When I encounter a parental archetype that relates to child custody, especially who not to be, I endeavor to share anecdotal accounts so you may contemplate the outcome of his or her experience. By not having to learn from personal experience but, instead, by example you and your children may benefit from those shortcomings of others. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
For this latest example it is helpful that you have a working understanding of the personality of this character. I will first provide an account of the encounter and then a situation that should encapsulate the psychological make-up of the parent.
Midday Friday I set up camp with a book buyer in the parking of a book distributor who was having a sale the next day. Of the thousands of people who attend we managed to be first in line. That evening we were joined by some of the ten other people he employs to assist him. That evening during the course of general conversation a man so employed mentioned something to the effect of gender bias in the application of Indiana's Civil Protection Order Act.[en1]
His claims ran the usual gamut of long ago dispelled notions. This included that the DVPO was unconstitutional, that it transferred property without hearing or due process, that the exclusion of an owner of property from the real property was the criminal act of conversion[en2] , that men are ordered to pay child support -- even if they go to prison -- and can't get out of it, that women never have to pay child support, and, of course, that parenting time should be 50/50 and deviations from that are an unconstitutional abrogation of a father's rights. The claim that the 13th Amendment was unconstitutional and we don't legally have to pay federal income tax was probably in there too.
My arguments to the contrary were met with broad disputations not on point to my claim but rather generalized to a constitutional argument such as the "general welfare" clause[en3] or that the "corrupt courts" were biased against fathers.
Two things occurred to me at this point. The first being that it was highly probable that he has not watched child custody or DVPO proceedings in at least 50 different courts throughout Indiana. Secondly, and more notably, this is the guy to which the book seller has occasionally mentioned over the past three or more years as a friend who is "going through a horrible custody battle" and could use my assistance.
At this point I should have painted a clear image in your head of this person. The one who broods about his situation, attributes fault to others, and may post on Facebook ad nausea about his case. It's a personality trait which is considered a deficiency in the wellness schema for fit parenting.
Here is how the book sale goes. We go into a pen that houses a grid of about 200 crates containing 500 or so books each. Our group spreads out in a preplanned course in pairs or trios. There is a picker, such as me, who decides which books to purchase. Then there is a packer who receives the books or is told to pull them from the bins. This person or another may act as a runner who takes the books to a check-out area and then returns with another empty packing box.
The particular parent who is the subject of this posting mostly acts as a picker but floats as needed. After accumulating about 2000 books [80 boxes] we were done and all proceeded to check-out. Well not quite all. One person wasn't there.
During the frantic rush as we pour over these books each of us comes across a few titles that we want for ourselves. For efficiency those get tossed in with the books for the book seller. Well, instead of being at check-out with the others, someone was off at a staging area sorting through about 10 boxes which had not been taken to checkout to be tabulated.
While nine employees stood by idly the book seller complained to me that he needs to get those 10 boxes to check-out and we will sort through them at the shop. So I go tell our dear protagonist to get the boxes to check-out so we can get going. Further, that he will be able to retrieve his titles at the shop when we sort them there.
The response to me was simply put, "No, I am not going to do that. That doesn't work for me. You can just wait, I am going to get my books out here." The result is that the book seller is paying 10 employees an hourly wage for the time this guy picks out his books.
Well, I have never been to a hearing involving this guy. I have never seen the custody order, the petitions, or the CCS. I don't even know who the mother is or anything about her. I haven't been contacted by him for his necessary counseling.
But there is one thing I do know about the case. That this custody case, which began in the womb, continues to this day because he insists that it do so.
At this point, if you have observed my previous admonitions, you can imagine the proceedings and identify the major contributing factor to the ongoing high conflict. This man is a child parading as a parent who when he doesn't get his way is going to take his toys and go home. But the "toy" in this case is a child under the jurisdiction of the court. What that means is that court procedure is applied and done so [or supposed to be] according to statute and applicable case law.
