for related information by sharing with NOW state and
local Chapters the available means to challenge such groups, including
the current research on custody and support, sample legislation,
expert witnesses, and work done by NOW and other groups in states
where "fathers' rights" groups have been active; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NOW encourage state and local Chapters to
conduct and coordinate divorce/custody court watch projects to
facilitate removal of biased judges; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NOW report to the 1997 National
Conference on the status and result of this national alert
whereupon its continuation or expansion will be considered.
--end of garbage--
I'd like to hear from anybody interested in doing a "Fact and Fiction"
sheet on the Morella resolution's "findings."
RB (email to me by replacing "nospam" with "com" in my email address.)
Richard Bennett
Revered Speaker <za...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Mr. Bennett,
>
>I believe if we flood congress, the Internet and the media with details
>of this outrage by that Morella bitch, it will discourage the other
>man-hating, penis envying, lying, propagandizing, rug-munchers from
>attempting to sleaze resolutions like this through the Great Halls of
>Congress.
Let's flood the newspapers and media with it too - like many of these
late-in-the-session resolutions, this one clearly can not stand the
light of day. The woman actually has the gall to claim that family
courts discriminate against mothers! Clearly, somebody slipped some
strong drugs into her coffee.
>It will also scare off pandering fems like Tom Davis and Nancy Johnson
>from co-sponsoring resolutions based on lies which are nothing but
>slandering the father of the United States.
When these rascals run for reelection, their support of these
man-hating and child-abusing proposals has to be used against them.
>Please forgive the angry tone of this message, but I am furious that
>this lying bitch would have the audacity to pull something like this off
>while attracting the true vote whores in the House as co-sponsors.
Nothing to apologize for - Morella is a hate-monger on a par with the
David Duke of the KKK, and she needs to be exposed and turned out of
Congress before she does some real damage.
RB
Fritz/Martens
Wonderful letter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GJP
Excellent letter Rich. Where is the outcry from
the women who post to this board????? There is
none is there (one exception being Cici). Enough
said.
Greg Palumbo
DHodges449
Revered Speaker <za...@concentric.net> writes:
>I believe if we flood congress, the Internet and the media with details
>of this outrage by that Morella bitch, it will discourage the other
>man-hating, penis envying, lying, propagandizing, rug-munchers from
>attempting to sleaze resolutions like this through the Great Halls of
>Congress.
Although I agree that the resolution is very bad, this sort of talk
doesn't do anyone any good. It just makes you look hate-filled
and irrational.
David Hodges
"If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Psychogamer128
I hope that this gets through to her. I loved that letter. It seems that
feminists only care about political issues.
Psychogamer128
Richard Bennett wrote in message <3489d37b...@nntp.best.com>...
Richard Bennett
Charlie <da...@juno.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>I believe these addresses are correct but I didn't take the time to
>verify each one. Choose some recipients and send them your feelings
>about H. Con. Res. 182.
>
>If your reader does not let you view addresses as links, be sure to drop
>the mailto: prefix from the addresses if you cut and paste. This same
>list is available as a delimited text file if you'd like to import it to
>a database or spreadsheet. Just email me and I'll send a copy to you AS
>SOON AS I FINISH COMPILING, which may be a week or two away.
