by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist

Because of many mandatory state arrest laws, police officers are strongly encouraged to make arrests on domestic violence 911 calls, even though many of these “emergency” calls do not involve geniune violence of any kind. Further, because of the “primary aggressor doctrine,” police officers are strongly encouraged to arrest men rather than women.

The plight of the family also involves “no drop” prosecution policies, where prosecutors move forward with cases that contain so little evidence that the case would never be prosecuted if it were any other “crime.” In the words of Glenn Sacks, domestic violence has become a political crime and that “crime” is handled in a political manner by authorities in charge.

nuclear family annihilation

Glenn Sacks also makes the case that men often plea-bargain so-called “family violence” cases by accepting battering treatment programs because they need to get out of jail and because they cannot afford to fight the case legally. The inability to hire or afford an attorney to secure ordinary citizens rights is just one travesty of Bradley Federal Law and punitive actions against men in the name of law.

The law has made it easy for a man to lose all of his rights where his children are concerned with an angry wife holding all the cards. The motivations of the angry wife are rarely, if ever, questioned. The result is that millions of men every year unjustly lose rights to their own children.

The fact is that Democrats have personally penned many of these Federal policies with the idea of personal and political empowerment. However, all politicians have proved to be entirely weak-kneed when it comes to standing up for the correct idea of family rights. While Barack Obama has announced his views which stand alongside the Democratic platform, John McCain, like his predecessor George Bush, has avoided breaching the topic for any reason. Even Pastor Rick Warren missed the opportunity to bring up the importance of the family as an issue. As a result, the issue of real family rights has become the largest election non-issue in recent history.

Politics has proved interest in its own empowerment rather than a real interest in preserving the importance of the family, often referred to in archaic terms as the “nuclear family.” The archaic title seems fitting as politicians seem hellbent on “nuclear annihilation” of the single institution that still binds this country as a cohesive unit. ~ E. Manning

by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist

If you are an independent thinker that wants change, you might just want to love Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the Democratic party platform that he stands on is not a platform that is good for the family or its continued cohesion in any way. His experience with his own father blends with that of the Democratic platform. The platform deals with the profound legend of “mommyhood”: where any mom can and should do it all. Further, if mommy can’t manage for any reason, Uncle Sammy is right there with cash and assistance. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, does it not? If you don’t have a village to support you, Uncle Sammy certainly will. No effort is made at the promotion of the tired subject of “Republican” family values or the rights of the American family as a whole. The platform is all about the promotion of children’s rights and the rights of single parents, which usually happens to be the mother.

where are family rights?

The reality is that this circumstance is more by design than by circumstance. When unhappy women, feminists and complicit Democratic politicians brought the initial round of federal welfare reform into play in the 1980’s, men were generally promoted as the bane and single cause of conflict and pain in the American family. Anyone that has a lick of sense in their head certainly knows that a women has a significant responsibility for the plight of her family along with the success of that family. This wasn’t on the minds of most women thirty years ago and most of America was conned into believing the clever lie along with the solution that never had a hope to work beyond empowering politicians and big government.

Now the Democratic National Convention is ready with a fine program for economic and social renewal. Unfortunately, men have been left out of the mix or at least in a positive sense. The platform’s agenda puts all blame for father absence squarely on men, while promising to “crack down” on fathers who are behind on their child support. It also promises to ratchet up draconian domestic violence laws which often victimize innocent men and separate them from their children. Nothing has changed from thirty years ago, much less since the Clinton Administration, which forced much of the Bradley Amendment upon the nation.

not a mention about family values on the religious front.

Research proves that the vast majority of divorces, as well as many break-ups of unmarried couples, are initiated by women, not by men, and that most of these do not involve serious male conduct of any kind. When a married or cohabiting couple splits up, the father is generally relegated to guest visitor status, participating in his children’s lives only if mommy allows it. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody, while enforcing fathers’ visitation rights indifferently.