It is the absence of a judicial officer conducting the proceedings according to statute and applicable case law -- as is supposed to be the case -- which perpetuates the conflict. That is the perception of this father as I have observed. However, his position that the general welfare clause is applicable to protection orders and that he hadn't heard of Lambert v Lambert[en4] relating to child support payments being reduced for incarcerated parents demonstrates his misapplication, misunderstanding or ignorance of law.
What doesn't go over well in these proceedings is the proposition that the judicial officer is a conspirator in a vast anti-father scheme, that there is a constitutional mandate to order 50/50 parenting time, that the court acts criminally, and that this is not a matter for a court to decide. All made without supporting evidence or historic reference.
The reason I long ago expanded from providing just trial strategy assistance and appellate preservation to providing cognitive behavioural therapy directed toward child custody proceedings in because underlying perceptions direct behaviour. That is, you act according to your thoughts.
If an argument is to be made in court regarding the custody or parenting time of a child then it should be valid and comport to established procedure and law. Courts are a venue for logic and law to be applied. Thinking otherwise is the foundation for behaviours destructive to a case. Philosophical arguments to the contrary should be saved for another venue like the legislature, academia or less formal popular culture. And while on the subject of philosophy our protagonist may be well advised to examine Heidegger's proposition that we are engaged in the world.
notes
1] IC 24-26-5 et seq
2] IC 35-43-4-3 A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person commits criminal conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.
3] Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
4] Lambert v. Lambert,. 801 N.E. 2d 1176, 1180 (IN. 2007) Prior to Lambert, Indiana was one of the states that held the position that commission of a crime was a voluntary act which resulted in imprisonment and as such was voluntary underemployment. Thus, support payment orders should not be modified to reflect the reduced earnings during incarceration. The Lambert decision held that the decision to commit a crime was so far removed from intent to get child support reduced that it was therefore improper to base child support payments on anything other than current incarceration income.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Monday, June 12, 2017
Spurious claims, accepting responsibility, and high conflict child custody cases
Thursday, June 1, 2017
The nexus between your child custody order and a 24-Hour allergy relief drug
So what does an allergy relief drug and a child custody order have to do with each other? This odd pairing by me is not without its purpose and I do intend to show more than a tangential connection. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
I happened to catch a Zyrtec commercial recently which stated "Zyrtec starts working at hour 1 . . ." then proceeded to claim that the 24 hour allergy relief drug is as effective the twenty-fourth hour as the first. Pause to become conscious of your first impression of that claim. I will tell you mine in a moment but first think about that claim and consider its meaning.
Does that claim state that the drug is efficacious in combating the body's immunological response to allergens for a full calendar day? That is what the marketers of Zyrtec what you to think. It may be a true claim but that is irrelevant to my purpose here. Instead I want for you to understand what is said.
Analyze this claim by drawing two palm size circles juxtaposed on a sheet of paper. Write "first hour" in one and "24th hour" in the other. Then make a few strips of paper long enough on which ten letters can be written. Write "none", "some", and "complete" on those. Then place them over the circle or circles on which the level of effectiveness could theoretically be the same.
What you should see is three strips placed within both circles. The conclusion from this is that "as effective" means "the same" and is only a comparative measure. It is like saying "this vehicle provides as smooth of a ride on the twenty-fourth trip as the first." But if the vehicle is a crudely built wagon without any springs or shock dampening system traversing a cobblestone roadway then the ride is likely anything but smooth. Yet, your first impression was likely that the vehicle provided a smooth ride.
When I heard that claim my immediate thought was, "Wow, they just said it doesn't work at all." This is because change requires action. The probability that no change will occur within a system or that an actively changed system will regress to its mean is greater than the probability that an active change will remain constant for a set duration. Thus, the probability that the car parked near my house will be moving at the null rate now and twenty-four hours from now is greater than any of the actively changed speed of cars passing by now moving at the same speed at the same time tomorrow morning.
Now it is time to take the positive bias that you may hold which you likely have if you thought that Zyrtec statement equated efficacy and apply it to child custody orders. Applying bias to the circumstances surrounding child custody litigation can be a costly mistake. Thus, objectivity is to be considered paramount.