Couple of corrections:
San Francisco Examiner mailto:let...@examiner.com
San Jose Mercury-News mailto:let...@sjmercury.com
Addition:
San Francisco Chronicle mailto:chronl...@sfgate.com
Your list of lawmakers is Senators, and the bill is in the House
Judiciary at the moment. Their addresses are:
"F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr." <sens...@mail.house.gov>
"John Conyers, Jr." <jcon...@hr.house.gov>
Bill McCollum <bill.m...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Howard Coble" <Cobl...@hr.house.gov>
"Rep. Lamar S. Smith" <lam...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Rick Boucher" <nint...@hr.house.gov>
"Rep. Jerrold Nadler" <jerrold...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Charles T. Canady" <Rep.Charl...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Mel Watt" <mel...@hr.house.gov>
nc12....@mail.house.gov
"Rep. Zoe Lofgren" <zoe...@lofgren.house.gov>
"Rep. Bob Goodlatte" <talk...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee" <tx...@lee.house.gov>
"Rep. Martin T. Meehan" <mtme...@hr.house.gov>
"Rep. William D. Delahunt" <william....@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Robert Wexler" <robert...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Steven R. Rothman" <steven....@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. William L. Jenkins" <bill.j...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Asa Hutchinson" <Asa.Hut...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Edward A. Pease" <pe...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Chris Cannon" <canno...@mail.house.gov>
and the co-authors are:
"Rep. Connie Morella" <Rep.M...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Tom Davis" <tomd...@hr.house.gov>
"Rep. Nancy Johnson" <njoh...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Elizabeth Furse" <furs...@hr.house.gov>
"Rep. Julia Carson" <Rep.C...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Bruce F. Vento" <ve...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Pete Stark" <pete...@hr.house.gov>
"Rep. Martin Frost" <fr...@hr.house.gov>
"Rep. Bernie Sanders" <ber...@mail.house.gov>
"Rep. Sue Kelly" <dea...@hr.house.gov>
"Rep. Louise Slaughter" <Loui...@mail.house.gov>
RB
julia Ramer
Not True -GReg. We're here and I have written to as many
congressmen/women as I can find addresses for.
I've also written to them asking them to consider prompting a
resolution such as the one being considered inCA . It's
available on line @
http:www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen
You have to go to sb 0751-0800
then to 970603
This bill is going to set up a means of enforcing VISITATION
as well as support.
J. Ramer
Paul
And the bill to be introduced by Jim Kastama of Puyallup WA in that state's
next legislative session is patterned after the California bill. Paul
L
julia Ramer <ane...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<66kse8$i9$1...@newsd-143.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Richard Bennett
ane...@webtv.net (julia Ramer) wrote:
>This bill is going to set up a means of enforcing VISITATION
>as well as support.
>
>J. Ramer
Senator Calderon's Visitation and Custody Enforcement Act is the best
bill introduced in the 1997 session, and we're hoping to get it passed
in early 1998. Check www.bennett.com/cops for the status and a brief
account of the history. Several of us went and testified on it after
the Anti-Father people raised some bizarre objections to it in the
Assembly after it passed the Senate policy committee, fiscal
committee, and floor without a single NO vote. You'll be shocked when
you read the nonsense they put into their analysis, believe me.
RB
Per
Here is where you can read the full text of the anti-father
bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.CON.RES.182:
Once you see the blatant, wide-open bigotry and hate
propaganda against men and fathers being perpetrated in broad daylight
by these elected officials, you can write to the anti-male bigot who
sponsored it at
Rep.M...@mail.house.gov.
Or
Honorable Constance A. Morella
2228 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone (202) 225 - 5341
Telefax: (202) 225 - 1389
Or
Honorable Constance A. Morella
51 Monroe Street, Suite 507
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Phone (301) 424 - 3501
Telefax: (301) 424 - 5992
And here is an article about it.
Washington Times - Sunday November 30, 1997 Page B2
Here Comes the Government to Help Raise Your Kids
by Stuart A. Miller
At a time when popular sentiment encourages men to become more
involved with childrearing, it is paradoxical that fathers,
particularly divorced fathers, face ambiguous messages from Congress
regarding their role as parents.
Republican Rep. Constance A. Morella along with 14 bipartisan
co-sponsors, recently introduced an anti joint-custody bill, H.R.
Concurrent Resolution 182. Essentially the bill states that it is the
"Sense of Congress" that joint-custody of children should not be
allowed
over one of the parent's objections.
The proposal extends what has often been coined as "a parentectomy"
(the removal of a parent from their children's lives), by prohibiting
joint-custody merely because of one parent's desire to substantially
exclude the other parent. The resulting "award," naturally, being
sole-custody.