Democrats claim that we will gain billions of dollars in revenue by taxing the “windfall profits” of oil companies just like Ronald Reagan did back in the 1980s. That debacle didn’t work causing the loss of revenue rather than revenue gains. Similarly, the DNC promotes the illusion that cracking down on child support will create a windfall for single mothers and the ever-needy children of America. That myth hasn’t worked since this inception of Democratic legislation that Senator Bradley and his cohorts initiated so long ago, supposedly without any hope of success.

66 percent of parents behind on child support nationwide earn poverty-level wages. Less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by parents earning $40,000 or more a year. Starry-eyed politicians eye big income earners with the idea of promoting their cause as payback for rich, snotty and abusive fathers that could care less about their poor children. The promotion is all about inciting prejudice against fathers and men in general to promote a political cause and a monetary system.

domestic violence emphasis

The Democratic National Convention platform pledges to “strengthen domestic violence laws,” support the Violence Against Women Act, and increase funding for domestic violence programs. This writer says that this is a pander to the increasing number of single women with children, an act that is wholly unnecessary.

Society justly despises a wife-beater and child-abuser. This family policy scenario has been used to justify many destructive policies regarding the family as well as civil liberties violations like the Bradley Amendment. The system has provided easy ways for disgruntled women to kick decent, loving fathers out of their homes, exclude them from their children’s lives and work them over financially in the name of just law and individual rights for children and single parents.

The American family is in real danger from the very politics that claim to protect the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, men are not protected by federal law and are seen only as surrogate money bags for the system. Moms often design to milk the system for everything it is worth because they are entitled to it. The world owes the disgruntled for their displeasure. The rights of the family to exist or the promotion of the simple act to simply get along in harmony isn’t discussed or encouraged. Morality isn’t the job of the State and yet politicians claim higher moral ground. The Democratic Party line has obligated itself to family policies that don’t work and never did in the name of “feel-good individual rights” that violate Constitutional rights for millions of hard-working and now disadvantaged Americans. This is troubling. Republicans have simply stood by or endorsed the same politics. In the land of family law, politicians have generally proved themselves to be the of the same stripe. This is no less troubling.

right with a wrong

You can’t make a right with a wrong and certainly few politicians have taken anti-family policies to task. The crisis in the family is the perfect opportunity for an election issue, but perhaps an issue that politicians feel is too hot to handle on the front lines. Republicans continue to address the same old family values politics without addressing the damage done by unconstitutional and abusive political policy and law. Politicians would do well to figure out that righting a wrong with a wrong is worse than bad politics before summarily promoting the same old policies that dismantle the American family in favor of political empowerment. Somewhere, somehow, a day of reckoning is in the mix.

~ E. Manning

an observation by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist.

Pastor Warren treads moral water

Pastor Rick Warren questioned each electoral candidate for an hour recently and failed to mention family breakdown and divorce. If there is any moral or religious issue for America, it is the breakdown of the family and the promotion of that breakdown by political forces. Many millions of children are being separated from a parent that they love and need, usually for entirely selfish purposes on the part of at least one parent.

Amoral policy and the religious right?

a commentary by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist.

Times are tough for families in America. Stereotypes abound, especially toward men, popularly considered by many to be unfit to care for children. Men and a few women have become profound victims of the Welfare State frame-of-mind: victims of the State that claims justice for all.

The intense debate about “father’s rights” continues. Custody proceedings are often adversarial at best, accenting the worst in childish behavior on all fronts, even from judges. Cutting the rubbish, hurt feelings, immaturity and greed brings former mates for life into bare-knuckle fights over who is hurting the children. The fact of the matter is that the debate should be about “family rights.”

