Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Yes. And in most states, if the child is concieved while in divorce or
    legal seperation. He is responisible. 
    
    She, on the other hand, can, abort the child, if they orginally
    agreeded to have. It is her body. She is God in this legal aspect.
    

This case goes to further prove that as a male, we are in a loose, loose 
situation. The worst part being we have no control or say in the situation, 
we can become victims unknowingly.

John

    
    I don't think we have become victims unknowingly.  I think we have
    just allowed ourslves to be silenced by accusations of being
    "bitter" and "whining" whenever we dare speak out against injustice.
    When other groups speak out, they are "outraged" buy "injustice".
    We have caved in to those who have no logical respone to the argument
    and must resort to personal attack and name calling to achieve
    their goals.
    
    fred();

>    I don't think we have become victims unknowingly.  I think we have
>    just allowed ourslves to be silenced by accusations of being
    
    fred();

I guess "victims unknowingly" was the wrong word to use, it more like being 
an innocent bystander and getting caught off guard.

John

    
     I don't think "innocent bystander" is correct either.  Men have 
    just let themselves be silenced by the name calling and hypocrisy 
    of the  "women's rights" groups.  You can spot them when they resort 
    to name calling and trying to discredit the opposition rather than
    making a logical argument based on the facts.  Men have just
    been falling for it.

    There are a lot of reasons:
    (1) Single, never married, men are mostly in a deep denial that
    "it won't happen to men" or "we'll be in love forever".
    (2) Married men are either in denial that it will never happen
    to them or pray to God it won't happen to them.
    (3)Men who have been through the grinder singularly and have
    nothing more financially or emotionally to fight with.
    (4) Deadbeats who don't give a *bleep* anyway.
    (5) Those who have, for some reason, have bought into the "bad men,
    we need to protect women at _all_ costs".

    It seems the smallest group are the ones who are trying to fight.
    The ones who are getting drug through the system, but  are
    determined to go down fighting.  Problem is, taken singularly,
    men don't have much of a chance.  Trying to get them organized
    into a political force, for some reason, seems to be very difficult.
    
    fred();

>    men don't have much of a chance.  Trying to get them organized
>    into a political force, for some reason, seems to be very difficult.
    
    fred();

Unlike women, men in general do not console/support one another openly. Your 
right, men are in denial that a problem exists, as such men don't have a 
chance.

John

  I'd just like to put my viewpoint in here ...

    I agree absolutely that there should be an organized group to deal with
male-specific issues re: custody to the parent who can give a better home, 
fair-and-reasonable child support, fair-and-reasonable visitation.

    I can't say that I agree that it's caused by women's rights groups.
I put far more blame on what makes "good press".

    I firmly believe that a lot of legislation is based on things that
happen in the media.  Stuff that gets a lot of attention.  The whole
"Deadbeat Dads" phenomenon for example.  Great alliteration.  It really
should be "Non-supporting Parents" to include Moms and Dads, but that doesn't 
give as good a sound bite.

    Groups that are looking for legislative support go to the people, to
convince them so those people will then lobby their representatives.
Various groups, or even tabloid-TV shows themselves, go looking for things
that will either tug at the publics' heartstrings, or will make people
feel righteously indignant.  Good press.  Often exaggerated or at least
misrepresented to look as "bad" as possible.

    Which do you suppose would get higher ratings, a sad-faced child saying
"If only my Dad had paid the child support, I could get that operation",
or a middle-class man saying "I need to work 2 jobs to pay child support".
While the second example could certainly be built into an interesting
story (and I'll try not to get ahead of myself here) the first is the one
that would capture more attention.

    A group that was interested in the men's family issues could certainly
get some good press.  Some of the stories in this notes file could stir
some "righteous indignation" in the public eye, and I'm certain there are
many more stories available, maybe even worse (although, probably no one
here believes that ;-))  

    Now.  Why doesn't this happen?
    I think that .5 needed another bullet under "why men don't organize".
I'll call it the "Clint Eastwood syndrome".   (At least the 
"old" Clint, in the old cowboy movies.)  It's my observation that men 
aren't as encouraged by society to be nurturers.  They also aren't
encouraged by society to band together to solve emotional problems.
I'm not even sure that society says it's OK for men to *be* emotional,
if you want to go that far.  IMHO, even for a 90's man it's not easy to
publicly admit that you can't support your children - even if it's not your 
fault that you can't do it.  So, the man rides alone, being whipped by
the system, because to admit you need help is just Not Done.

    All just in my humble opinion, of course.

