One of the unfortunate types of letters I often receive this time of year is the move-away letter. That's when the custodial parent has decided to move the child away from the noncustodial parent--often ending that parent's meaningful role in their children's lives. The noncustodial parent writes, seeking a way to keep his or her children from being moved away.

Since parents usually like to move during the summer so they don't interfere with schooling, the move-away requests are often made and fought out in the late winter and early spring. In many, many cases, noncustodial parents (usually fathers) who were spending 10 or 12 days a month with their children are reduced to short, once a month visits--if they're lucky.

Move-aways are an issue we've devoted a lot of attention to. We worked with the California Alliance for Families and Children in running two successful campaigns to preserve the California Supreme Court's 2004 LaMusga move-away decision. That decision affirmed that courts have the power to restrain moves which run counter to children's best interests, and several thousand of you participated in those campaigns. To learn more, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and click here.

Steven Carlson is the author of How to Win Child Custody, and has devoted a lot of time to the move-away issue. He has an interesting article which recaps the various move-away cases and provides an updated overview of the situation with move-aways.

The "Move-Away" Case
By Steven Carlson

Parents who share custody of their children face a difficult dilemma when one parent wants to relocate or move away to a relatively distant location thereby effecting a Move-Away Case. Recent California cases indicate that in custody situations, if one parent is functionally the primary parent and the children have been living primarily with that parent, that parent is likely to be permitted by the courts to move away and take the children along, even if he or she agreed earlier not to move away or relocate.

California Family Code section 7501 provides, "A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child."

Although this statute appears to be straightforward, the interpretation of it has not been...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.  

Country & Western Song About a Post-Divorce Move-Away: Craig Morgan's 'Every Friday Afternoon'

"Well, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There's no way I can be there every Friday afternoon."

Country singer Craig Morgan (pictured) has a powerful song about a post-divorce move-away called Every Friday Afternoon. It captures the way the move-away is often a devastating blow to the post-divorce father-child relationship.

The mom in the song gives the standard rap--she supposedly has a great new job in a different city, it's OK that dad won't be around any more because her parents live there, everything will be better wherever she's going, and dad can still talk to his kids on the phone, etc., etc.

To watch the music video, click here. The lyrics are below.

The move-away issue is one I've often written about--to learn more, see my co-authored columns Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and No Virtue in Virtual Visitation (Boston Globe, 7/12/02). To learn more about our two campaigns over move-away legislation in California, click here.

We'll put Every Friday Afternoon in our divorced dad song collection, along with Trace Adkins' I'm Tryin', Doug Supernaw's I Don't Call Him Daddy, Toby Keith's Who's That Man?, Tim McGraw's Do You Want Fries With That?, and Sting's I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying, which was also later recorded by Toby Keith.

Craig Morgan's Every Friday Afternoon

She called me up this mornin',
Said: "There's somethin' you should know.
"There's a job back home in Boston,
"And I think I'm gonna go.
"My parents are in Cambridge,
"An' I've got some old friends there.
"An' I know you think this isn't fair."

And the tears started fallin',
There was nothin' I could say.
Even if I fight it, someone loses either way.
Whoa, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There's no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

I have him every weekend,
He's got his own room here.
He's all that's kept me goin',
These last three years.
There's little league in Boston,
Oh, but who will coach his team.
How's he gonna grow up without me.

And the tears started fallin',
There was nothin' I could say.
Even if I fight it, someone loses either way.
Whoa, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There's no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

What about Christmas?
If I can't get off of work?
What about his birthday?
If I'm not there, he'll be hurt.
And I know the day is comin',
When she'll find someone new,
But he'll never love him like I do.

Well, it might as well be China,
Or the dark side of the moon.
There's no way I can be there every Friday afternoon.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Michael Moore: 'Men have made a mess of our world...Women deserve none of the blame'

Background: I recently debated Gerd Johnsson-Latham of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on her assertion that men are primarily responsible for global warming. Johnsson-Latham authored a 2007 study called Gender Equality as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development.

Our debate was taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender.  To learn more, see my recent blog posts Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming (Part I), Part II, and Part III.

