Fathers supporting Fathers

Finding other individules that wish to help change the unfair system that threatens America's future and puts our children in grave danger.Stop Parental Alienation 's Blurbs About me: - Parental Alienation is any behaviour by a parent, a child's mother or father, whether conscious or unconscious, that could create alienation in the relationship between a child and the other parent. Parental alienation can be mild and temporary or extreme and ongoing. Most researchers believe that any alienation of a child against (the child's) other parent is harmful to the child and to the target parent. Extreme, obsessive, and ongoing parental alienation can cause terrible psychological damage to children extending well into adulthood. Parental Alienation focuses on the alienating parents behaviour as opposed to the alienated parent's and alienated children's conditions.- Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. Government encouraged divorce Government encouraged divorceBy John Buethe. Director of M.A.D. (Men Against Discrimination) MEN UNITED www.madmenunited.orgGovernment encouraged divorce:This piece will look at the original concept of marriage and how that concept has been destroyed. Marriage what was it, what is it now, how did it get that way, and how does the government contribute to the destruction of marriage by encouraging divorce? We will also take a quick look at who really profits from divorce and why its encouragement is part of a for profit industry.Why is marriage important? Marriage and the family are both a societal and economical units.Marriage as a societal unit: Marriage should be the preferred method for any civilized society to perpetuate population and raise it's children.Biology and common sense show that the intact family is the best way to raise children. Children need nurturing from both the mother and the father. Each has special abilities in which to contribute to the growth of children physically and psychologically. They both need to set examples of behavior and interaction that will be valuable lessons in the child's growth process.Another key aspect of the value of the intact family and the combined efforts of both parents is simply the amount of time they are able to share with children. Children require and demand a great deal of time and attention from parents. The basic household domestic provisions for raising children take time and effort. These include cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, and other domestic tasks. Then when you add in the other nurturing aspects of play, education, and discipline, the time and effort required increases. What I am trying to illustrate here is that raising children takes a lot of time and one parent can't keep up with all the household and nurturing tasks and remain emotionally balanced. When these tasks are shared between two parents it becomes a team effort and a partnership that works best for all involved.Marriage as an economical unit: Marriage is an economical unit and it operates like a small business. As a business it works best with two people sharing the work and the responsibilities. The basic fixed costs of the family are the home, utilities, transportation, food and clothing costs. There are considerations as to how the family will be funded and this may require both parents contributing time in the work place. There is also a consideration of how the household chores and obligations will be met.In the intact family the adults work together to meet the needs of the home and family. If they work well together and efficiently they will be able to buy a home and possibly put other money into investments or college funds. This works great with the family living under one roof. The intact family can work together to build wealth and security for the future and for future generations of the family.But when the family is not intact due to divorce or illegitimacy there is a need for two separate households including all of the costs and expenses involved. The separate household approach to parenting is an economically doomed approach. This approach in most cases will not build wealth or economic stability for the family or society.Marriage is an institution that was ordained by GOD! Marriage used to be an institution that was once governed only by churches. The marriage took place in the church and the vows included, "for richer or poorer in sickness and in health until death do us part". Marriage was a lifetime commitment and divorce was something no person of conscience would want to participate in. This was especially true when children were involved. Marriage was the most important commitment a person could make in their life, and that commitment also included raising children together.Marriage being a religious institution was controlled or governed by the church. This meant that divorce would also be controlled by the church and the church only be granted divorces in the most extreme cases. There had to be specified reasons or grounds for a divorce to be considered. Some acceptable reasons for divorce might include adultery or physical abuse.Marriage as a government institution. Eventually the government became involved in marriage. I am not sure if this was a matter of meddling for taxation purposes or if it was simply because courts were asked to mediate in the cases of divorce. But the government became involved in the marriage process starting with the issuance of marriage licenses. With this government involvement the marriage institution became a legal agreement or contract. This meant that marriage as a contract had to be beneficial to both parties, would have mutual considerations and obligations. That as a contract it was legal and binding until it could be dissolved by mutual agreement or by dispute. A divorce or could be obtained because of a breach of the marriage agreement by either party.The dissolution of marriage or divorce could be handled by mediation or a court where consideration would be given to the circumstances of who had broken the contract. Contract law is not supposed to give benefits or rewards to anyone who breaches an agreement. There is usually a punishment or penalty for the party who breaches a contract. In the case of marriage a party who breaks a marriage contract by committing adultery would face a penalty by receiving an unequal division of the marital assets including access to the family home, community property and access to any children that might be involved. Once again as a contract it was an agreement that should not be taken lightly and could only be dissolved for just cause or by mutual agreement.Marriage as a religious institution or as a civil contract it was