Comments on: Single Fathers Treated Like 2nd Class Citizens

By: Shari James

Shari James — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:01:52 +0000

I agree with Aunty. I am a college student in the U.S writing a report over “deadbeat dads”, and how they are over generalized and stereotyped. However, the vast majority of single fathers are very loving,caring, and will do anything for there children at the drop of a hat.

By: Joe Reed

Joe Reed — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:31:27 +0000

As to the posting from the reader in comment #8 you must be a “frustrated,selfish stuck up,heartless BITCH” to make such a comment,with no clue of what really goes on in family court today!And as to apologies,the only one should be yours..

By: Dale

Dale — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:01:22 +0000

Children are developing human beings, who have rights to develope, learn , and grow responsibly. For the most part, they are concieved in love, in a warm and intimate relationship.
As single parents, our relationship with our former has companion has been terminated, generaly in a cold,hostile legal environment by uncaring,unscrupilous, amoral representatives who proport to having “representated” us, and state that they act in the “best interests of the child”. This envireonment often is one sided, with no voice for the father,frequently named as the ‘respondant’, nor the children, who are frequently named ‘dependent’. The civil,legal, Constitutional, and Human Rights of the respondant and dependant’s are ignored, giving rise to the precept that: “What goes on in Criminal court is civil, and what goes on in Civil Court is criminal !!” The dicotomy lies within the application of the Law, not in the letter of the Law.
I learned this lesson from expierience, from my former companion and her attourney. But what else could I expect, as my former companion is the Third generations of divorce ?
I can only hope and pray for my children to act more responsibly in their own lives, as my former companion/wife has provided them a role model as “the nurturor” which I find morally, legally, and spritually corrupt.
Power and control are just as addictive as any drug !!

By: Tom Bay

Tom Bay — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:20:59 +0000

http://www.ancpr.org/biglink.htm has a very comprehensive list of related links.

As to answer no 8. as to where all the abused men are. Their in family court!

When men get “attacked” they defend themselves. Not to worry… they still end up in jail. (not a shelter)

Sadly, a lot of women are abused without “physical” provocation.

Bottom line of articles above….. Children are better off with the guidance and emotional support of both parents after a divorce. No ONE parent should have “FULL control” only to use THEIR child as a possession or opportunity for financial gain.

Tom B

By: Tony Trenton

Tony Trenton — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:01:53 +0000

A woman’s priorities for wanting to get married are totally different from a man’s.
A woman wants financial security to raise HER children. When push comes to shove they are always hers. This attitude is a non starter because you can never own another humanbeing.
A man wants to secure the woman he loves, but often finds that after the first child is born. He is “an also ran” and is no longer the most important person in her life. That is not the reason he got married in the first place, and is quite a shock.
Most but not all women have a biological need to have children. This is not so with men.
To bring another humanbeing into the world is not a right but an enormous responsibility and in all honesty requires the consent of both partners. Two yesses or one no is no!.
Most Women considder that having bringing a baby into the world is a right. It is not. Especialy now as they have a choice.
This point is critical. In a democratic society each person has the freedom to make responcible choices. Not only responcible to themselves but also to the rest of society.
Bringing another person into the world to suffer just because she wants a baby is the most selfish thing I can think of.
The usual retort to this is. “Well if we didn’t have children them the human-race would die out. This is B.s. because that is never a consideration.

