Child Support Idiocy, NY Shared Parenting Fallout, Father Ends Hunger Strike

May 3, 2006

"The bill still says those owing more than $500 in child support would be targeted by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to have their licenses restricted until the debt is paid or until parents make arrangements to pay what's owed.

"'If they have a job, we want them to go to work so they can pay what they owe,' said Rep. Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, his chamber's lead negotiator on the bill.

I criticized this legislation in my co-authored column Kansas License Bill Unfair to Noncustodial Parents (Wichita Eagle, 3/8/06). Family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"While such measures always make for good sound bites and electoral politics, they make poor public policy. That's because the vast majority of those behind on child support are low-income parents who have been saddled with artificially inflated paper arrearages that they couldn't possibly pay...

"Perhaps this is why while DSRS recently announced that their top five deadbeats owe an average of $225,000 in back child support, they have refused to disclose these individuals' occupations. The pot of child support gold which DSRS Secretary Gary Daniels professes he'll find if he gets 'the [enforcement] tools that some other states have' simply does not exist...

"Daniels says a crackdown is needed because only 54 percent of Kansas children who are owed support receive their full shares. However, DSRS is already able to get drivers' licenses suspended through contempt of court proceedings. The real problem is that the vast majority of the child support debt is simply uncollectible. Instead of enacting new draconian measures, the legislature should instead mandate that DSRS focus its enforcement efforts on true scofflaws with real arrearages instead of hard luck parents with counterfeit ones."

On a positive note, I suppose I should commend the Kansas Senate for at least having the common sense to make provisions to allow "deadbeats" to drive to work and back.
 

I couldn't be less surprised to report that---brace yourself--child support enforcement had made an error, and was charging the guy five times what he actually owed. According to the News-Tribune:

"An error in data entry, made when more than 400,000 child support files were converted to a new computer database in 1998, increased Chalmers' monthly child support more than fivefold, said Deborah Scott, spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Social Services.

"But Scott also stressed that Chalmers had many opportunities to correct the error since 1998."After Chalmers, 54, contacted the department once this year about the amount he owed, an employee tried five times to contact him without success, she said.

"On April 18, when Chalmers went on his rampage, the department was garnisheeing 50 percent of his paycheck - the state's top limit - for back support, Scott said..."In 1997, Chalmers was supposed to be paying $133 per month in current child support and owed $724.92 in back support.

"Records, including Chalmers' file, were converted into the Missouri Automated Child Support System in 1998. Scott said the department knew there were some problems with the conversion, and said workers made "significant attempts" to ensure accuracy.

"At some point, a worker spotted the $724.92 back child support figure for Chalmers and entered it as the amount he was to pay per month for current child support, Scott said."

"Child support enforcement agencies are notorious for their abusive tactics towards such men, as well as their mind-numbing incompetence, waste, and the incessant computer errors which lead to the persecution of innocent citizens...For too long child support policies have been determined by politics instead of common sense; the mantra of 'help women and children' has allowed large-scale abuses and waste to go unchallenged."

Anti-Father Feminist Trish Wilson Corrects Her Error

However, what I actually wrote was "The Assembly members voting in favor of the bill were Ruben Diaz Jr., Karim Camara, Michael Benjamin and Vincent Ignizio. I suggest you send them an email thanking them for their support by clicking here." It's in my last newsletter here, and it still seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Trish Wilson Doth Protest Too Much

"Somehow Glenn Sacks was given an e-mail that I wrote to this list. I am unsubscribing. This list is no longer safe. Who sent my message to this list to him? I'm very disappointed with this list. I won't participate anymore if my e-mails are being forwarded to fathers' rights activists...I am going to unsubscribe. I don't feel safe here."

What's ironic about this is that many years ago Trish began her anti-father activism by lurking in fathers' rights egroups and email lists and then posting the emails on her website. Trish, you really protest too much...