a serious and binding commitment.Marriage what is it now and how did it get that way? Marriage in our growing secular society is no longer considered as a religious institution or a civil contract. Yes, there are many who still are religious who consider marriage as a serious commitment. Unfortunately marriage legally is no longer considered as a contract or binding commitment. Our system created no fault divorce, which allows either party of a marriage to void the agreement without a justification of cause, or penalty. This concept has taken all of the commitment and responsibility out of marriage. While no fault divorce is a government creation its existence overrides the religious concept and commitment of marriage. It should also be noted that in today feel good world many churches have also neglected to protect the responsibility and commitment of marriage as an institution.How did marriage become a non-commitment? I have no good explanation of how the institution of no-fault divorce took place. I don't know if it was something done by legislation or brought about by actions and rulings in the courts. I do have questions and concerns as to what motivated this to happen and who could possible benefit from making marriage aworthless agreement. I do know that the feminist movement has been anti marriage saying that marriage is an institution that enslaves women. But the feminist movement really doesn't have the pull or power to destroy marriage as a commitment all by themselves. To make an incredibly ridicules concept such as no fault divorce come into existence would take the support of the government including the legislative branch and or the activism of the courts. These institutions of power are the only ones with the legal ability to make the concept of no fault divorce a reality.Who destroyed marriage? It was the government that created or allowed the creation of no fault divorce. The concepts of no fault divorce and the subsequent actions in the courts have created an environment that encourages divorce. If we look at the trend of current divorce settlements we see that there is an extreme gender bias against men and fathers and favoritism towards women. Women get primary custody of the children in 90% divorce cases. They are also awarded half of the marital assets and deep pockets child support based on the ex's ability to earn money. In essence they are given all of the benefits of marriage while subtracting the husband. When we add in other practices or abuses in the system and the courts, like the use of restraining orders to remove the husband from the home and access to his children, we can see we have a well planned method in place to destroy marriages.The courts and legislative branches of the government are influenced or controlled by Attorneys. This is because attorneys comprise most of the people who work within these branches of government. We also need to consider that the American Bar Association is possibly the largest political lobbying group in America based on their level of influence and financial donations. Attorneys are also the main group of people who can benefit from the destruction of marriage. This financial benefit comes from the fact that divorce causes litigation in a huge way.I will acknowledge that divorce litigation is necessity in today's society but not at the amount we see it. The increased litigation is because the system is so biased that in order to try and get justice litigation is now necessary. If the system were fair and just in its foundation then litigations would only be necessary in extreme cases. I would guess that if the system were fair and just the divorce rate would decrease by half within 5 years if not almost overnight. If the system were fair and had a specified decision making process then the litigation in the existing cases would also decrease by half within 5 years or sooner.If you are following this thought process you are starting to realize that the system that encourages divorce also encourages litigation. And the more biased and unjust the system is then the more litigation is created. The divorce industry is an industry that destroys marriages and disenfranchises fathers for profit. Common sense says this is wrong.Because there is increased litigation when conflict is involved, there must be a build in method to cause conflict. The most effective way to cause conflict is to create a bias against the party most capable and willing to fight for their rights. It also helps to make the bias so huge that the only option is to fight. When this system of bias and litigation is created it must be protected by not letting the disenfranchised party win. If this happened it would then be established that the conflict is unnecessary. So the injustice must be protected at all costs. To do this the appeals process must also be biased and any lawyer who steps up to bring justice to such a corrupt system must be kept in line at all costs including disbarment. That is why this system has grown in its abusiveness over the last 35 to 40 years.The common sense explanation: Common sense says that you do not reward bad behavior. If a bad behavior is rewarded then it will be increased by the encouragement. Divorce is encouraged by the entitlements given to women who divorce. They get to keep almost all of the benefits of marriage while removing the husband. With no fault divorce these women are not even penalized when causing the destruction of the marriage while committing adultery.Common sense also says that children need both parents and that this is true even in the case of divorce. So if each parent's rights were protected then the parenting time would start at an equal 50% shared parenting. This basic practice alone would benefit children and also help discourage divorce by removing one of the entitlements currently given to women.Common sense also says that if there was a need for a child support obligation, that this should be directly related to the needs of the children and the costs involved. Anything beyond that would stay at the discretion of the parents just as it is in an intact family.The last common sense consideration is that if the system were fair there would be little or no need for litigation. That the divorce rate would fall and children would have more access to their parents either in intact families or shared parenting.So why is it again that we have no fault divorce and gender discrimination in the family law system? It is because the courts, lawyers, and social service agencies all profit from a biased system that destroys families, creates litigation, and involves social services in the process. Posted on Saturday, August 18 @ 11:14:15 PDT by madmenunited