By: Joel Dubow

Joel Dubow — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:53:23 +0000

A response to anonymous comment number 8. I hope you die a slow and painful death! A recent scholarly article on the opinions of divorced spouses on family law showed that nearly 2/3 of the women had positive opinions of the outcomes and felt vindicated by the process while virtually no men (a figure of 5-10% was assigned since the only men responding positively were lawyers or others involved in the system) felt treated fairly. For every woman in a battered woman’s shelter there are at least ten, and more likely a hundred, men victimized by the system and denied access to their children. What’s worse, the custodial parent (read ex-wife) can block access to anyone she wants, usually grandparents and anyone associated with the husband. While the law has provisions for asserting visitation if blocked, de facto it is known that a custodial mother needs to get over 25 contempt of court citations before the court will even consider action against her while the father (ex father really) is hounded by a multibillion dollar collection agency for every penny he has. Many men are driven into backruptcy and awards of more than a man makes are common, even if not the majority. In short, men are screwed by the system, and children are screwed even worse. The system is run by principles laid down by Anna Freud in her book “Beyond the Best Interests of the Child” (far beyond them indeed). The system is largely staffed by raging feminists and most men describe their divorce as the worst experience of their lives. Many thoughtful scholars attribute a good fraction of the problems with today’s young men to the Feminists and the system of family so-called law that they set up. So, anonymous, spare me your testimonial advertising about the few woman who are still abused physically in marriage. I know it still happens, and it should be stopped, but it is a much less statistically significant problem for society than the problem of middle and working class males who are abused by the system every day. The press refuses to cover these stories (I’ve been told this by an editor of a major east coast daily) because of political correctness so Aunty’s courage in raising the issue is to be commended. However, she understates the problem. Men are treated like criminals in family law, and being treated like second class citizens would be an improvement.

By: Recently singled out

Recently singled out — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:29:38 +0000

Heartfelt thanks from this recently-single dad for your remarks. I’m still in the process of finalizing a divorce and have yet to find a single facet of the dealings that made me say, “Good, at least the law gave me a fair shake on that one.” There are just so many layers of inequity. Discovering that my wife’s repeated acts of adultery (and her stealing funds from the family bank account to buy expensive gifts for her lovers) were not only “not illegal” but also have essentially no impact on her control of custody still has me reeling in sheer disbelief. And we needn’t discuss the perverse incentives in divorce law that encourage vengeful ex-wives to avoid taking meaningful employment. The financial prison that results for many single dads like me is just an enormous insult added to the already profound injury of being marginalized from our children’s lives. Truly there is a special place in hell for the divorce attorneys that exploit these laws on a daily basis to “punish” husbands who the law automatically assumes to be the cause of most divorces. I’m sure there are many divorces where the men “had it coming,” but my marriage wasn’t one of them. I pity my wife for not understanding the irreparable impact her actions (and insistance on divorce) will exert on our kids. And mostly I pity my kids. Hopefully advocates like you will get legislators to put some meaningful balance in the system in the future.

By: Matthew Swisher

Matthew Swisher — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:29:02 +0000

Dear Auntie Spam… Thanks! Contrary to my nature, your article made my eyes leak. I won’t go into any great detail, but my divorce from my wife and what happened after that was pure evil. I was given visiting rights with my four children, that is, if my ex would allow it. She used my visiting rights as a way of controlling everything I did.

Going to court consisted of several people sitting there with calculators, trying to determine how much money they could squeeze out of me. There wan’t enough money left to pay rent on a small appartment. For a while I had to live in my car. When my ex and I left that court room, she cackled like a demon. You could have seen the evil in her face. What was the cause of the dirvorce, you might ask? She had just spent two years going to bed with my brother, and I found out about it.

I found her disgusting after that. I didn’t even want be in the same house she was in. Did the courts take her infidility into consideration? Not in the least. They could not have cared less. They wanted my billfold - period.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:15:09 +0000

Seen far too many shelters for abused women (where are the shelers for abused men?)to take this bullshit seriously! I’m nearly ready to unsubscribe from this newsletter, but I’ll hang around to read Chris’s personal apology to the single mothers accross America.
I can’t stop myself: YOU SUCK!

By: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:05:42 +0000

>You should all be aware that it was a condition of my continued visitation rights
> that I not visit any site allied to http://www.DadsRights.org. Is it worth risking your visitation
> rights just to view this site ?

Surely you are mistaken; or someone involved with your case was. DadsRights.org is a site which, in its support for single fathers, espouses both parents working together for the sake of the children. Perhaps you (or the other side in your case) was thinking of one of the sites which tries to incite and enflame fathers to angry action?

If it is the case that your visitation order in fact states by name DadsRights.org, forbidding you to visit it, I would like to see your order, as it is blatantly unconstitutional. You can send it in care of Aunty, thank you.

In all of my years in practice as a fathers’ rights attorney I have never once heard of such a restriction, nor would it be permitted by any sane judge. There is not a person in the United States who should be concerned that viewing such a site could impact their parenting time. The site was developed by an attorney invited by the courts themselves, and indeed the then-sitting Governor of California, to educate judges and family law social workers on the issues which single fathers face.

Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law