I had a client whom I was counseling about his feelings towards the mother of their son and his resentment related to her interactions with the child. Particularly, he was upset at the level of care provided by mother which he labeled "clear neglect" and "probably abusive". At some point he revealed that he was keeping a record of incidents involving the child.
He then detailed a plan to keep gathering accounts of neglect or abusive of the child from mom's neighbors, parents or friends of the child and personnel from the school the child attends. In about a year or so he planned to drop the bomb and file for sole custody which he was confident that he would get because of the abundance of evidence of abuse and neglect he would present.
I paused briefly and asked, "Why would you plan to go into a court room to admit to a crime and that you didn't care that your child was subjected to ongoing abuse and neglect?" He appeared perplexed. Precisely because he was biased.
However, I viewed the plan objectively. A parent suspects that his child is being abused or neglected. For a period of approximately one year this parent documented the abuse or neglect. Indiana has a must report criminal statute which requires any person to report suspected abuse or neglect of a child. This parent willfully chose not to report the suspected abuse or neglect. This parent willfully chose not to intervene to halt the suspected abuse or neglect. His bias was that he saw the neglect of the child as done by mother as the result of her action but not by his inaction.
When it comes to parenting time decisions I have had numerous clients and have read the accounts of many other parents who have sought an equal division of time with the child. The bases for these claims is generally based upon a similar scenario; two working parents who both shared parenting responsibilities prior to the demise of the sole family unit. It is from this perspective that these parents have configured schedules to accommodate the parent's schedules while maximizing the time each has with the child while maintaining an equal division of the child's time.
I find this bias to be fundamentally flawed. When devising a parenting time proposal the primary objective should be to formulate a schedule which provides a superior level of continuity to the child and best mimics the former parent-child interactions.
I also perceive a hazard in submitting a strictly formulated 50-50 schedule. In divorce each parent is to submit a financial declaration. In Indiana there is a presumption of an equal division of marital property and debts. In these cases it is customary to submit proposals for the distribution of assets and obligations to achieve an equally valued division. When a parent concurrently tenders a parenting time proposal that follows the same format it is difficult for a judicial officer to not see the implicit attribution toward the child; that the child is an object of the marriage to be equally divided. Holding the bias that the child should continue to have the same amount of time with each parent can be a detriment to one seeking parenting time.
A conversation between some judges and myself once touched upon this issue. A judge was lamenting the circumstance of a hostile custody case in which neither parent would agree to deviate from an absolute equally division of time with the child which resulted in a 3:00 a.m. exchange. This absurdity raised the ire of all. The judge presenting the anecdote queried the others as to how to handle these types of "parents". One response appeared to surmise the opinion of all -- "Place the child with someone who cares about him and let those two fight it out over who is to blame for them losing custody of their child."
Claims, whether they be a solicitation to induce the listener to engage in a commercial transaction or those made during the progression of a child custody case, should always be viewed objectively. Failure to do so can leave someone subjected to the pitfalls resulting when not all parties to the interaction hold the same bias.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
2016 Indiana Child Custody Legislative Agenda
The following proposals on child custody and well-being matters are those which I sent to each member of the Indiana General Assembly today. I do not intend for any legislation to be introduced during the 2016 session as it is a short session but do anticipate that members will begin the process of getting these ideas into bils for the 2017 session.
Presumptive Shared Parenting
It is well established that both mothers and fathers contribute significantly to the development and well-being of a child. In our modern society rife with differentiation in business and social roles the concept of mother and father, each with their presumptive respective gender based roles, has largely disappeared. Yet, often times it is apparent in court that mothers’ are cloaked with a presumption of entitlement to custody of the children while fathers challenging mothers are put in the position of having to show that she is unfit. Even when parental abandonment and voluntary agreements are considered, mothers are still overwhelmingly the primary custodial parents. On paper the statutory law says that there is no presumption favouring either parent but in practice there is a marked presumption.