Trish Wilson Generously Allows That Sometimes Joint Custody Is OK

"Joint custody/shared parenting has been shown to work only under specific circumstances. The characteristics in families where joint custody/shared parenting has worked are these: the parents had an amicable divorce, they had higher-than-average education levels, they had higher-than-average incomes, they had only one child, they lived close to each other, they were able to communicate and work together for their own sake and the sake of their child, their child could handle the joint custody/shared parenting schedule, and the parents chose of their own free will to try joint custody/shared parenting with the intention of making it work."

Trish also reports:

This sounds impressive at first reading, but in reality it is almost meaningless. She doesn't say there's too much conflict in court ordered joint custody arrangements--she says there's more than with "couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent." It is to be expected that joint custody will be smoother in couples who both originally opted for it, as opposed to couples where one parent tried to push the other parent to the margins of the children's lives but later had to "settle" for joint custody. It would be far more meaningful to compare the level of conflict between joint custody and sole custody settings. In my co-authored column A330 Would Help New York's Children of Divorce (Albany Times-Union, 3/28/06),  the ACFC's Mike McCormick and I noted:

"According to a study in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, over time joint custody serves to help reduce conflict between divorced spouses. When Texas Woman's University conducted a study of the effects of post-divorce discord on children aged 8 to 12, they found that joint custody does not expose children to greater parental conflict. Psychologist Robert Bauserman's research (a meta-analysis published in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Family Psychology) also found that divorced couples with joint custody report less conflict than those in sole-custody settings."

If one switches the genders and looks at families where the father is the primary caregiver (and thus the one to presumably gain sole custody), this feminist presumption looks pretty ugly. I switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04). Two years later I still have never heard a reasonable feminist rejoinder to the argument I laid out in that column.

A Victory in Massachusetts

As a result, the U.S. Department of Education recently sent a warning to Massachusetts Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll saying "The commonwealth and every school district in Massachusetts is in violation of federal law, and has been for years." The letter also gave Driscoll 30 days to report "on the steps your agency has taken, or will take, to ensure that local districts in Massachusetts comply with [federal] requirements as described in this letter." The issue was discussed in State to seek repeal of access law for noncustodial parents Student record policy at issue (Boston Globe, 5/22/05).

"Governor Romney recently signed the report card bill into law, formerly known as SB 2206. Now, almost all non-custodial parents will have the right to receive a broad range of school records concerning their kids, including report cards.

"With great tenacity, F&F member Hank Fassler dug into the old law, and convinced the feds that the Massachusetts law was inconsistent with federal law. This started the chain of events culminating in yesterday's success. Along the way, F&F successfully fought off determined efforts by domestic violence advocates such as Jane Doe, Inc. and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute to maintain restrictions against a vast swath of non-custodials. In this, we were helped by the good sense and steadfast support of Representative Patricia Haddad, Senator Robert O'Leary, and Senator Robert Antonioni."

As a former high school teacher I repeatedly saw the value of fathers' participation in their children's educations. I could teach a class for a few weeks and then have a pretty good idea which kids had fathers in their lives and which ones didn't. I had few discipline problems in my classrooms but when I did I always knew that there was one truly effective way to get an errant boy to change his ways--call his dad at work and explain to him that he needs to leave work and come to the school to talk to me about his son's behavior. It was 100% effective.

Last week I wrote:

"Nicolas also says his children are being alienated from him.  Nicolas is black, his ex-wife is Asian, and Nicolas claims his four year-old daughter told him her mother told her not to kiss him 'because he's black.'

"Nicolas says he and his ex-wife both earn around $60 or $65 thousand dollars a year, but that he has lost his business and his savings and after his wages are garnisheed he is left with less than $300 a month to live on. He says he has been unable to get a court to resolve these issues, and is on hunger strike to try to force the court to give him a hearing.