The systemic common attitude is that men are abusive, out of control and have little to offer. While men are demoted in rank and status even among their own children, they are expected to relinquish a third of their pay for the privilege of siring a child on the same money they made during the marriage in a dwindling economy. While the proliferation of rules abound, the reality is that there are no rules, only strife and abuse of the “law.” Husbands are often rooted out of the home by the wife with the expectation that life will somehow be better. That is rarely the case for either party. Vengeance is mine and high expectations rule the roost in the hope of controlling the system for personal advantage. This is the sole goal of many custodial parents.

Four years ago, a rash of violent killings erupted in Texas, committed by an unconnected group of hysterical men that had their lives and children mercilessly removed from them. One man killed his children. Another killed his wife, her new husband and a judge at the courthouse before turning the gun on himself. This is something that everyone, including the law, wants to forget. The law portends that men are fodder with little to say or do about their situation because the “law” is always right. Men don’t have rights except to support broken families.

Americans continue to be children of their own mistakes. It up to men and women to struggle and strain separately as they seek someone else to make the same mistakes with. They didn’t learn a thing from their first marriage. The finger of blame points odiously in all directions. No one and everyone is responsible at the same time in a bipolar rush for power that is encouraged by authority in the name of empowerment. Frustrated judges and ineffective law aren’t much better than bad behavior or murderous fits. There is no excuse for any of the evil that Americans actively support for the common good.

brave new world

If family law is ever going to improve, the country has to stop demonizing men and women just because they are divorced. The government must get out of the business of breaking up the family in the name of children’s rights, a typical feminist ploy of the eighties. The old saying that it takes two to tango applies here. There is plenty of blame to go around when any relationship fails. Yet the court system claims to uphold the child without actually doing what it claims. The child suffers greatly in every way no matter how “good” or “capable” a single parent is. The reality is that the system encourages the blight to continue unabated as chaos continues to swallow the country. Parental alienation is rampant. No one is encouraged to get along. Life has become about the glory of the fight. The system has made it easy to bust up families in the name of convenience and political expedience, a system of social redistribution. The system has promoted selfish thinking that demotes the needs of everyone with the idea that times will somehow be better by selling-out.

~ E. Manning

big brother needs support

After 20 years of technical snafus, neglect and threat of continuing huge fines, the State of California has finally met golden compliance with Bradley Amendment and federal law. What is likely the largest computer fiasco in the history of state government ended this week on a pleasant note for cash-strapped California with promise of a $193 million rebate from the federal government in exchange for compliance.

California has paid $1 billion in penalties recently for failure to comply with federal law to track down “deadbeat dads and moms” in an effort to force financial support for children. The costly state misadventure includes the abandonment of a $111 million computer system in 1997, a $46 million court award to a computer firm found to be underpaid, and delays that reduced federal funding for the system.

The current system costs roughly $1.6 billion, about a third paid by the state. The federal share, originally 90 percent, dropped to 60 percent after California missed a deadline extended to 1997 for completing the system.

The court said Lockheed Martin had developed an imperfect but workable system that failed largely because of demands from counties that the system be customized to fit their individual collection processes. IBM brought home the bacon for the State with a computer contract to tie the state’s disjointed systems in 2003.

Strangely, about 70 percent of the parents who owed child support last year reported low or even no income, though some presumably work in the “cash” economy where incomes are unreported to avoid taxes. Perhaps the mention in news articles alludes to illegal immigrants. Doubtless, little will be collected from them despite the feeling of glory. Perhaps it is felt that more legal citizens will fall into the net with the new system as authorities seek to make inroads into the huge uncollected Bradley Debt in California. This huge expenditure is designed to help big brother close in on federal offenders of federal Bradley Law in the hopes of collecting large checks to support welfare families.

The event happened just in time to avoid another huge fine that the State of California can ill afford at a time of fiscal deficit and trouble.

Because of the 2008 Economic Stimulus, child support collections are way up. The Bradley Amendment has made it possible for the states and the federal government to collect on late payments. For a large number of non-custodial parents behind on their support, stimulus checks were intercepted and forwarded to custodial parents.

