'Roe v. Wade for Men' Case
- From: "MCP" <gf010w5035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:37:12 GMT
http://www.glennsacks.com/roe_v_wade_men.htm
The controversial 'Roe v. Wade for Men' lawsuit filed in Michigan recently
demonstrates the disparate treatment of men and women by our family law system.
The plaintiff, 25 year-old Matt Dubay, claims that he was duped into fatherhood.
He argues that since women are not compelled to be mothers, he should not be
compelled to bear the responsibilities of fatherhood, including the
responsibility to pay child support. Whether one sympathizes with Dubay or not,
his lawsuit illustrates the way the family law system addresses the needs and
desires of women, while turning a cold shoulder to those of men. This system
represents the most egregious violation of gender equity in our society today.
The plight of unwed fathers exemplifies the point. Dubay is vilified by both the
pro-choice feminist left and the pro-life right as an irresponsible cad,
deadbeat and whiner. Yet the millions of unmarried men who do try to be fathers
to their children find that while they are frequently lectured to "take
responsibility," they're often not permitted any meaningful role in their
children's lives. These stand-up guys usually get to spend only a few days a
month with their kids, if they're lucky. Once mom finds a new man, they're often
pushed out entirely in favor of the child's "new dad." And fathers who look to
the family law system for help quickly find that said system has no interest in
their case beyond keeping the child support checks coming.
The contrast between child support enforcement and the enforcement of visitation
and parenting time also illustrates this inequity. Over $5 billion a year is
spent nationwide on enforcing child support, and large enforcement bureaucracies
exist in all states. Each year 100,000 men are jailed for alleged non-payment
of child support, and many others lose their driver's licenses, passports and
business licenses. This is despite the fact that Federal Office of Child Support
Enforcement data reveal that nationwide 70% of those behind on payments earn
poverty level wages, and less than 5% earn $40,000 a year.
Fathers who want to share in parenting their children face many obstacles. In a
study conducted by Arizona State University psychology professor Sanford Braver
and published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 40% of divorced
mothers admitted that they had interfered with their ex-husband's access or
visitation, and that their motives were punitive in nature and not due to safety
considerations. A study of adult children of divorce conducted by Glynnis
Walker, author of Solomon's Children: Exploding the Myths of Divorce, found that
42% of children who lived solely with their mothers reported that their mothers
had tried to prevent them from seeing their fathers after the divorce.
Despite this, state and federal governments spend almost nothing on enforcing
visitation and parenting time. Fathers denied access to their kids are on their
own, and must wage long, costly legal battles to remain a part of their children's
lives. And while prosecutions of fathers who violate child support mandates are
common, prosecutions of mothers who violate visitation orders are almost
nonexistent.
The epidemic of domestic violence restraining orders is another example of
disparate treatment. According to the Justice Department, two million
restraining orders are issued each year in the United States, most of them based
on allegations of domestic violence. Such orders are usually issued on behalf of
the mother, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for
him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own
home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. This
enables women to better position themselves to gain custody of their children in
the subsequent divorce.
Numerous bar associations, legal groups and attorneys have complained that many
restraining orders are simply custody maneuvers, and that they represent a
horrendous violation of due process. Nevertheless, most courts grant them to
practically any woman who applies.
The "woman good/man bad" modus operandi of the family law system has wounded
children and the fathers they love and need. The problem cannot be resolved
until we acknowledge and address the fundamental inequities of the system. The
Dubay case is merely the tip of the iceberg.
This article first appeared on LewRockwell.com (4/5/06).
Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers
and Children, the world's largest shared parenting organization. Their website
is www.acfc.org.
Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of
America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at
www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: If you bite me i'll bite you back !
- Next by Date: Demands of Men (repost)
- Previous by thread: If you bite me i'll bite you back !
- Next by thread: Demands of Men (repost)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