Apparently Nicolas' hunger strike has come to a successful conclusion. According to Canadian activist Jeremy Swanson, "A personal letter from a Quebec Judge hand-delivered to Nicolas by a court official confirmed that the family court had finally granted Nicolas's wish." Nicolas, who is French Canadian,  writes:

"I'm fine, tired, I lost lots of weight but I'm ok, my hunger strike is now over, because of heath complications, (I was on a very strict hunger strike no food, only 2 liters of water a day) after doctors visit to my tent. I lasted 9 days, in the cold, the rain, the wind, just in front of the court house. I receive satisfaction from the head Chief Justice, and all my revendications [claims] to help dads, in my Province Quebec are in the hands of the Justice Minister. 

"I received support from fathers all over the world. I receive letters everyday of support from all of you and all theses words was my food during the cold and lonely night of hunger. I wish all of you the best, and like the doctor told, me, you have fight a great battle and achieving lots of visibility for all fathers across the country and the world, dying here will not serve your cause no more, you have to get well and continue the fight now standing up.

"I will now do just that, continue the struggle for fathers civil right, by standing and walking tall. I won a great battle with my sacrifice and help many people. Thanks to all of you and the fight is not over until victory is in our hands.

Gerald Nicolas"

New York Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick, who opposes Shared Parenting and who voted against us on A330 last week, sent a revealing letter to Debbie Ecker of Child Support Advocates of NYS.

"Thanks so much for your email in opposition to the so-called Shared Parenting bill.  While I have seen many letters in support of this legislation from all around the country, my office has received few letters in opposition. (emphasis added)

"I have been strongly opposed to this bill for the past 15 years.  I don't believe  that it is in the best interest of children to force joint custody on divorcing parents that can't agree on a custody arrangement.

"The bill was on the Children and Families Committee agenda on Tuesday, April 25, and was held in Committee by a vote of  12-4.  I was pleased to see that the vote to hold was supported by both Democrat and Republican alike.

Thank you for your advocacy.
Sincerely,
Deborah J. Glick
Assemblymember"

Kirsten Feldman's new Boston Globe column Joint custody works, but it's not easy (4/27/06) is a nice example of a parent putting the children first. It is also a nice example of how adults comport themselves, as opposed to what we often see in family court. Feldman writes:

"A couple of weeks ago I stood on the playground at my children's school and kissed my daughter goodbye. All around me other parents were doing the same, sending their kids off for a last day of school before break. The only difference was that I wouldn't see or even speak to my children again for 11 days. They were going on vacation to Austria with their father and their stepmother; I was not. I did my best to smile brightly and assure them how much I loved them and hoped they would have a good time. Another mother standing next to me began to cry. She asked me how I could stand it. I left as quickly as I could.

"My children's father and I separated and then divorced several years ago, when my son was in kindergarten. Next year he'll be starting middle school. It seems like a lifetime ago now that we were married, but somehow the 11 days also felt like a lifetime. It didn't for my children, and that is good news. I certainly don't want them sitting around pining for me and our house and our life, and to be truthful, I didn't sit around pining either. Actually, my husband and I went on a trip of our own, but the rhythm of time without children is different...

"I certainly think my children have benefited from joint custody, in our case meaning that they might spend some nights at their father's house and some nights at ours in a given week, and we trade off for vacations and holidays...they have excellent relationships with everyone involved (and that's a big crowd, I can tell you).

"Their father and I are amicable, and we have worked out the intricacies of having bicycles, and homework, and sports equipment in the right place at the right time. We attend teacher conferences together. We have resolved thorny issues involving religion and dentistry and Christmas dinner. I hope we are setting a good example for our children of how to relate to someone with whom you differ."  

SB 1482 Hearing Postponed in Face of Massive Opposition

The stated reason for the postponement is that the committee is working on fiscal matters right now, and SB 1482 isn't fiscal. It is possible that this is what happened. However, as I noted in last week's action alert, the bill's backers made a sweeping, last minute amendment to the bill in order to slip it through before opponents had a chance to organize. Now that there is great opposition, it is also possible that the bill's author realizes that this won't be easy and is delaying in order to marshal her forces. It is also possible that she is backing away from the bill, or is going to amend it to make it less objectionable. We will keep you informed. To donate to help our campaign, click here.

