My Book Picks This Week

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Is it really our ex’s fault?

The answer is NO and you are about to learn why. It is not Ex-spouses, Ex-Girlfriends, and Ex-Boyfriends that are causing/creating the pain that other parents suffer. It may feel that way because that is the person that is seen as the adversary and who is believed to be in control of the situation. The first thing that has to be noted is that parental alienation, divorce, and separation is not even about YOU or YOUR children... this is about EVERYONE and EVERYONE'S CHILDREN. "It is infinitely more valuable to fight for the rights of others than to fight for your own." It is the government's fault for creating, empowering, and allowing these situations and actions by one fit parent against another fit parent that is crippling the parent-child relationship. In some cases, it is even causing death. (See Family Court is Deadly Business: 2007).

The reality is that the system is completely at fault because it does not respect or protect parental rights (IE: parents are actually competing for the love of their children in selfish ways trying to cut one off from the other in adversarial proceedings, typically without real cause) and further the system does not protect the presumptive co-equal rights of parents. Parents should maintain a co-equal status unless there is proven by clear and convincing (or higher) evidence that one or both parents are unwilling, incapable, or otherwise unfit to be a parent. The subsequent relationship between the parents should have little bearing on the parent-child relationships if the government is protecting that relationship and allowing parents to do their individual jobs. This thinking prevails even when the parents don't like each other because there should be no mechanism to continue adversary proceedings unless there is clear and convincing cause. People work with other people that they do not like in the common work places across America all the time and they are still able to complete their jobs. Parenting is much like a job and that mutual respect should be enforced between co-equal partners/parents.

The issue of co-equality is real and must be established in legislation as the protection mechanism that our government should be involved in. Government is supposed to protect inalienable rights, not enable whiny people to fight back and forth for profit or vengeance... greed/selfishness/emotions encourages people to fight back and forth because the system provides the tools, resources, and arena to do so. If people are not provided the options, there are no options to take. Many would argue there is a reason why co-equality shouldn't exist because their ex did this or that or another thing... THAN PROVE IT WITH A HIGH STANDARD OF EVIDENCE and ensure due process and equal application of the law for ALL. Some want that lower evidence so they can say things without backing them up and get away with it. It is wrong. We must maintain a high evidentiary standard that presumes co-equality and enforces the inalienable parenting right above state ideology to control our children. It is a parent's duty to raise, care, and control the upbringing of their own offspring.

Government is instead sidestepping protecting inalienable rights and moving right in to take care of our children because they derive intense profits for their bureaucracies, without first proving there is a need by a high standard of evidence before intruding. They have parents too wrapped up in shooting at the wrong targets with the wrong bullets while the government collects steep federal incentives while claiming to protect one person or another from some unproven bad force. Government in essence is failing to protect the parent-child relationship, thereby enabling bad parents to continue being bad parents at the expense of an entire generation. The government is failing to punish parents when they are attempting to trample the presumed co-equal rights between fit, caring, and willing parents and instead providing the tools necessary to battle. Parent against parent where the losers are one parent, the children, and the taxpayer is destroying entire generations.

Because the government is failing to protect the co-equal status, parental alienation is allowed to exist. Because many parents want to alienate the alienator rather than be coequal with their former spouses/intimate partners they strive for fighting to the death like many that are wrapped up in their personal cases instead of advocating for the government to protect BOTH parents access to their children. People either want to fit themselves into a victim class to obtain a benefit or fit their ex-partners into a false/bad light in a winner take all philosophy to family court. Instead of making sure their government is creating a truly equal playground where all people are responsible for their own actions and inactions the government is encouraging the deprivation of one parent-child relationships, while being completely subsidized by the nation's taxpayer.

Like the courtroom, many people will choose to bicker and fight continuously over MICROCOSMIC disagreements in communication style in public forums if they are allowed to. This is much like people fighting over differences in parenting styles in the courtroom and trying to impose one parent's will over the other in an effort to control. The name of the game is that parental rights must be respected and protected by all, including the legislatures, the judiciaries, and more importantly all parents.

In the wise words of the Human Torch... "FLAME ON!"

1 comment:

Paul M. Clements said...

Not only is the government ignoring constitutional rights of fathers to parent their children, but PROMOTING the separation of fathers and children by means of incentives paid to the states for collecting child support and placing children in foster care.
The following list of federal laws is not complete. Note that it stops at 1992.
Note also PL96-265, 1980, which provides for payments to the courts, usually made through the child support collection agency.


FEDERAL INCENTIVES PAYABLE TO STATES FOR
CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION

PUBLIC LAW 93 647: Social Security Act, 42 USC 651 title 4 D 1975
Authorizes incentives to be paid to states in AFDC cases (10 25%) Mandates assignment of support rights to state in AFDC cases.

PL 95 142, 1977: Provides incentives for reciprocal enforcement and collection.

PL 96 265, 1980: Provides 90% reimbursement for computer hardware. Provides
matching funds for court related collection expenses.

PL 96 272, 1980: Makes incentive program permanent, and extends to all support collections. (AFDC, Non AFDC Interstate)

PL 97 35 ' 19 8 1: Authorized inclusion of spousal support for AFDC families.
Authorized imposition of "Collection Fees". Protected support amounts assigned
to states from bankruptcy. Authorized states to withhold child support from
unemployment benefits.

PL 97 248, 1982: Provides 70% reimbursement for collection costs. Authorizes reimbursement for one month of AFDC for INELIGIBLE families.

PL 98 378, 1984: Non AFDC payments limited to amounts paid in AFDC cases. Provides for collection incentive of 6 10%, based on efficiency, Gives BOTH states EQUAL incentives in interstate collections. Makes grants available for interstate collection programs. Authorizes self reimbursement of AFDC costs by fees levied against NON AFDC payors. Authorizes medical support awards, and extension of Medicaid beyond AFDC eligibility.

PL 100 485, 1988: Provides 90% reimbursement to state for paternity testing of AFDC recipients. Provides 90% reimbursement for automated monitoring systems.

PL 10 1 508, 1990: Authorizes IRS to intercept tax refunds for support obligations assigned to states.

CSRA -1992 (Child Support Recovery Act) The law provides for prosecution (at the federal level) for non-payment of child support orders

By this means, our liberal congess is promoting a feminist anti-male agenda, and the Socialist goal of dissolution of families. Yet, those liberals, with a straight face, will tell you that divorce, custody, and child support are NOT federal matters, but state.
Paul M. Clements
Founder: DADD-SC

Rent or Buy Digitally