Presumptive Shared Parenting would change the dynamics of custody litigation away from fighting for time to preserving it. A court would have to start with a presumption that both parents will equally share parenting time. This could then be rebutted by agreement, work schedules, parental fitness, or other considerations the court feels impacts upon the best interest of the child.
Proposed legislation may be viewed HERE.
Electronic Communication Time
Following my presentation on Electronic Communication Time to the Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center, Electronic Communication Time was added to the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines as a new section replacing telephone contact. Since then I have regularly received reports of recalcitrant and alienating parents denying Electronic Communication Time. Additionally, some judicial officers are not intimately familiar with the prefered modicums of communication employed by our current adolescent generation and that, often, households no longer have a “telephone”. Statutory guidance on establishing or crafting electronic communication orders and enforcing them will enhance parent-child relationships.
Proposed legislation may be viewed HERE.
Marijuana Decriminalization
I am going to intentionally avoid disclosing whether I have ever used marijuana but I do propose that it is the lazy man’s way of altering consciousness or affecting mood. I begin each day with a routine of stretching and meditation which, along with a diet consisting of “food” only I feel provides a well-balanced physical and mental state that leaves me feeling fulfilled in life.
I have been engaging myself in the company of regular users of marijuana and interviewing them as well as collateral resources about the effect of that herb. What I have found is that typical parents who use marijuana are more accepting of the errors, imperfections, are challenges posed by their children. Parents have self-reported that as their marijuana use increased and alcohol use decreased they have become less hostile or abusive in their behaviours toward children. All seemed to express that use of marijuana is time and place sensitive and that it is viewed the same as tobacco cigarettes in regards to use by their children.
The greater harm that I see from marijuana criminalization is the impact upon families. When a parent is arrested and jailed for a marijuana offense loss of employment may be a consequence. Additionally there may be legal fees. More damaging though is that it takes a parent out of the household and imposes a greater burden on the remaining parent if there is one. The financial impact, loss of parenting time, and increased stress upon all parties impacts children the hardest. An objective analysis of the impact of marijuana clearly demonstrates that the costs of criminalization, especially on children, far exceeds any benefit which may exist.
Mandatory mediation/settlement conference
As I specialize in advising attorneys and parents engaged in high conflict child custody battles I tend to view child custody cases from the worst case scenario. Through my observations and the dialogue I have had with numerous judicial officers in our family courts it is these high conflict cases, less than 10% of all, which account for the majority of court resource usage. I feel that it is therefore necessary to first try to ameliorate the underlying causes of conflict.
Some judges take the simple step of captioning their cases as “in re: the marriage of” followed by the naming of the petitioner and respondent joined by “and” rather than “versus” which may reduce conflict by not framing the dissolution as a battle from the onset. I propose that before ever appearing court that the parties attend a mediation session in which numerous elements of a child custody case are addressed and the mediator forwards to the court a report of the agreed upon issues and what remains contested. Effective mediators are able to help parents understand their continuing role as partners in being parents while acknowledging that their role as partners in a mutual relationship to each other is being divested. If this happens early in the process the likelihood of success is much greater than when it is imposed by a judge after years of prolonged hearings and hostilities between parents.
My proposal may be viewed HERE.
Parenting Time Counselor
In the past year I came to the Domestic Relations Committee with an idea about creating a means by which parents, attorneys, and judges could get answers to questions about the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines [IPTG]. There was already work being done by FSSA to create a parenting time hotline which has now been implemented. However, I would like to see it taken a step further. I propose that the State of Indiana create a Parenting Time Counselor [PTC] whose responsibilities and activities would tend to mimic that of the Public Access Counselor [PAC] who address complaints and provides opinions as to whether Indiana’s open door or public access laws have been violated.
Before seeking to have a court hearing on an alleged violation of the IPTG a parent would be required to file a complaint with the PTC who would issue an opinion. A parent who goes against the PTC’s opinion would presumptively be held in contempt upon further court hearing. Assessment of attorney fees could also be contingent upon a PTC opinion. Like the PAC the PTC could also be used by the public official - in this case the judge - to give an opinion about application or interpretation of the IPTG.