The recent economic stimulus checks have paid off for mothers and children across the nation who have not had consistent support. Most states can divert monies if a parent is more than $500 behind on Bradley debt as well diverting federal tax refunds and lottery winnings.

“Too many of our delinquent parents do not file tax returns or they go into hiding; but for the ones that do file, this is one method we can use to help children and families,” a Virginia representative was quoted as saying in the July 17 news release.

The economic stimulus has made attorneys general across the nation look very good indeed with a captive workforce in place. None of this really mattered to the terminally unemployed and severely underemployed American parents that have been plowed under by state and federal law sponsored by the Bradley Amendment. This is the lower income segment of an American subclass heavily impacted without choice or recourse in America, an element whose civil rights have been stripped away in the name of civil rights for moms and kids. They didn’t qualify for a stimulus payment even if they were fortunate enough to have a home address.

the federal Bradley Amendment for child support is unconstitutional:

1. violation of due process under the 4th and 5th Amendments
2. deprives citizens of equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment
5. often violates the assumption of guilt over innocence.

Write your Congress and Senate to repeal Bradley!

by E. Manning

Truthfully, there is no such thing as a “little Constitutional violation”, as if a violation can really exist in degrees. The legislative and executive branches of our government have grown rather fond of creating their own rules as they go, creating new rules of order with legislative precedence and simple rationalizations in violation of all laws written previously, even the big ones. The Constitution and successive Amendments are simply ignored in the name of tolerance and judgment, while little unchecked constitutional violations grow to become blight that is considerably more rampant. Laws that are drafted aren’t considered in light of the Constitution, but rather from expedience and the playground of good intentions.

One could suppose that if one wanted to be picky, this country has operated outside the Constitution in a rather complete sense from 1776 to 1865, as the annals of national slavery have proved. Slavery worked out very well for millions in this nation. The problem is that this was accomplished with what effectively became a huge subclass of people. During the 1800s, an outside party of foreign-controlled central bankers worked on and off to put this country in their back pocket in a very unconstitutional way. They succeeded fully with the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Yet, somehow the loss of freedom involved with Federal Reserve doesn’t seem too important or even very apparent. Yet, in both of these cases, a subclass of people is always being victimized by established authority whether you recognize them or not.

Just considering these two areas, the nation has only existed on a Constitutional basis for 48 years. However, that doesn’t include the myriad of other lapses, breaches and encumbrances too multitudinous to mention. The quantity could not be contained on this page. It’s almost like spitting into hurricane winds during Hurricane Katrina and few seem to care as long as they get what they want.

Americans can use a similar Constitutional debate with the Internal Revenue Service, government surveillance of citizens combined with other unwarranted surveillance and the creation of a subclass of citizens in the name of children’s rights and federal welfare. The Constitutional lip service by our presidential candidates is significant, notably by John McCain, but proves to be a mere attempt at placating citizens as the words roll off their tongues. When faced with real unconstitutional issues and provisions in this nation, duck and dodge is the order of the day. The presidential campaigns will discuss only what is considered to be most pressing and popular. Congress performs even more poorly. The approval rating of Congress is a mere 9% and they still remain in power to create more Constitutional subversion.

The two-party system in United States doesn’t really measure anything by the values of the Constitution. Perhaps the ACLU and other fine freedom organizations should suggest removing the Constitution and the Amendments in favor of something more workable so that the nation doesn’t continue as a nation of hypocrites. The real problem has been and continues to be accountability. However, as citizens of this fine country, ultimately and collectively, we are the decision makers whether politicians like the truth or not.

In what is supposed to be the nation’s most respected body, military servants are often cowed on both sides, by the authority of their superiors and the authority of law. A patriotic military man has few rights that he can count on other than those he can find. Economically speaking, the military is still the best way to get out of a life of abject poverty and build a better life. What’s more, if you want to live life on the edge of adventure, it can be argued that there is no better place. The military is one place to truly learn the lessons of life.