"Under SB 1482...a parent seeking to block a move is specifically prohibited from citing most of the evidence that could provide a basis for restraining the move. Nonmoving parents are prevented from citing the move's impact on their children's relationships with them or the effects of the children losing their schools and friends. This directly abrogates current California case law which says that the children's relationship with their nonmoving parent must be considered when deciding a relocation case.

"SB 1482 is an attempt by the extremist Coalition for Family Equity and misguided feminists to reverse the progress made on behalf of California's children of divorce over the past two years. From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, which was interpreted by California courts as conferring unlimited move-away privileges. Under Burgess the bonds between tens of thousands of children and their noncustodial parents were needlessly ruptured.

"The California Supreme Court addressed the problem in the LaMusga decision in April, 2004 by making it clear that courts can prevent children from being moved when it is detrimental to their interests. Among the factors deemed important were the relationship between the child and the nonmoving parent.

"In the summer of 2004ornia, introduced SBh would have granted custodial parents an almost unlimited right to move children far way from their noncustodial parents.

"We organized opposition to SB 730, and thousands of you wrote and called Sacramento to oppose the bill. Our campaign gained widespread media attention and was endorsed by numerous mental health and family law professionals. Burton surprised Sacramento insiders by withdrawing the bill a few weeks later...

"California family law has a huge influence on other states, and parents all over the United States have a large stake in what happens here. I hear every day from devastated parents who lost their children in the aftermath of the misguided Burgess decision. I often hear from parents whose relationships with their children were saved by the LaMusga decision.

"The Alliance for Children Concerned About Move-Aways, which we originally formed to defeat SB 730, is working with the California Alliance for Families and Children to defeat SB 1482."

New York Shared Parenting Bill Held

In a disappointing though not surprising vote, the New York Assembly Committee on Children & Families voted today to hold over A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill. Four committee members voted in favor of the bill (see below), and the rest voted to hold, citing concerns about alleged technical issues or flaws in the bill.

This bill has been locked up in committee for 12 years. Jim Hays, president of Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, who sponsored the bill, told me that with the four "yes" votes and all the media attention, this is the closest they've ever come to getting it out of committee. He has asked me to tell you that it was the 8,000 calls, letters and faxes you generated which helped bring it this close, and to thank you.

These events show just how entrenched the interests we oppose are. After we launched the campaign in support of A330, the National Organization for Women and Stop Family Violence counterattacked, both launching action alerts and campaigns against the bill. Yet our numbers dwarfed theirs.

It's very hard to get publicity for bills that have not yet passed out of committee, yet a pitched battle over this bill was fought in the pages of the Albany Times Union, the liberal, pro-feminist newspaper in New York's capital. This included: a mismatched debate over the bill on the op-ed page (see Family law proposes to keep bonds strong by Mike McCormick and I and Joint custody bill not in child's interest by NOW's Marcia Pappas, 3/28/06);  a surprising endorsement of shared parenting by the Times Union in their editorial Custody challenges: It's time New York embraced the concept of shared parenting (4/11/06); two news articles; and a score of letters to the editor, including one from Pappas whining that the Times Union had dared to stop following the NOW party line on this issue.  

The Times Union was fair and allowed both sides to be heard, which is all I ever ask a newspaper to do. The battle quickly became very lopsided, with the feminists reduced to babbling "domestic violence, domestic violence" over and over again in trying to scare legislators away from voting for A330.

The Assemblymemebers voting in favor of the bill were Ruben Diaz Jr., Karim Camara, Michael Benjamin and Vincent Ignizio. I suggest you send them an email thanking them for their support by clicking here.

Hays says the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York will bring the bill back next year.

'Convicted Felons Had More Rights than My Dad' Says Woman Who Supports A330

A woman who joined our campaign in support of A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill, wrote the following letter to the New York Assembly Committee on Children & Families:

"I'm the mother of 3 boys as well as stepmother to 3 more children. When I was 9, my parents divorced.  The man I so admired, my dad, was treated so low class that he was unable to have any say at all about his children.  Convicted felons had more rights and control over their lives than my dad was afforded when it came to his children.