While discussing gender and global warming with Johnsson-Latham, I was reminded of some "blame it all on men" comments from filmmaker Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men. In my column Michael Moore, You Used to Be My Hero (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, 2/8/04) I wrote:

"In the chapter 'The End of Men' from Stupid White Men you cite declining male birthrates as evidence that 'Nature is trying to kill us off' and that men have done 'plenty' to 'deserve this.' Men have 'made a mess of our world. Women? They deserve none of the blame. They continued to bring life into this world; we continued to destroy it whenever we could...how many women have spilled oil into oceans, dumped toxins in our food supply, or insisted that the new SUV designs had to be bigger, bigger, bigger?...[Men] are working overtime to wipe out this beautiful, wonderful home we were given free of charge...no wonder Nature is getting rid of us.'

"On Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher you asked 'how many women have created factories that have polluted this environment?...most of the crap in this world came from a guy" and said "[It's not] female fishermen doing all that extra fishing, ruining the oceans. It's the men ruining the oceans. Name a woman who's ruined the oceans.'

"The central flaw in all of these statements is so obvious I wouldn't bother pointing it out except that it seems nobody else has. Yes, Michael, few women have created factories which have polluted the environment, just as few women have created factories which have produced the staples of modern civilization. You vilify men for large SUV designs without giving them credit for the miracle of modern transportation. You blame men for 'spilled oil into oceans'" without giving them credit for the millions of metric tons of oil which are transported by sea each year, almost all of it without incident."

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here. 

'Mental health professionals who don't understand Parental Alienation will find small imperfections in the targeted parent as an explanation for the child’s alienation...'

Background: J. Michael Bone (pictured) is an eminent authority on Parental Alienation, and I've often quoted his work in my newspaper columns on the issue.

Starting in late April Michael is going to be doing a four-part Teleseminar on how targeted parents can overcome Parental Alienation. The 4 week telewebcast series begins Tuesday April 29 from 8:30 - 9:30 p.m. EDT, and runs each Tuesday through 5/20. To register, click here or go to www.overcomingparentalalienation.com.

Below is my Q & A with Dr. Bone.

Glenn Sacks: You caution against employing "Unqualified Mental Health Professionals." That's often a difficult thing for a lay person to judge. What should a target parent look at in order to make this judgment?

Dr. Bone: This is a very difficult identification process, and one that most attorneys and judges could not be expected to perform.  That said, let me try to take a stab at it, but please understand that I could go on for many pages about this.   

Since the vast minority of mental health professionals are not comfortable with or particularly familiar with going to court, the numbers of those who do this kind of work are relatively small.  Within this relatively small number, an even smaller number profess familiarity with parental alienation.  

Among those who are familiar with parental alienation and how it works, the basic issue boils down to this:  the understanding that it is possible for one parent to alienate a child from another parent.  Once a child is alienated, only those who truly understand this will be able to successfully manage the child’s protest and vilification regarding the other parent, without being pulled into believing it.  Therefore, the best way to identify one who is truly qualified is to ask them questions about how they have, in the past, dealt with children who did not want to see one of their parents when it had been determined that the non-favored or alienated parent had not been abusive to the child.  

When the truly qualified mental health professional is asked this question, they will have no trouble responding to it with fairly long and clear explanations of whatever successes or lack of successes they have had with this.  What I look for is less about the “success rate” and more about their ability to talk about the complex nuances of this very complicated problem.  Mental health professionals who do not really understand that a child can be alienated from a parent will very quickly begin to side with the child, and justify this by finding relatively small imperfections in the targeted parent, and use that as an explanation for the child’s position.   

Put another way, ineffective or “less than connected” parenting might well produce somewhat estranged children, but this ineffective parenting alone will not produce alienated children.  The necessary ingredient is the alienating behavior of the alienating parent.  What one needs is a mental health professional who gets this.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Father positive ad for preventing minors from drinking

Obviously, being the father of a little girl, I can relate to the dad in this ad for being a pushover at times. Daughters can be very convincing, and my wife often makes fun of me for this.

On a larger note, it's nice to see an ad which portrays fathers not only as doting but also as caring, responsible parents.

What more accurately portrays your relationship with your daughter--"man-as-idiot" commercials or this?

To watch the ad, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Can Anybody Guess How This Is Going to End?

"Two local women claim they've been sexually assaulted by ghosts.

"According to a police report, the two women told officers a paranormal person has been placing sensors on their bodies and having intercourse with them at their apartment in the 28600 block of 25th Place South.