This position could be an extension of that currently in place under FSSA. Statutorily a portion of fines imposed for contempt could be assigned to the office of the PTC. I believe that it would reduce the use of court resources and as such some of the savings there could be transferred to the PTC. I have not prepared any legislation on this matter but only submit it to you as an idea for your consideration.
The School Day
I was first expelled from school in Grade 6. I couldn’t get out of high school quick enough. Following a series of disciplinary actions, failing grades, absences which exceeded attendance, taking a hiatus to train at the US Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, and a general state of chaos I was “given” a diploma and shown the door after seven semesters. My pursuit of education was then able to flourish as well as my athletic career. Unfortunately, within months of obtaining my professional standing I was struck by a truck and managed to survive that lethal collision.
My objection to school is that I saw it as training rather than education. That there was no emphasis placed upon developing the students as whole people with broad knowledge. In my ongoing observations and discussions with students what I saw 35 years ago in Grade 6 have only been exacerbated. The emphasis on academic performance and test scores over general health and well-being has reached such a climax as to reduce academic performance and test scores while inducing a plethora of harms to students’ minds and bodies.
Here is a meditation for you; To improve academic achievement students need to get out of the classroom. After you have contemplated that proposition you may read my explanation HERE.
A Child Focused Perspective
Finally, in considering any legislation I asked that you attempt to view it through the lens of the impact it may have on children. As an example, I was attending a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on another matter when an insurance bill was read which would have kept vehicle crash reports from public access for a period of, I believe 30 days. I made impromptu comments based upon what I perceived could be an adverse effect on children. I proposed a scenario where when a parent picks up a child for weekend parenting time the child talks about being in a police car and mommy/daddy being in an ambulance. It is determined that the parent and child had been in a car wreck but no other information is available because the report is withheld from public access for 30 days. Because the parent driving had less than a .08 BAC no criminal charge was filed. However, that action is still very relevant to the best interest of the child and a 30 day delay in getting the matter before the court could prove catastrophic for the child. It was tabled and amended the next day based upon my comments.
Just as in this scenario, the impact of legislation upon children will often have an unintended consequence that requires a critical view of the legislation rather than only that of the anticipated or desired outcome. Please feel free to call upon me anytime for an opinion about legislation or your thoughts on proposed legislation. As I see bills posted that I feel are deserving of commentary I will send updates to you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Indiana Court of Appeal Reverses Shared Parenting Order Today
In Bailey v Bailey published today the Indiana Court of Appeal reversed an order of the Fulton Circuit Court, Special Judge Richard Maughmer presiding, that provided that parents would have joint legal custody and 50/50 parenting time. This was a modification of the existing parenting time order although no petition was before the court to modify parenting time or custody. The court made the changes under the auspices of the Parallel Parenting provision of the 2013 Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines when the parties appeared for mutual actions for contempt. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
These were high conflict parents. During the proceedings, there were approximately five contempt actions, one protective order, one request for emergency custody, one petition for modification of custody, one petition for restricted visitation, five attorneys, and two judges.
Judge Maughmer should be commended for taking the position ordering these parents into 50/50 parenting time and joint legal custody. While some trial courts have taken an approach to hostile or embattled parents by granting primary physical and sole legal custody to one parent to mitigate opportunities for conflict that may be ignoring the best interest of the child. Sometimes the parent who has instigated or perpetuated the conflict has been the one receiving the greater rights and responsibilities. Our reviewing courts have shunned this idea.
In 1996 a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that “Allowing modification of custody in favor of one whose misbehavior has led to the supposed 'substantial change,' in circumstances rewards misconduct and should therefore be avoided.”[fn1] A few years earlier the court expressed its rationale for awarding sole custody and primary parenting time to one parent in high conflict cases.