But, courts don't really "award" custody. Under common law, a parent
already has joint custody prior to being summoned to court. What
actually happens is that judges strip one of the parents of their
existing custodial status.
Except in the minority of cases where there is abuse, neglect, or
abandonment, judges should say "No!" to sole-custody. When
sole-custody is proposed, courts should warn parents that any further
efforts to try to strip a fit and loving parent from the children's
lives will be met with severe punishment, equal to what they are
proposing to inflict on the other parent.
But that is not the recommendation. The congressional proposal seeks
to reward the parent who wants to strip the other parent from the
children's lives and removes the parent who is asking that both remain
equally involved.
It is not surprising that such a radical feminist, antifamily proposal
is coming from Congress; it happens all the time. What's surprising,
is that it's a Republican bill, co-sponsored by Republican Reps. Tom
Davis and Nancy Johnson.
When the body of child-development research overwhelmingly concludes
that joint-custody is in a child's best interests, why would the
Republicans seek to eliminate joint-custody and its resulting benefits
to children? One can only surmise that is because the change, if
implemented, would practically guarantee sole-mother-custody in every
case.
But, what does that mean for Republicans? I'm afraid the answer lies
in the shameful nature of what this bill really seems to be, an
ill-conceived attempt to get the "gender gap vote" at all costs-even
to the extent of harming millions of children and families-and
ultimately, our society as a whole.
Stuart A. Miller
Senior legislative analyst
The American Fathers Coalition
Washington
-----
Tired of man-bashing and anti-male stereotypes? Read
Per's MANifesto, a monthly newsletter on anti-male attitudes
and related topics. An informative package of news and humor.
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
Nick Danger
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:57:39 GMT, Per wrote:
:> Here is where you can read the full text of the anti-father
:>bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.CON.RES.182:
:> Once you see the blatant, wide-open bigotry and hate
:>propaganda against men and fathers being perpetrated in broad daylight
:>by these elected officials, you can write to the anti-male bigot who
:>sponsored it at
:>Rep.M...@mail.house.gov.
:> Or
:>Honorable Constance A. Morella
:> 2228 Rayburn House Office Building
:> Washington, D.C. 20515
:>Phone (202) 225 - 5341
:>Telefax: (202) 225 - 1389
:> Or
:>Honorable Constance A. Morella
:> 51 Monroe Street, Suite 507
:> Rockville, Maryland 20850
:>Phone (301) 424 - 3501
:>Telefax: (301) 424 - 5992
As annoying as HCR 182 might be, it's nothing compared
to what's apparently happening at the American Law
Institute. HCR 182 is merely a resolution; it does not
legislate anything. It's purpose appears to be to pave
the way for what's happening at the ALI.
Should the draft proposals now working their way
through the ALI be approved by the Institute, those
proposals could easily turn into actual law at the State
level; so-called 'model legislation' drafted by the ALI
frequently does.
See: http://adams.patriot.net/~crouch/flnc/trends.html
There is apparently a wholesale revision of family law
underway at the hands of some very weird people.
------------------------
Get the hell out of Dodge
------------------------
freedom 23
Per wrote:
> Here is where you can read the full text of the anti-father
> bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.CON.RES.182:
> Once you see the blatant, wide-open bigotry and hate
> propaganda against men and fathers being perpetrated in broad daylight
> by these elected officials, you can write to the anti-male bigot who
> sponsored it at
> Rep.M...@mail.house.gov.
> Or
> Honorable Constance A. Morella
> 2228 Rayburn House Office Building
> Washington, D.C. 20515
> Phone (202) 225 - 5341
> Telefax: (202) 225 - 1389
> Or
> Honorable Constance A. Morella
> 51 Monroe Street, Suite 507
> Rockville, Maryland 20850
> Phone (301) 424 - 3501
> Telefax: (301) 424 - 5992
This is good, Per....but there's a saying "you can't teach an old whore
new tricks". Sure, we should write letters to this obvious feminist...but
I think we should first write to our own Representatives and tell them
what we think. After all, they will have a voice in stopping this Nazi
legislation at some point....with that in mind, surf to
http://www.house.gov/writerep to send a letter to your representative.