"One of the women said the assault began when she lived in Kent and followed them to Federal Way. The second woman said her encounters began recently.

"The maintenance man in charge of the apartment complex said the women keep calling him saying the ghosts are raping them on weekend nights. He finally told them to call police."

Wayne, a reader, sent me the story excerpted above because it's funny. Yet I can't help but wonder how long it will be until these two mentally disturbed women stop claiming that "ghosts" are raping them, and instead accuse a neighbor or the paper boy. False rape accusations are common and, to be fair, a significant percentage of them are made by mentally-disturbed women.

The full story is Federal Way women claim sexual assault by ghost (KOMO-TV, 4/23/08).

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The Feminist Dissident: Is It Empowering for Women to Objectify Men?

"Nice Guys (TM) say women should sleep with them instead of those sexy, sexy bad boys. Some MRA’s believe women should give sex as direct compensation for money spent on dates, etc., while others think women should have sex with the men they aren’t attracted to as a kind of public service, similar to the Nice Guys (TM) (though the Nice Guys are less egalitarian about it; they want a hierarchy of sexual access that favors 'niceness.')"--Harq-al-Ada, The Feminist Dissident

The purpose of "The Feminist Dissident" is to give feminists a chance to speak directly to my audience, and my audience to debate the issues with them in a civil manner. To read previous entries, click here.

Contributors include/have included Micky M. (aka Michelle), Dan Oppenheimer and Jamie Berger of the blog Masculinity and its Discontents, and Harq-al-Ada, today's contributor. If you are a feminist and are interested in submitting a blog post, please email me at glenn@glennsacks.com.

Is It Empowering for Women to Objectify Men?
By Harq-al-Ada

Several months ago, I read a feminist blog post about how it is empowering for women to objectify men. Other feminists denounce objectification, but that does not necessarily mean this particular feminist was being hypocritical. She seems to see sexual objectification on an individual scale as a benign and inevitable part of attraction. But for women to objectify men as a group? To reduce us to a handful of attributes or one? If that is what she was proposing (even if I could be sure of the meaning from reading the post again, I can’t find it), then she is advocating petty retaliation in kind for objectification of women as a group.

Generous person that I am, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that she was merely saying that women have the right to be attracted to whom they will just as men do. One hears from some men (and women) that women should be held accountable for who they sleep with. Nice Guys (TM) say women should sleep with them instead of those sexy, sexy bad boys. Some MRA’s believe women should give sex as direct compensation for money spent on dates, etc., while others think women should have sex with the men they aren’t attracted to as a kind of public service, similar to the Nice Guys (TM) (though the Nice Guys are less egalitarian about it; they want a hierarchy of sexual access that favors “niceness.”) Religious conservatives want women to have sex with no one except their future husbands.

It is unfair to demonize everyone who holds these views, consciously or not. I suspect they often come from insecurity. I have heard the perplexing meme that women are never attracted to men under six feet tall repeated over and over on Men’s Rights blogs, as well as the claim that women only like rich men.

I understand insecurity. It is a maniacal arborist that takes a grain of truth and grows it to mutant proportions in a matrix of self-doubt. I don’t have an answer for overcoming romantic insecurity. I do think that overcoming it is essential for allowing the gender one is attracted to the autonomy of their own romantic preferences. This goes for the men who think that being of average height or shorter means they will be overlooked by all attractive women, and the women who think that thinness is required to obtain the notice of men (this false belief, I think, drives a branch of discourse in feminist blogs. As with some MRA’s, some feminists confuse their own insecurity for a gender rights issue).

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape convicted

Many of you have sent me articles about the Tracy Denise Roberson/Darrell Roberson case. According to the Associated Press, in that case "Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway. Caught in the act with her lover, Tracy Denise Roberson -- thinking quickly, if not clearly -- cried rape, authorities say. Her husband pulled a gun and killed the other man with a shot to the head."

Now Tracy Denise Roberson has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter and faces two to 20 years in prison. I covered this case in March 2007 after the grand jury indictment. In my blog post Stop the Presses--a Woman Is Held Accountable for Making a False Accusation I wrote:

"A Texas grand jury is actually holding a woman accountable for making a false accusation of rape--an accusation which led to the killing of the man she accused. The jury, correctly, saw that the woman’s husband acted reasonably--his wife screamed to him that she was being raped, so, like any good Texan, he shot the 'rapist.' But it turns out that the man wasn't a rapist at all--she was having an extramarital affair with him. Believe it or not, they dropped the charges against the husband and indicted the wife for manslaughter.