In 1992 a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals in arriving at its decision noted that “obstreperous parents sharing legal custody would have significant difficulties reaching a consensus on such fundamental issues as child-rearing philosophies, religious beliefs, and lifestyles.[fn2] When divorced parents are charged with making major decisions as a unit, it is apparent that a relationship filled with hostility and resentment presents a significant obstacle. It follows, therefore, that when child-rearing becomes a 'battleground,'[fn3] modification of joint legal custody is a sensible step to take for the best interests of the children.”
One of our justices explained it this way;
Every day in our State, trial courts engage in the fact-finding process of determining which of two parents—oftentimes, both parents who have behaved poorly—is the better choice to serve as a primary physical custodian. All too often, this involves determining who between two parents is the lesser of two evils—which parent is least likely to poison the children and alienate them from their other parent. The majority’s opinion permits sidestepping this process and allows the trial court to “split the baby.” I would reverse on this issue and remand to the trial court with instructions that it award sole legal and physical custody of the children either to James or Jane and grant the other parent parenting time scheduled in a manner that is conducive to the best interests of the children.[fn4]
I contend that those positions are in error, especially given that at least one of the parents who engages in making child rearing a battleground will get rewarded with sole legal and primary physical custody. Concurrent with that is the risk that the parent who so benefits may be the one who instigated the culture of conflict. I believe that it also ignores the best interest of the child. It was this position that was advanced and held while the Domestic Relations Committee was reviewing the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines which were amended in March 2013 to include a parallel parenting section.
In 1989 and cited again in 1994 two other panels of the Indiana Court of Appeals adopted the concept of Parallel Parenting when they held, “We must realize that, by allowing [families] to rely on the courts to settle such disputes, we deprive families of the opportunity to work out their problems and be the shapers of their own destinies. To the extent that we usurp the natural functions of the family unit – including handling fallings out – we put an obstacle in the path of reconciliation rather than removing one. By acting as we do, we assume the responsibility for the decisions that would be made entirely internally in a family if it were still intact. If warring family members can blame the court, they will be less likely to recognize and acknowledge their own culpability. Without a feeling of responsibility for, or participation in, either the decision or the result, there is less incentive for the individual family members to improve relations.[fn5]
In the immediate case though the panel reversed the trial court's order of Shared Parenting which modified the prior parenting time order. This is because the parties appeared before the court on dual motions for contempt. The panel articulated its holding in citing “[l]ongstanding Indiana law” which “has prohibited trial courts from sua sponte ordering a change of custody.”[fn6] When such an important issue as the custody of children is involved, a modification generally can be ordered only after a party has filed a petition requesting such a modification, the other party has notice of the filing, and a proper evidentiary hearing is held at which both parties may be heard and the trial court fully apprised of all necessary information regarding change of circumstances and a child’s best interests before deciding whether a modification should be ordered.
While it appears that the trial court was correct in its determination of Shared Parenting through a Parallel Parenting plan it suffered from basic due process requirements.
Notes
1] Meade v. Levett, 671 N.E.2d 1172, 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).
2] Aylward v Aylward, 592 N.E.2d 1247, 1251-52 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
3] id at 1252
4] Dissent of Vaidik in Van Weirten
5] McKay v. McKay, 644 N.E.2d 164, 167 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (quoting Milne v. Milne, 556 A.2d 854, 856 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)) (alteration omitted).
6] See In re Marriage of Henderson, 453 N.E.2d 310, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (quoting State ex rel. Davis v. Achor, 225 Ind. 319, 327, 75 N.E.2d 154, 157 (1947)).
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
The reasons that men, especially fathers vying for child custody, should be supporting feminism
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
There is a virulent strain of demagogues that have been attacking the progress of women towards self-empowerment and equality. These wolves have attempted to takeover and discredit feminism by cloaking it as what I will call “Gender Victimization.” They demean and belittle enlightened women and seek to enslave them and return them to a time when they were subservient. Feminism in contemporary times can be seen by some as a pejorative term. This is because it has been corrupted by those subversives who oppose the foundational principles of feminism which, in my opinion, should be embraced by all especially fathers who are non custodial parents.