Drawing men into the military continues to be a challenge. Many men are not entirely ignorant to the problems in the military. They have learned that patriotism is not rewarded, at least not if they are married. When they join the military, the chances are better than 50% that they will end up divorced, with a huge child support debt and in a jail cell on criminal federal child support charges. While this and other statistics can be contested, established fact dictates that government statistics are often skewed and highly arguable. Since the military is a cross-section of the nation and military marriages are under much higher pressure than average, no less than the national average in this area of statistics is acceptable.

Easy divorce provisions, child support entitlements and the inequities of law chronically mistreat men and patriotic men alike. This is a fact that is often downplayed, notably by feminist society and government sources. A gold-digger can marry a military man for one day to take a nice chunk of support when the divorce is final. The argument can be made that military men are not wealthy. That isn’t the point. The gold-digger can dig for gold at the military till without limit, developing a means of self-support through the bearing of children. While this is reprehensible, even more so in the military, it is not entirely uncommon. What is worse, this is often done when the man is on the other side of the world defending and serving the country. The little woman can do as she pleases while the husband pays in spades. The cash comes from his military pay, but if not, it will come out of his patriotic hide when he returns home via the godless Bradley Amendment. Notable are the proved cases where child support is no longer collected by the military and when the ex-husband returns from the hands of the enemy, terrorists or similar circumstances, he is faced with prison at home for non-payment of child support. The decision of a man or woman to stop paying child support after he or she has returned home is not in the direct scope of this commentary.

The man on duty overseas can be hit with a surprise divorce by the little woman, lose every worldly thing he owns while being victimized by a temporary child support order that has little to do with real income. While any child-support is based on income in the beginning, but the reality of income can change quickly based on a large variety of scenarios. The division of real property while the patriotic man is overseas is entirely dependent on the decision of the judge combined with immediate pull of legal strings. The system never automatically address the payment issues after the initial court order beyond the concerns of collection. The burden “of proof” is on the non-custodial parent, yes even the patriotic man, a direct violation of Constitutional Law within itself. He is guilty until proved innocent. As a result, a man can end up owing more in support than he makes and there isn’t a thing that the patriotic man can do. A patriotic man has little help from authorities as they collude to solve their common “problem”. Getting a support modification can be next to impossible in the States, but a modification isn’t any easier in Afghanistan or Iraq. This is a sad fact, not the stuff of fiction.

The authorities have decided that since the patriotic man volunteered to go into service, he bears full responsibility. This is the government position. The patriotic man won’t get a better shake in a system that is designed by default to work in the favor of women and children only. There is no excuse for non-payment of any kind and rights to see children are virtually non-existent, even though decrees are carefully worded to have you believe otherwise. The patriotic man quickly becomes a felon, often without knowing. Strangely, neither the Feds nor the States have taken any action to alleviate the problem of the patriotic man. It’s all about personal responsibility, even if dad is working behind-the-scenes as a Navy SEAL or held prisoner by terrorist factions and presumed missing.

The Bradley Amendment that cements all of this abuse in place violates the Constitution on so many counts that there is no excuse. Yet, feminists and surrogate lawmakers in the 1990s, with the help of George Bush, Sr. and the Clinton Administration brought the debacle together in grand style in the name of welfare reform. The reform has never worked other than to enlarge the size of big government.

Every taxpayer knows that taxes change based on income that is easily proved. If you are employed, the Internal Revenue Service often knows as much about you as you do. Why shouldn’t child and spousal support adjust in the same way? Yet, because of a court order that often cannot be corrected, millions of men and women have become a subclass society of America. There is no justification for treating a divorced man or woman differently from a married one through the violation of Constitutional Rights. Support that is garnered should be against actual income and resources, not figures from a court order at a previous point in time. The impoverished or sequestered have lost the ability to defend themselves and there is little interest in change. There is no forgiveness for the patriotic man, much less the working men of America. The Congress doesn’t concern itself with emergency legislation for patriotic misfits, much less a subclass of American jurisprudence.