Let them know that 182 is morally wrong.
> -----
> Tired of man-bashing and anti-male stereotypes? Read
> Per's MANifesto, a monthly newsletter on anti-male attitudes
> and related topics. An informative package of news and humor.
> http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
--
jac...@melbpc.org.au
I don't agree with all that Kathleen says, but she too opposes this
sexist and misandrist resolution before the USA Congress.
---------------------
Article in Orlando Sentinel reprinted in 10 Dec 1997 Denver Post:
by Kathleen Parker
Denying joint custody to fathers won't help children.
A congressional resolution regarding child custody has fathers in a
lather, and rightly so. On the surface, HR Concurrent Resolution 182
seems innocuous, even "good" -- aimed at protecting children of
divorce from physical abuse and emotional distress.
But reading between the lines, the resolution effectively eliminates
fathers from the custody equation.
It is the "sense of Congress," the resolution says, that joint-custody
of children shouldn't be allowed if one parent objects.
In real life, where a majority of women are awarded primary custody of
their children, the resolution means a divorcing mother who doesn't
feel like dealing with her ex can eliminate him from her chldren's
lives. Yes, children can still visit their fathers under the
resolution, but, practically speaking, children and fathrs lose each
other in such limited arrangements. Visiting isn't parenting.
We all know that all divorcing women are selfless and have only their
children's interests at heart. They're never vindictive, never
motivated by self-interest. Not one woman in America ever would
object to joint-custody without good reason. And while we're at it,
you can eat all the pizza you want without gaining an ounce. And
Santa will bring you $1 million if you read this entire column.
Given the current 50 percent divorce rate, the resolution means that
many of America's children could grow up without fathers. Add to that
number the 30 percent of children already born to unwed mothers, and
we're breeding a generation of emotionally vacuous children. One can
hardly wait to become elderly in such a society.
The linchpin of the resolution is domestic violence and the need to
protect women and children from guess who, abusive fathers.
Translated, the resolution essentially says that since men are beasts
who usually beat their wives and children, they should be denied
parenting rights.
That's, of course, a worst-case application of the resolution and
probably a distortion of intent. But as family disputes go, the trend
is decidedly in a worst-case direction, and distortion defines gender
debate these days. In our increasingly divisive society, we need to
replace lines in the sand with common ground.
For starters, let's agree that child custody is an almost unsolvable
problem. Just as young people getting married for the first time are
blinded by infatuation, lust and impossible expectations, divorcing
folk are blinded by disappointment, anger and pain.
In either case, we're asking emotionally and intellectually disabled
people to make the most important decision of their lives. Results
are bound to be substandard.
Let's also agree that joint custody, though ideal in the abstract, can
be a nightmare, both for parents who don't much like each other and
for kids who would like to know where they live without a calendar.
As a family mediator once described jint custody: "Parents think
their children have two homes; children think they have no home."
A quick review of our child-custody history reveals consistent
incompetence. We were wrong when fathers had absolute power over
offspring, as was true until the mid-19th century. We were wrong in
assuming mothers always were the best caregivers during the tender
years, though I still maintain that, with rare exceptions, infants
need their mothers most. We have been wrong in the past two decades
in assuming joint custody, whether legal or physical, was always
preferable.
But never had be been more wrong than we are right now as we devise
ways to deprive children of their fathers.
We don't need special resoltuions to tell us abusive parents shouldn't
have custody of children. That's a no-brainer, like saying you
shouldn't drop babies on their heads. People who beat up their kinds
lose them. Case closed.
Under no other circumstance should a child be deprived access to
either parent. That's what HRCR 182 would say if Congress really had
any sense.