"My dad was a very active parent before the divorce.  So active, that I completely credit him for giving me the tools I needed to make me a good person and the tools to raise my own children.  I actively saw my mother literally play act the victim.  I guess she thought we wouldn't remember what she did to actively hurt him any way that she could.

"And she could, thanks to the state and their lack of a system that would at least allow my dad to have say over the children he helped bring into the world. When I separated from my 1st husband, we agreed, without court involvement, how to finish raising our children...We also forced ourselves to maintain an open door policy. If my sons wanted to be with their father...they called him and vice versa...

"Growing up with divorced parents back in the 70's meant that you usually befriended others that were in the same situation.  I think I had only two friends out of all of my friends in Saratoga that actually still saw their dads.  As for the reason why, all you had to do was see how the mothers made it nearly impossible for the children to see their dads without emotional trauma, scenes, etc... 

"It was ugly then and it is ugly now...no one parent should have so much control. If shared parenting can give both the say they deserve, our next generations will be much healthier."

A Myth About Dads as Primary Caregivers

I heard part of a radio interview with anti-feminist writer Caitlin Flanagan this morning while driving my kids to school. The host asked Flanagan about stay at home dads or dads as primary caregivers. Flanagan was positive and supportive of this, but put it in terms of "when mom earns more, this makes sense," or "if mom's job is more important or demanding, it's good that dads pick up the slack" (not exact quotes).

The host agreed with Flanagan. What Flanagan says is true, but both Flanagan and the radio host missed the most important aspect of dads as primary caregivers--sometimes they're the parent who's better at it. In other cases, they may not be better at it, but they might be happier or more suited to it. Or they may appreciate the experience more than the mother does, because the dad never expected to have the opportunity.

As the primary caregiver for my kids for the past eight years, I find it mildly annoying that it is so often couched in terms of being an economic mediocrity. I'm the primary caregiver because that's what's best for my family.

I've discussed the issue of stay at home dads in several columns, including Father Care: The Other Child Care Option (W. New York Family Magazine, 6/01).

In Defense of R. Mark Rogers

According to the article Economist wants back in bidding: Child-support study in limbo since January (Concord Monitor, 4/23/06):

"A Georgia economist once jailed for failure to pay child support said he's 'absolutely' still interested in getting the contract to advise New Hampshire officials on child-support guidelines. He also wants to clear his name.

"The state's child-support system is based on a percentage of parental income, but lawmakers want to rewrite the guidelines to base them on the cost of raising a child. They passed a bill last year approving the money to hire an economist to determine that cost, and Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen recommended R. Mark Rogers for the $200,000 contract.

"Gov. John Lynch thought the bid-evaluation process might have been unfairly weighted to Rogers over Policy Studies Inc., the Colorado firm that also bid on the contract. After he learned about Rogers's legal history from the media in January, Lynch stopped the contract from being placed on the Executive Council agenda and asked Attorney General Kelly Ayotte to investigate.

"Ayotte, who returned her report earlier this month, said the process 'undermined public confidence' and that the bidding should be reopened. Lynch agreed with the recommendation and...also made it clear he does not want Stephen to recommend Rogers again: 'I don't think he should even be allowed to bid on it,' Lynch said.

"Rogers told the Monitor last week that he hopes to still be considered for the contract...

"Rogers said his economics background speaks for itself, with a 'very strong ethic of objectivity,' and should be the only thing considered. He spent 19 years with the Federal Reserve, authored an economics handbook published by McGraw-Hill and served on the Georgia Commission on Child Support. He also partnered with a UNH professor in making his proposal to the state.