As long as the government system is fat and happy combined with a subdued and appeased class of women, even presidential candidates could care less. All presidential candidates have ignored the plight of oppressed non-custodial parents because of fear. In the meantime, men and women continue to be looted without regard, the patriotic man even more so. Soldiers are even being charged for their own equipment, as the patriotic man continues to burn his candle at both ends in the name of God and country, for the honor of the land of the free and home of the brave. The “pressure” of personal responsibility and sacrifice never ends while the authorities take the profits home and use them as they please.

An American Criminal Subclass

Common Sense and the Democratic Primary

Child Support Mess: The Federal Bradley Amendment

Clinton: The Power to Reform in Secret

The Vision of Hillary Clinton: No Child in Poverty

New Bradley Amendment Video

An Electoral Attack on Constitutional Rights”

U.S. Policy and Poverty

Income lapses or loss of job are costly for any father because of a federal law known as the Bradley Amendment. The amendment, named for former Sen. Bill Bradley, New Jersey Democrat, establishes that once a child-support obligation has been established, it can’t be retroactively reduced or forgiven by a judge. The amendment was enacted in 1986 to stop parents from running up huge child-support debts and getting a sympathetic judge to erase them..

Even now, the unintended consequences of the Bradley Amendment have become clear and a growing number of people are calling for the law to be repealed or at least modified.

According to the reformers, the Bradley Amendment:

* All but ensures that any parent who has a dip in cash flow will be buried under a debt that cannot be legally escaped.

* Helps chase poor men into illegal activities or the underground economy, away from “mainstream” jobs and their children.

Reformers are having some success arguing their case on Capitol Hill, but admit that their battle is uphill: Members of Congress are loath to do anything that might be seen as going soft on child-support enforcement.

Reformers say, they have a powerful incentive for change in the way the Bradley Amendment keeps impoverished fathers trapped in child-support debt. Never mind the fact that the Bradley Amendment is unconstitutional. The Congress isn’t concerned with that reality, nor is any presidential administration. In this case, the ends justify the means. This years’ electorial candidates have simply ignored the problem. They are more concerned with “hot issues”.

The Bradley Amendment has often worked as intended by Congress, by locking in arrears while the system doggedly pursues wily, wealthy parents ducking their obligations, like Hillary Clinton’s brother. However, even he hasn’t paid his tab.

Some big catches have included a New York plastic surgeon who owed $172,000, a professional athlete who owed $76,000 and a yacht company owner who owed $50,000, according to a recent article in Government Executive magazine.

The child-support system is celebrated when it bags deadbeats like these.

But there’s less applause when the system applies the same tough rules and penalties on people like the shaggy-haired man who recently stood in handcuffs before a Maryland Circuit Court judge.

The shaggy-haired man told the judge he lived with his mother and was too disabled to work. He had just spent two weeks in jail for not paying his $10-a-week child support. His total debt was $42,788.

The judge ordered the man to pay $75 a week toward his debt.

But even at that rate, observed a lawyer, “it will take that guy 80 years to pay it off.”

Several child-support advocacy groups say that, despite these pitiful cases, the Bradley Amendment should be maintained because it serves a need.

“We supported the Bradley Amendment when it passed, because it stopped a judge in State B from wiping out [the debt from] an order passed by a judge in State A,” says Geraldine Jensen, president of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support.

“We still need it because 40 percent of cases are interstate, and we still only have 20 percent of people paying” their full support, says Ms. Jensen. Ms. Jensen seems to forget that bad legislation doesn’t work. Keeping that legislation with a 20% success rate is simply bad management with the pretense of doing something good. There is no logic behind the insistence of the process.