"According to the article, Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in the husband's place: 'I can see one of them saying, `I would have shot the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife.'

"To be fair, the woman acted quickly, and perhaps would not have made a similar claim if she had more time to think. Nevertheless, I don't have much sympathy for her."

Those words still seem fair enough to me. The AP article on the jury verdict is below.

Cry of Rape Lands Cheating Wife in Jail
Associated Press, 5/3/08

FORT WORTH, Texas (May 3) - A Texas woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter.

Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried a bit when the verdict was announced. The punishment phase was set for Monday, and she faces two to 20 years in prison.

In late 2006, Darrell Roberson came home from a late-night card game to find his scantily clad wife with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway. Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.

Darrell Roberson initially was arrested, but a murder charge was later dropped and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.

During her three-day trial, defense attorneys called no witnesses but blamed LaSalle's death on Darrell Roberson's jealousy and rage.

But prosecutors placed all the blame on Tracy Roberson, showing evidence of the affair with LaSalle, 32, and a text message in which she invited him to her house that evening.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

'Fancy amenities don’t make one happy. It was these simple times we treasured. My wife and I had a good marriage'

"'She loved this place.'

"These simple words adorn a beautiful bronze plaque, mounted on a brick and limestone column at the entryway into the retirement village. This message honors Sue, Bob Chamberlin’s late wife of sixty-eight years.

"After her death, Bob designed the plaque for Sue, who had loved every minute of her life at the retirement community. At ninety-eight, Bob confesses that the plaque really was created to comfort him in the loss of his beloved wife."

In a society which pays far too little respect to its elders, authors Kim Morin and Rita Blockman did an unusual and wonderful thing--they interviewed and tape-recorded the life stories of individuals between the ages of 88 and 104. Their book, Listen to the Wisest of All, is a series of vignettes which detail the lives of men and women who lived through the World Wars and the Great Depression.

The excerpt below deals with the greatest and sometimes most elusive of all things--a good marriage. In it, 98-year-old Bob Chamberlin, who was married to his late wife for 68 years, discusses their lives together.

Their marriage reminds me of my parents, who celebrated their 45th wedding anniversary in December (see A Brief Tribute to My Parents on Their 45th Anniversary). 

I'm giving my mom a copy of this book for Mother's Day, for two reasons. One, it's a good book. Two, reading about the 98-year-olds will make my mom feel young...

Bob Chamberlin's Story
(Excerpted from Listen to the Wisest of All by Kim Morin and Rita Blockman)

"She loved this place.”

These simple words adorn a beautiful bronze plaque, mounted on a brick and limestone column at the entryway into the retirement village. This message honors Sue, Bob Chamberlin’s late wife of sixty-eight years. After her death, Bob designed the plaque for Sue, who had loved every minute of her life at the retirement community. At ninety-eight, Bob confesses that the plaque really was created to comfort him in the loss of his beloved wife. However, the plaque has proved to be very popular among the residents, as demonstrated by the large crowd present for its dedication ceremony. It is gratifying to know that simplicity can be so meaningful and profound.

“Simplicity” was a theme that permeated our discussions with Bob. In talking about his marriage, he states that one of the high points of their marriage came in their early years, when they were living a simple life in which they fished and lived off the land.

Bob’s first job was in Bighorn Mountain, at a forest preserve 10,000-feet high. He and his wife lived there in a one-room cabin, and they both loved the challenge of the hard living conditions and primitive setting. He remembers that Sue learned to fly fish, and they ate fish almost every night. In a voice heavy with emotion, Bob states, “Fancy amenities don’t make one happy. It was these simple times in nature that we treasured. My wife and I had a good marriage. It was based on mutual trust.” He added, “I always had a feeling of satisfaction every day working with someone who sympathized, knew my high spots, and fed my low spots, which helped even things out. We each appreciated the other’s interests.” They loved and raised two children together, a son and daughter.

She brought a new perspective to my life coming from Europe. Sue was born and raised in France. Her father was a colonel in the French cavalry and, unfortunately, he died in the First World War...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Doris Lessing: 'The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests'

"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests. Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did...