		- Lorri

    Lorri,
    
    Most mens groups are viewed as radical, anti feminist behaviorial. And
    several groups have been targeted as though they were part of the
    Pro-life movement by the feminist to be squashed by lobbiest, and other
    such. There are bills presented daily before the law governing bodies.
    And they get the squash cause they might hurt the women or the CP moms. 
    
    Good press is that programs that enjoy men bashing are such a popular
    thing. And will for quite a while to come. 

    
    Lorri,

    If you look at some of the discussions in other notes files that
    I have been involved in you'll find out some of the reasons that
    it is so hard for men to speak out.  Not only myself, but other
    men who dare to speak up are immediately attacked in this "valuing
    diversity" company as "whining", "bitter", and "anti-woman" (to
    name a few).  Whereas women who suffer injustice are "outraged",
    and "standing up for _women's_ rights".  Sometimes it takes the 
    skin of a rhino to not cave in and just keep quiet.  You also
    must be very careful not to "offend" some of the participants of
    those conferences.  There are some who will try to push you into
    saying something that they can nail you with in personnel.  
    (Paranoid? No! It has happened.  Not to me, but I've been warned
    by men that it's happened to).  Outside the company, men and men's 
    groups who speak out are seen as a threat to the "feminist" movement 
    by both the press and "feminists" to be immediately attacked and put down.

    fred();

    I would just like to add a little bit to this discussion.  I am
    involved in a post-divorce situation that has me searching far
    and wide for some support and direction.  I've been speaking with
    many different individuals and groups in an effort to find some
    avenue for a man to link in to a group or organization that is
    doing something to help men.  I believe that I have found some
    support and have linked into an individual who is very knowledgeable
    and informed about the issues faced by men - indeed they are many!
    As was implied earlier, men seem to roll over and play dead when it
    comes time to stand up for themselves.  The biases and prejudices in
    the courts and the social systems have left men with little or no
    base to stand on. There are groups and literature out there to help.
    Men need to band together and fight back for their rights or be
    continually abused by the present system.  
    
    I'm not sure if this file is the right place to publicize the detail
    I have assembled, but if anyone is interested or further wants to get
    involved, I would be more than glad to talk off line and discuss this
    topic.  Please either send mail or give me a call to set some time up
    to talk.  If men are ever going to get a fair shake, it's got to start
    with them banding together and pushing legislation for change that's
    fair.
    

    re .10
    
    Your parobably in the right place.  There are notes 38 and 217 on
    men's organizations.  Please post any information you have on 
    organizations and any help that can be found.
    
    Thanks,
    fred();

    For those of you in the internet. The law libary of the University of
    Alberta is:
    
    http:://gpu.srv.ualberta.ca/~bpoohkay/law.html
    
    Good luck, good hunting!
    
    

    Re:7
    
    Very good point made by Lorri that the press is looking to sell a 
    story and doesn't care who gets hurt. Unfortunately it's Fathers and
    children who suffer the most from bad press.  I think Lorri's comments also 
    show that there are women who do care about the plight of Men/Fathers 
    & their children.  I find that encouraging.
    Several years ago I was intensely involved in the estableshment of the
    NH Child Support Guidlines.  Public hearings were held across the state  
    and I testified at most of them.  The Committee consisted of 8 women
    and one man. When men complained about the gender imbalance we were
    told to "shut up" by the woman who chaired the committee.
    My point is that no amount of elequence, facts or passionate testimony 
    would sway that almost one gender committee to generate **fair** 
    legislation.  When it came to the rights of Fathers and their children
    that committee gave new meaning to words insensitivity and arrogance.
    The resulting legislation is very unfair to Fathers and their children.
    These are the kind of things men are faced with when we get involved in
    the political process.  Maybe thats one reason why they are so
    reluctant.                      Bill 
     
    

    I am a CP and my husband is an NCP, I read this file because I have 
    always felt that men are getting treated insanely unfairly. In most
    cases most women can't even imagine if the tables were turned, if they
    were they would be screaming.  I say this even though I haven't had any
    support for over a year, (my ex left the state) and probably because my
    NCP husband pays many $$$ for college to a child who refuses to speak with
    him because, and I quote her, "My friends fathers are doctors and
    lawyers  and I'm embarassed by him." ?? He has a very good job, I know 
    she was greatly influenced by her mother. This really tore him up for 
    a long time, trying desparately to make contact and please her, but now 
    he just hopes someday she see things more clearly.
    
    I think the tide has to turn soon, I think it's starting. 
    Last night I sat with my kids and watched "Mrs. Doubtfire", has 
    anyone seen this? I thought it was a nice "first try" by hollywood,
    probably Robin Williams, to defend the rights of fathers to see 
    their children. It was a pleasant surprise.
    