First in an analysis of whether one should support feminism is to perform a historical examination of feminism and define what it is, or rather, was. One could go back to Hetaera of Athens or even the matriarchal divine feminine among which most ancient religious and spiritual orders were based before the emergence of the male dominated cults gained favour among the governments and other bastions of power. In particular the Abrahamic cults provided support for the subordination and control of women, particularly the promotion of rape.[fn1] In more contemporary times the emergence of modern feminism evolved primarily in France with publications such as Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), which was written in the wake of the French Revolution. In France feminism referred far more often to the "rights of women" than to "rights equal to those of men." This is a subtle but profound distinction.
It may be beneficial to begin with a dictionary type definition of feminism as follows: a theory and/or movement concerned with advancing the position of women through such means as achieving political, legal, and economic rights equal to those granted men.
For the purpose of child custody considerations in statutory and caselaw it would be best to examine feminism as it arose in the context of industrial society guided by liberal politics. As such it was connected to both the liberal women’s rights movement and early socialist feminism in the late 19th and early 20th century in the United States and Europe. Feminism in this context – as an established political movement – sought access and equal opportunities for women. Much of the agenda was outlined by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the The Seneca Falls Declaration. Feminists sought to remove gender or birth sex differentiation in such areas as religion, politics – particularly suffrage – and business transactions. To a lesser extent feminism was preoccupied with equal opportunity in employment which was generally within the realm of the pro-communism movement all while little attention was given to matters of family.
A shift in the perception of feminism has occurred as the elements that have taken over the feminist agenda no longer seek to ingratiate women to the male dominated roles of the western industrial revolution society but now seek to portray men as ignominious and of undeserving of notice. By refocusing to the core of feminism it becomes apparent that men as well as women should be supporting feminism although some women now shun the label “feminist.”
Feminism sought to create parity in opportunity and responsibility for people regardless of birth sex. Opponents of the feminist doctrine have perpetuated a patriarchal power structure largely through the guise of an appealing Gender Victimization model. Feminists were essentially 'bought off' from pursuing the feminist agenda. In the realm of child custody and child support policy the patriarchal approach dominated for quite sometime. The “maternal preference” standard which was pervasive in culture, rule and law held that children should, by nature, be placed in the care and control of the mother following divorce. This standard, established prior to no-fault divorce, was rooted in anti-feminism. The primary objective was to keep women out of the workplace – from invading the sanctity of the male dominated business, political, and legal culture. Thus, “spousal maintenance,” high child support payment orders, and custody awards were liberally granted to women.
A secondary purpose was to protect women from having to demonstrate fitness of character to maintain custody of children. The anti-feminism perspective held that women were too feeble of mind to be attendant to all the duties of child-care and maintaining a household not just performing the perfunctory duties of daily maintenance. Thus, women were absolved from demonstrating fitness.
A new wave of feminism lashed back against the undermining of the feminist agenda by attacking the double standards that had been applied up to the 1960's - 1970's era. Preferential standards and laws began to be eroded during this period. It was also at this time that subversives to the feminist movement entrenched themselves within the movement and promoted an agenda toward segregation of women from the existing culture rather than integration.
Rather than be engaged with and received in equity with men as their partners, the feminazi movement seeks to elevate women above men is cultural and legal stature. This is evident in popular movements like breast cancer as a “women's issue” although cancer of the breast attacks both men and women. While their predecessors had a generation earlier burner bras, protested the Miss American Pageant, and decried the cosmetic industry as a patriarchal institution the feminazi wants legal superiority and to enhance certain patriarchal practices. Headline feminists once decried the Freudian theory of women’s “natural” dependency and sexual frigidity only to have it then later re-articulated by the feminazi fringe.
Feminism as perverted by the feminazielement is crumbling under the hypocrisy, lies, and militant anti-male/anti-child agenda that pervades the political discussion of feminism in modern society. When the perpetual lie about rates of pay for women being only 77% that of men is easily debunked by the common person who reads the want ads, which state the rate of pay being equal for both, undermines the true credibility of feminism.