"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives. [The teacher tried to] catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish...This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing."--novelist and longtime feminist icon Doris Lessing 

One of my favorite quotes about the modern gender wars from novelist/feminist icon Doris Lessing. She elaborates on this theme in the article below.

Lay off men, Lessing tells feminists: Novelist condemns female culture that revels in humiliating other sex
The Guardian [UK]
5/14/01

The novelist Doris Lessing yesterday claimed that men were the new silent victims in the sex war, "continually demeaned and insulted" by women without a whimper of protest.

Lessing, who became a feminist icon with the books The Grass is Singing and The Golden Notebook, said a "lazy and insidious" culture had taken hold within feminism that revelled in flailing men.

Young boys were being weighed down with guilt about the crimes of their sex, she told the Edinburgh book festival, while energy which could be used to get proper child care was being dissipated in the pointless humiliation of men.

"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed," the 81-year-old Persian-born writer said yesterday.

"Great things have been achieved through feminism. We now have pretty much equality at least on the pay and opportunities front, though almost nothing has been done on child care, the real liberation.

"We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?

"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.

"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."

Lessing said the teacher tried to "catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish".

She added: "This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.

"It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.

"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

"Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."

Lessing claimed that much of the "great energy" whipped up by feminism had "been lost in hot air and fine words when we should have been concentrating on changing laws.

"We have got the pay but only real equality comes when child care is sorted out and it hasn't been yet, well not for those who really need it anyway".

Lessing also revealed she is not going to write a third volume of her autobiography because she did not want to offend so "many great and eminent people by reminding them of their silliness. I just can't be bothered, to be honest."

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Finally the Gays Give Me a Little Props...

"Lisa Miller, in trying to sever the bonds between Jenkins and their daughter, said that the girl and Jenkins had a 'friendship,' not a parental relationship. Jenkins responded:

"'Friends don't pay child support for other people's kids."

It's not an issue I cover a lot, but I believe in gay rights, am opposed to anti-gay prejudice, and believe that gays should have the right to get married if they want to.  Because I'm a men's advocate, I've never expected to get the slightest bit of acknowledgement from the gay community, which is generally aligned with the feminist movement. On that I've been correct. I also expected that my position that "children need fathers" would be twisted into being anti-gay, and on that I've also been correct.

For example, you may remember last June when I urged my readers to write newspapers in protest of Berkeley Breathed's nationally-syndicated OPUS cartoon "Davie Dinkle has two moms" which, I noted "gives fathers a nice kick in the teeth Father's Day week."

In the comic, which appeared in many of America's largest newspapers, two elementary school boys discuss a classmate who is being raised by two lesbian moms. One boy says, "Makes you wonder how he'll do without a male role model in the house." Right afterwards, the drunken, idiot father angrily throws the TV out the window, yelling, "Now THAT was a pitch you @$%* moron!"

Not surprisingly, the gay press fired back at me and I was unjustly pilloried as some sort of bigot in gay newspapers and press throughout the country. (To be fair, I was surprised and pleased to see that The Advocate, one of America’s leading gay publications, covered the controversy over "Davie Dinkle has two moms" fairly and accurately in its article “Cartoonist causes controversy with 'male-bashing' comic.”)

Anyway, as many of you know, on numerous occasions I have defended lesbian social mothers' custody rights in lesbian divorces/breakups. I have also pointed to the many similarities between the way lesbian biological mothers drive their former lesbian partners out of the lives of the children they agreed to have together and similar actions by heterosexual mothers against their ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends. To learn more, see me recent blog post In Defense of Janet Jenkins, Lesbian Mom and my co-authored column Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald & various others, 12/10/06).

Anyway, I was a little pleased the other day when I noticed a gay journalist, Nick Langewis finally gave me a little props for sticking up for gays. The story--Dads' rights advocate: Lesbian moms, divorced dads are in the same boat--is below. Leading the charge to strip Janet Jenkins of her relationship with her daughter is Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber.

I thought Langewis covered the dispute well. I particularly liked this--Lisa Miller, in trying to sever the bonds between Jenkins and their daughter, said that the girl and Jenkins had a "friendship," not a parental relationship. Jenkins responded:

"Friends don't pay child support for other people's kids."

You go girl...