"On the other hand, Rogers advocates for reducing guidelines and has served as an expert witness for noncustodial parents who wish to pay less in child support. A divorced father, he was jailed for two weeks in the mid-1990s after failing to pay more than $7,000 in child support. He said he suffered a financial downturn, filed for bankruptcy and set up a back-payment system to his ex-wife through bankruptcy court.

"A superior court judge thought the move was a ploy and found him in contempt. Rogers waited in county jail until his mother cashed in her retirement fund to bail him out, he said."

A few comments:

1) I don't know whether Rogers is telling the truth about his jailing for non-payment of child support in the mid-90's, but it certainly sounds credible. I hear from fathers all the time who have jailed or punished by judges for failing to pay sums they could not pay. It is very common for men to suffer financial downturns and then be treated as if it's just some kind of scam to get out of child support.

2) Rogers was never tried and convicted--the basis for him being a so-called "deadbeat dad" rests on the opinion of one judge. The judge may have been right, but it's not the same as being a convicted criminal.

3) Even if Rogers were a convicted criminal, and even if he really were guilty, he probably still would not have been stripped of the child support contract. There is such a thing as paying one's debts to society and moving on.

Rogers appeared on His Side with Glenn Sacks to debate Debbie Kline, Executive Director of the Association for Children for the Enforcement of Support, a nationwide organization which advocates higher child support levels and tougher child support enforcement. According to Rogers, "Child support guidelines currently in use by the U.S. states typically generate awards that are three to four times what they should be if based on economically sound cost tables and on a true equal duty of support standard for both parents." 

To listen to the show, go to Are Child Support Levels Too High? (12/12/04).

Rogers made some good points but I didn't feel he proved his case that the awards are "three to four times what they should be." Of course I could have easily stacked the debate against Debbie so Rogers would have won, but I don't do that. Despite the flaws in Debbie's arguments, I think listening to that show gives one a good idea of why fathers get beat in child support debates in state legislatures.

College Campuses Are Hostile Environments for Young Men

I've written many times about the anti-male hostility prevalent on our college campuses. In my column Why Males Don't Go to College (She Thinks, 11/13/02);  I noted:

"...rampant anti-male feminism has made college campuses a place where many males feel unwanted and unwelcome. To use a feminist term, our universities have become 'hostile environments' for young men. To illustrate, let's look at one campus--the University of California at Los Angeles, 1999-2001.

"Sensationalized lies about men--what dissident feminist Christina Hoff Sommers and others call 'Hate Statistics'--were an integral part of the campus culture. The Women's Resource Center (later renamed the Center for Women and Men), the Clothesline Project and others publicized discredited academic frauds like 'one in four college women has been the victim of rape or attempted rape' and 'domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women aged 15 to 44.'

"Worse, such statistics were repeated ad infinitum and ad nauseam by the campus newspaper, the Daily Bruin, and also by both professors and students. The message behind the lies was clear--men are so powerful and despicable, and women are so helpless and victimized, that men had better not dare to complain about anything.

"This hostile attitude towards males is manifest in the classroom as well..."

One of my readers sent me a nice example of this last week. The reader wrote the University of Utah about their policy of having a women's week but not a men's week. In response, Leo Leckie, Executive Assistant to the Associate Vice President for Diversity of the University of Utah, wrote:

"'Men's Week' is celebrated on this campus, in this city, this state, in this country and in the world 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. The names on a vast majority of the buildings and named rooms and halls on our campus is but one of many examples that attest to the celebration of men. And there are indeed many, many offices and organizations on this campus that celebrate men daily.

"Because of the historical and continued marginalization of women and people of color on our campus, in our state, and in our country, our office specifically continues the essential work of representing these marginalized groups. The Women's Week Celebration is precisely that, a celebration of women, and invites everyone to join in that celebration.

"On a personal note, I am a white straight male, and as such I remind myself that I walk in the most privileged and empowered of spaces in this country. I remind myself that I have benefited from the country's oldest affirmative action program, and that my privilege is reinforced systemically every day. The challenge for me, as someone who occupies the highest rung on the ladder of power and privilege, is to remind myself that events that attempt to create awareness around issues of equity are about precisely that: equity."