The subversive element of feminism, those who promote the concept of gender victimization, paradoxically perpetuate the notion of women's natural dependency. Like gay rights activists who have attempted to secure superior rights for homosexuals perpetuate heterosexuality as the norm, these subversives to feminism do the same when they seek superior rights for women. Essentially, reinforcing a belief that women are incapable of achieving parity without special accommodations. Thus, identity politics unintentionally supports a hegemonic concept of woman.
Karen Offen has recently reiterated the core belief of feminism in stating, “Feminism raises issues that concern personal autonomy or freedom-with constant reference to basic issues of societal organization, which center, in Western societies, on the long-standing debate over the family and its relationship to the state, and on the historically inequitable distribution of political, social, and economic power between the sexes that underlies this debate. Feminism opposes women's subordination to men in the family and society, along with men's claims to define what is best for women without consulting them.”[fn2] The very terms “women's rights,” “feminists,” or “feminism” have been used by many parties polemically, as epithets.
Feminism was refined following the women's liberation movement that evolved in the 1960's - 1970's. “Gyno-criticism,” a method first developed by Elaine Showalter in A Literature of Their Own followed a new interest in women’s lives and voices, becoming more empirical and historical, and more mythical and spiritual.
While women's liberation is a concept that may be embodied in the origins of feminism it is entirely another much broader concept. Feminism sought to establish parity between men and women for those organizational opportunities in a society built upon a male-centrist view. Particular to this is the notion of representative democracy, free markets and capitalism. Women's liberation to the contrary sought to extricate women from the patriarchal constructs of society and instead embraced Marxist philosophies and a self-centered ideology which included abandoning the role of motherhood. This principle was extolled by such female superiority advocates like Ellen Key who demanded government subsidies for all mothers, including the unmarried. Richard Stites has suggested for Russia that feminism is merely one component of "women's liberation."
As with every word in the English language each has its individual definition, tone, and nuance of usage that distinguishes it from synonyms. So it is with feminism which is not synonymous with the status of women, female supremacy, distinguishing female traits, female political action or other issues surrounding women that are not part of the scheme to establish equity in opportunity and responsibility for women within established institutions. Likewise the contemporary “identity movement” is not feminism in disguise or even a branch of feminism. Rather the identity movement seeks to extricate both men and women from the institutions to which feminists have gained access for women but are mutually destructive to both men and women.
Objection to treating women as sex objects may come from a wide swatch of people who include feminists, but it is not fundamental to feminism – political, educational, business, and economic equity for women. While I feel that women who engage in the masquerade of adornment of the flesh such as through the cosmetics industry are cheapening women and detracting from their potential to significantly contribute to the institutions sought to be opened by feminism that in and of itself is not feminism.
When "the woman question" came upon the nineteenth century political landscape it was in the context of interposing the political, social, and economic feminist ideas into the organization of societies. This brings me back to the basis of why it is imperative that we all support feminism. The political and societal framework based upon the female dependency model places an undue burden upon men and deprives children of their necessary contact and interaction with fathers. While women's suffrage is universal throughout western culture and anti-discrimination laws cover other aspects of female engagement in society there still exist a cultural bias, oft perpetuated by the anti-feminist, that women still must be provided with a subsidy by men.
Embracing feminism includes placing the responsibilities on women commensurate with the parity in rights that they have attained. That is, they must demonstrate their fitness of character for having parenting time with or legal custody of the children. Likewise, true feminism obliterates the myth that women get paid at a lower rate than men but if they don't then that difference is entirely their responsibility. Hence, the imposition of a financial subsidy disappears. Ironically though if the feminists claims are fully realized and embraced then there does exist the possibility that value for women in sexual distinctions may be negated. This then requires a conscious recognition of the unique values that both mothers and fathers contribute to the well-being of their children while still maintaining parity in opportunities within the realm of the feminist dynamics.
Notes
[1] Deuteronomy 21:11 provides that men may rape women captured in war.
[2] Offen, Karen. Defining Feminism: A Comparative Historical Approach, 2012. Institute for Research on Women and Gender Stanford University
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