Dads' rights advocate: Lesbian moms, divorced dads are in the same boat
By Nick Langewis
www.pageoneq.com (4/17/08) 

Father's rights advocate and columnist Glenn Sacks tells lesbian mom Janet Jenkins, currently involved in an interstate custody battle with her daughter's biological mom: Welcome to the "dads' club."

The Virginia Supreme Court is preparing to write the latest chapter in the saga today. The court is hearing oral arguments, having been called upon to decide whether Virginia can ignore legal precedent and previously enacted state and federal law to overrule a Vermont Family Court decision affirming Jenkins' status as a legal parent and granting her visitation with her daughter Isabella.

Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller (formerly Miller-Jenkins) conceived Isabella during a relationship that began in 1998. They lived in Hamilton, Virginia, traveling to Vermont in December of 2000 to enter into a civil union. Lisa carried Isabella to term, giving birth on April 16, 2002. The three would move to Fair Haven, Vermont in July of 2002. Janet, Lisa and Isabella lived there as a family until September of 2003, when their relationship ended, Lisa renounced her homosexuality, and returned to Virginia, taking Isabella with her.

In November of the same year, Lisa returned to Vermont and petitioned to dissolve the civil union, seeking custody of Isabella and child support payments from Janet. Janet also sought custody, but Lisa disagreed that Janet had any parental standing at all, since she was not the biological mother.

"To me, it was more like Isabella and Janet had a deep friendship," Lisa testified to the Rutland County Family Court, insisting that she, as the biological parent, was the only legal one.

"Friends don't pay child support for other people's kids," Janet responded, according to the Washington Post's extensive early 2007 article "About Isabella".

On June 17, 2004, the court awarded Janet visitation rights. On July 1, 2004, the same day that Virginia's Affirmation of Marriage Act took effect, a dissatisfied Lisa asked the Frederick County, Virginia Circuit Court to nullify Rutland County, Vermont's order and sever Janet's parental rights on the basis that the new law did not recognize their family, in direct contradiction of Vermont's civil union law and the recent ruling.

Such a move, in which one parent crosses state lines in hopes of using its laws to overturn a decision made in another jurisdiction, is called "forum shopping," a violation of both state in federal law; in the Miller-Jenkins case, Lisa's move was illegal under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A) and Virginia's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.1 et seq). Frederick County Judge Prosser picked up the case nonetheless and, in August of 2004, ruled against Janet, naming Lisa the sole parent of Isabella on the basis that the Affirmation of Marriage Act was meant by the state's General Assembly to overpower previously enacted laws which would have barred him from hearing the very case he ruled on.

Janet's attorneys challenged the ruling on December 8, 2004; the Virginia Court of Appeals would ultimately overturn Judge Prosser's decision and uphold the Vermont order in November of 2006. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court's ruling on May 8, 2007. The Vermont Supreme Court upheld the Family Court's decision on March 14, 2008.

"I've noted that Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children," Glenn Sacks wrote in his series, "Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment," "including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child's best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child."

"Opponents of gay marriage, gay activists and the media have focused almost exclusively on the new decision's impact on same-sex marriage," Sacks wrote following Virginia's 2006 ruling. "Lost in this, however, is the fact that the case is a textbook example of one of America's greatest social problems -- the refusal of many divorcing mothers to allow their children to continue to have a relationship with their former spouses."

Read Langewis' full article here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

George Dvorsky : 'The delay in the male pill has been caused by an underdeveloped male social movement'

I thought this article by George Dvorsky of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies was interesting--Sorry ladies, the male birth control pill is not about you. Dvorsky is the Director of Operations for Commune Media, an advertising and marketing firm that specializes in marketing science.

Too often the discussion of the male pill is only framed in terms of "now the poor, long-suffering ladies will be less put upon as men finally begin to share the burden." Dvorsky instead discusses the male birth control bill as empowering men--a view we don't hear enough. He writes:

"This is a male issue about male reproduction. And all that it entails. The pill will resolve a number problems that men typically face.

"It will be dramatically less invasive and severe than a vasectomy—a procedure that can be reversed, but one that’s quite involved and not always possible. The male pill will also prove to be much more reliable than condoms or withdrawal which can have worst-case failure rates of 15 and 27 percent respectively (!!!).

"Also, the male pill will have a profound sociological impact similar to what happened after the advent of the female birth-control pill. This will prove to be a seminal event as far as the men’s movement is concerned.