    Sharon

    Sharron,
    
    Bless your heart. I emphathise with you too. I have seen Mrs Doubtfire.
    A more true to life one is Standing Up. With one of the Douglas men in
    it. About an unemployed defence worker in Ca. who looses it cause his
    ex refuses to let him see his daughter whom he loves very much.
    There was a restraining order placed against him, because of what she
    had feared might happen. But never did. With each passing of the movie,
    the herro gets wierder and stranger and more militant, and more leathal
    with guns, bombs, and such. 
    
    
    

.13   The resulting legislation is very unfair to Fathers and their children.

I am ignorant of NH laws.  What aspects of NH law are you saying are unfair
to Fathers and their children.

A number of notes in this file tell horrible stories, but most of those
I can read as the judge dumped on the father, not the law.

In Mass where the custodial parent doesn't work, the noncustodial parent
is required to pay roughly 1/3 as child support.   I figure than means
the taxes (fed/state/fica) eat 1/3, child support eats 1/3 and the NCP
gets 1/3.   It's tough to live on 1/3, but it's got to be even tougher
for the CP to live on 1/3 since the CP and kids are more mouths, etc.
And if the CP also works, the amount the NCP must provide for support will
go down.  Perhaps NH is worse ?

In Mass whatever visitation schedule the CP and NCP work out will usually
be accepted by the judge.  So if this is your issue, unfairness must stem
from the inability of the parties to work together (not too surprising).
I don't know what happens then in either Mass or NH.   Is this the area of
your concern ??  If so what does the law say ?

    
    	Getting back to the base-noter:
    
    	Case-in-point:
    
    	I won't use names, but I know of someone, a separated couple,
    	with the father paying child support and the mother with the
    	custody of the child.  They are still legally married, do not
    	live under the same roof.  She had a child by another man.  The
    	husband 'is' still legally held responsible *UNTIL* both him
    	and the mother of the second child come to an agreement and
    	go to the place of birth to sign papers stating that the husband
    	is not the father of the child.  The father of the child never
    	went to the hospital to sign the birth certificate,the mother
    	gave the child the father's last name.
    
    	Now, the mother is trying to get child support for the new child
    	from the father but she can't persue it cause he works under the
    	table and his social security number won't even help.  Oh well !!!!
    
    	Tom

    In New Hampshire the way it works is ....
    
    If you're married, your husband is automatically listed as the father
    of the child.  
    At the hospital, the mother is the one who is responsible for
    completing the birth certificate (I sure don't remember signing it
    though).  
    The mother can give the child any name they want, including Mickey Mouse.
    When Jonathan was born, I was still married, and my husband is not the
    baby's father.  I wanted the baby's father on the birth certificate.  I
    HAD to have a birth certificate filed before the baby could be
    released.  I had 4 choices;
    
    1. List my husband as the father of the baby and leave it that way.
    2. List my husband as the father of the baby, and file an Affadavit of
    Paternity to have the actual father's name put on the certificate.  I
    believe that this required some interaction with the courts.
    3. List the father as "Father Unknown" and change it later, using the
    above affidavit.  
    4. Get the affidavit filled out before the certificate was filed at
    all, and have the real father's name entered.
    
    Since I didn't have time to get the paternity affidavit done before I
    left the hospital, I had the baby's father listed as "Father Unkown"
    (that sure ruffled someone's feathers! (-:).  I then got the necessary
    forms, and this required my husband, the baby's father, and I to sign
    and have notified the forms (we each had a specific section).  Then I
    had to bring it to town hall, and they re-filed the certificate, and
    for $15.00 everything was straight.
    
    If I had left my husband's name on it, he would be legally responsible
    for child support.  As it stands now, the baby's father is responsible
    for child support (as it should be).  The baby has his father's name,
    so there was a period of time when there was absolute no obvious
    relationship between the baby's name and anything else, on his birth
    certificate (since his dad's name wasn't on it yet).
    
    I don't ever recall my husband signing a birth certificate for either
    of my other 2(his) sons.
    
    There is a definite period of time during which they **STRONGLY**
    recommend you get the changes made.  I think it's 2-3 weeks or so. 
    After that, it's a royal pain in the butt to change, and you may even
    have to petition the court for the change.
    
    It's just a form to put anyone on, but to take him OFF requires a court
    hearing, and his presence .... Kinda weird.  So, if I have a kid, I can
    say that Joe Schmo is the father, and if he wants his name off of
    there, he's got to go to court and prove it's not him!
    
    It sure took me by surprise!
    
    Patty

    
    That should be NOTARIZED, not notified .... the affadavit of paternity
    must be notarized for each signature on it (Mother, father, husband).
    
    -Patty