Despite the Bradley Amendment’s hold on accrued debts, and a new array of enforcement tactics, the child-support system still collects less than half of what is owed. A lot of this debt is owed by “dead-broke dads,” “turnip dads” or “beat-dead dads,” say scholars and advocacy groups. Naturally, nobody seems to object to calling men by derogatory names. Try calling a woman an equivalent and you are likely to hear about it. In fact, let’s just make up names as we go along.

The concept of “turnip” dads are those who earn less than $130 a week and would be impoverished themselves if they paid support, says Ford Foundation Project Officer Ronald B. Mincy. Mr. Mincy and Elaine J. Sorensen estimate that between 16 percent and 33 percent of fathers are “turnips.”

The concept of “beat-dead dads” are the ones who have child-support orders set so high that “any hiccup in cash flow” quickly results in thousands of dollars of arrears, says Ron Henry, a lawyer active in the Children’ s Rights Council and Men’s Health Network.

“The Bradley amendment [says] once an arrearage is accrued, it exists forever. You cannot waive it. You cannot modify it. Too bad, sucker,” says Mr. Henry, who says the law should be repealed. The child-support system, in theory allows parents to change the amount of their child-support payments. However, the system has all kinds of obstacles built in to prevent such an action. The system hates change and works against such change until a child reaches emancipation.

A major reason many child-support orders are set at high amounts and grow so fast is because they are set without the paying parent in the courtroom, say experts. The Los Angeles Times reported last fall that “roughly 70 percent” of fathers “are not in court when paternity is established and their monthly obligations set.” The same Los Angeles Times story said that local law enforcement records showed that “on average, more than 350 men a month are incorrectly named as fathers.”

The Bradley Amendment ensures that even if the court makes a mistake, “you can never get out of it,” says Mike Ewing, a leader of the Virginia Fatherhood Initiative in Norfolk, who knows several men who are paying support even though DNA tests proved they weren’t the children’s father.

The fun never ends and nobody questions the legality of any of it. You should. The Bradley Amendment and support enforcement are unconstitutional. Politics doesn’t enter into the equation. Check this out and discover the truth for yourself.

Generally, when children of divorce are losing a parent, they are losing their dad. Studies still show that social acceptability of divorce does not stop the ravages of family breakdown and damage to children, let alone the damage to society as a whole.

The fact that divorce happens at all when children are young has proved that the life damage results in unemployment, unskilled citizens, large welfare rolls as adults and depression.

The federal Bradley Amendment helps to cement this issue in place. Mothers can easily cut dads out of the lives of their children, receive welfare, public services and child support simultaneously while living a life of wanton abandon if they choose. Fathers are often forced to work multiple jobs without relief to support a system that is broken and fails to address anything beyond the superficial needs of children. These superficial needs are considered as “rights” while many women relish in the feeling of power and control.

Recently, a man in Texas was awarded 50 years of jail time for the failure to pay child support. The article says nothing about the case or cause, simply a headline for vindictive characters to rally around.

Mothers often parade around “children’s rights”. Men say something different.

“Family court corruption is real. There are good fathers and they are bad ones. I find it funny that there is no talk about bad mothers. The cost of living isn’t because of bad fathers. This is not about the kids; this is about money, tax money. I love my son and I always been there for him until the day the courts came into our lives. My son would never go without… The courts pushed me out of my sons’ life and made me a pay check. I hate the Judges and the people who back them up. They know they are hurting the kids. You make me pay money and allow me to see my son every other weekend. After 12 years of all I have done. The late night feedings, diaper changing, trips to the park. I have invested my life into him. The government took it all away.”

“Because of the horror of what DHS has done to me and my family I must do what others in similar situations have done throuhout the ages. We must either flee the tyranny or fight for our God-given rights. Because I have no right to have any money, because I have no right to operate a motor vehicle I can not flee. Because I have no right to competent legal counsel, because I have no right to plead in court for my rights or the rights of my children I must fight the only way I have left for I am in the corner.”