"In fact, a strong case can be made that the delay in the male pill has been caused by an underdeveloped male social movement. The sense of urgency to develop a MBCP has been quelled by the dissenters and the disconnected. Men need to be aware of those forces that work to prevent the advent of not just the male pill, but a cohesive and powerful men’s rights movement itself.

"The possibility of a male pill has caused a number of women to pause and reflect on the implications.

"Should a woman believe a guy who says, 'Trust me, baby, I’m on the pill'?

"Most women would likely say no. It’s doubtful that women would put faith in men to stick to a strict schedule of birth-control pill popping. Men are supposed to be untrustworthy and irresponsible, right? After all, they’re not the ones who would have to deal with a pregnancy.

"Aside from what this says about negative male stereotyping, this complaint neglects three fundamental issues.

"First, people must take control over their own reproductive processes and not rely on the other person. This goes for both men and women. The MBCP will finally help men know for certain that they have virtually no chance of impregnating a partner.

"Which immediately brings to mind the problem of trust that many men are confronted with today. Should men trust women when they make the same claim? How many times has a man been duped into fatherhood by an opportunistic woman?...

"The male pill, will at the very least, help men avoid this risk...most men do in fact deal with a pregnancy and the introduction of an unexpected child—be it parental or fiscal responsibilities. There are more accountable single dads who have joint custody of their children than ever before in history.

"As Glenn Sacks has said, 'Power is the reward which comes with responsibility.'

"Indeed, because women have had to bear the burden of contraception, they have gained control over an integral component of human life, namely reproduction. The MBCP threatens to wrest that control from women to men...

"Men are currently at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the choice of reproduction—but this is now set to change."

The full article can be seen here. My article that he drew my quote from is Do Women Really Want a Male Birth Control Pill? (Newsday, 4/11/05).

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Nim's Island: A Positive Father-Daughter Movie

Jeana, a reader, recently wrote me about the new movie Nim's Island. She says:

"I wanted to tell you to take your daughter to see Nim's Island. It's about a widower scientist who lives on a deserted island with his 10 or 11 year old daughter and who becomes separated from her and tries (and succeeds) in finding his way back to her.

"It shows a great father image, a wonderful relationship between a father and daughter, and a strong, resourceful girl (who is that way because of the unconventional life her dad and her live).

"It's a great movie, and I think it would get 2 thumbs up from Father's Rights Activists."

Have any readers seen it?

To learn more about the movie, see the trailer here, the Wikipedia write-up here, or the theatrical trailer here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

If there were ever a guy in a no-win situation, it's James Rhoades

"For nearly two years, James Rhoades, a university librarian in Tallahassee, has been fighting to establish in law what science and fact already have shown beyond any doubt: He is the biological father of the boy dubbed J.A.R. He's got DNA tests to prove it, and videos and loads of pictures of him with the boy. In the photos too are the boy's mother, J.N.R., whom Rhoades met while taking an online graduate course. She was — and still is — married to another man, who was stationed at a Pensacola Air Force base during their affair in 2005. And that's the problem.

"Last week, in a decision that underscores the tense relationship between science and law, a divided Kentucky Supreme Court told Rhoades that he could not press his paternity claim, no matter what evidence of fatherhood he might have, because J.N.R. was, and remains, a married woman. When it comes to defining fatherhood in the Bluegrass State, where Ricketts and her husband now live, the marital 'I do' mean a lot more than DNA...

"The decision has left Rhoades devastated. 'What I wanted was not just to see my son but to participate in his life. 'He is my son and I love him.'"--TIME Magazine, 4/29/08

James Rhoades lost a close decision in the Kentucky Supreme Court recently. As we've previously discussed, I have mixed emotions about Rhoades and his case. I will say this--if there were ever a guy in a no-win situation, it's Rhoades. If he gives up and doesn't pursue a relationship with his son, his son will only know of him as his villain dad who knocked up his mom and then ran out. If he does pursue his case--as he has--he's vilified as the intruder wrecking a loving family's peaceful life. It seems to me that Rhoades is probably doing the best he can to do the right thing in the difficult situation he helped create.

On one level, the case is one reason why I sympathize with family law judges and the position they're put in--people make an absolute mess of their lives and then come to court and expect the courts to solve it.