Of course I dispute Leckie's conviction that men are the privileged gender in the United States--men have some advantages, but they also have disadvantages, too. One of the things which annoys me about Leckie's letter is the way he equates the experiences and social positions of blacks and Latinos with those of middle class white women. Blacks and Latinos are disadvantaged groups, white middle class women are not. To write to Leckie, click here

(A note about posting email addresses on my enewsletter. On numerous occasions people I've criticized on this enewsletter have been flooded with angry letters from my readers. However, I have never invaded a person's privacy. My policy is simple--if the email address is already available on the internet, I post it. If it is not, I assume it to be a private email address and I don't post it. Leckie's email address--leo.leckie@utah.edu--is posted on 138 internet web pages, so it's a public email address.)

Leckie's "men have everything/women have nothing so who cares what issues men face" position reminds me a lot of Michael Moore. In my column Michael Moore, You Used to Be My Hero (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, 2/8/04 I noted:

"Michael, you have betrayed those whose cause you once championed. Once the voice of the unappreciated working man, I have watched in amazement and dismay as you have degenerated into one of the all too common scourges of our society--the low rent man-basher who pours derision upon the last remaining politically correct target of bigotry: men."

We've discussed the issue of (alleged) male privilege on His Side with Glenn Sacks  many times--some examples are: NOMAS Leader Michael Kimmel Criticizes Men's Movement (6/6/05); Are American Women Oppressed? (11/28/04); and Is the Men's Movement Misogynistic? (1/23/05).

To learn more about how Woman's Studies have turned our universities into hostile environments for our young men, see my columns: Hate My Father? No Ma'am! (World Net Daily, 4/8/02); New Study Finds Myths, Misrepresentations in Women's Studies Textbooks (Cybercast News Service, 4/1/02); The Best Valentine's Day Gift for College Students: Gender Reconciliation (She Thinks, 2/13/03); and the His Side shows Poisoning Valentine's Day (2/1/04) and Former Women's Studies Professor Daphne Patai Slams Academic Feminism (7/6/03).

Friend to Fathers and Children Passes Away

I was recently informed by Dayle Kichula that Louise Malenfant, a friend to fathers and children of divorce, died earlier this month. I asked Dayle to write a eulogy for my readers, and this is what she wrote:

"Louise Malenfant passed away peacefully in her home in Calgary, Alberta on April 2, 2006.  She was laid to rest in a quiet ceremony by family members and a few of her many friends on April 5, 2006.

"Louise was the founder of Parents Helping Parents, a family advocacy program launched to assist parents falsely accused of abuse during divorce proceedings. She worked tirelessly to bring about change in the child welfare system in Manitoba and a few years ago moved to Alberta in hope of bringing about change to the bureaucracy here as she was successful doing in Manitoba.

"She helped countless parents, the majority of which were fathers, to regain access to their children as well as to regain their reputations, both lost due to false allegations of abuse. Louise's dream was to initiate change in the system whereby it would be more difficult for spouses to lie about abuse in order to sever access by the other parent to their children. She crusaded for full and fair investigations by child welfare authorities as well as by law enforcement authorities.

"Louise led and was the sole operator in the PHP organization. Losing her will be felt by many. It is this writer's hope that there will be someone to carry on and realize Louise's dream. 

"Louise was often told that she was 'An Angel on Earth,' to which she would give a modest giggle and say 'If I don't do this, who will?' She provided a lifeline to all of her clients, at a time when all hope was lost. She would take control of the situation and in no time at all her clients would begin to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

To our Angel on Earth

Louise Marie Malenfant

1960-2006

You have earned your heavenly wings now. You will be missed.

God love your heart and rest your soul."

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com

Subscribe to this E-Newsletter

Email this E-Newsletter to a Friend

Missed an E-Newsletter? Find all of Glenn's E-Newsletters here

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

To be removed from our list, send an email to remove@glennsacks.com with the subject line "Remove."