On another level, while as a general rule I've little sympathy for men who have sex with married women, I can sympathize (to a point) with Rhoades. I remember in my 20s I briefly dated a woman who was separated but not divorced from her husband. I wasn't crazy about being involved with a woman who was still technically married, but she told me a story about what a bastard her husband was, etc., etc., and I, of course, believed it. In being with her it didn't seem like I was doing anything wrong. I suspect, with some basis, that Rhoades was given the same shtick--my husband doesn't love me, I'm so sad with him, you're the one who makes me happy, etc. Then she decided to stick with her husband and Rhoades was left out in the cold, cut off from his son.

The full article is Despite DNA, Dad's Paternity Denied (TIME, 4/29/08).

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

UK Judge: Good fathers are 'powerless against vengeful mothers'

From Good fathers 'powerless against vengeful mothers' (Daily Telegraph, 5/1/08):

"Decent fathers are left powerless to see their estranged children if vengeful mothers are determined to prevent access, a senior judge has admitted.

"Lord Justice Ward attacked child access law after presiding over a case that saw a 'vicious' mother falsely accuse her ex-husband of sexually abusing their child.

"He spoke out after telling the father that there was nothing he could do to help him re-establish contact with his daughter after his ex-wife turned her against him.

"The man’s 14-year-old daughter, who cannot been identified, had been influenced by a 'drip, drip, drip of venom' from his ex-wife, who wanted to deny him his paternal rights...

"In London’s Civil Appeal Court, Lord Justice Ward said: “The father complains bitterly, passionately, and with every justification, that the law is sterile, impotent and utterly useless...

"The malignant influence of the mother, who lives in the Lincoln area, came to a head when the girl wrote to her father when she was nine.

"The letter read: 'This is what I really think about you. I hate you and you frighten me. You made my life miserable and stressful. I wish you would die. Leave me alone.'"

If only we could have 1/10th of the public awareness and condemnation of mothers like this as we do of fathers who are behind on their child support...

Read the full article here. To learn more about Parental Alienation, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Dr. Warren Farrell's Shared Parenting Evidence Kit--What You Need to Win Shared Physical Custody Dr. Warren Farrell, a top expert on children of divorce now offers a complete evidence kit to help you win shared custody.  The DVDs, audio CD and electronic files summarize the best scientific research available collected over decades.  Scientific research has proven that children do far better with near equal time with both parents with minimal conditions.  This video set was developed to educate parents, judges, lawyers, psychologists and other divorce professionals. Most judges are doing exactly what is worst for children with sole-custody.  Submitted as evidence this will maximize your chances. Divorce Reform groups call(508) 381-1450 to use as fundraiser. www.BestInterestofChildren.org

Help for Michigan Dads Michigan family law attorney Mindy L. Hitchcock has experience fighting for noncustodial parents against Michigan's abusive FOC. Her holistic approach to divorce gets results for her clients while avoiding the scorched earth approach to law that leaves families emotionally and financially devastated. Lady4Justice.com

A Nice Father-Son Ad from Rogers TV

A nice, father-positive ad from Rogers TV. Apparently the ad is the Rogers TV type of TiVo. Doesn't the father-son interaction here look a hell of a lot more like you and your kid than the relentless parade of "dad-as-idiot" commercials we're subjected to?

To learn more about the problems with the way men are portrayed in advertising, see my column Father Knows Best (Adweek, 3/12/07) and my co-authored column Advertisers: Men Are Not Idiots (Advertising Age, 4/14/08).

To watch the ad, click here. Thanks to Jay, a reader, for sending it.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Another Dad Loses His Baby in Adoption Scam

Background: In my recent blog post Father of Newborn 'Did Everything One Would Hope a Man in His Position Would Do'--but It Wasn't Enough, we discussed the case of an embattled California father, Jorge C., who fought a long, hard and ultimately unsuccessful battle to be a father to his baby boy.

The boy's birth was hidden from him and the mother gave the child up for adoption after, according to one judge, she had “engaged in a web of lies.”

The case reminded me of this remarkable story--From Sask. adoptive parents win custody of baby boy (CTV, 1/29/07):

"The biological father of an infant boy in Saskatchewan has lost a battle for custody, after the court decided the child should stay with the adoptive parents he has known almost all his nine-month-old life...

"The biological father launched a legal battle last year to get custody of the baby, arguing he hadn't agreed to the adoption. He said he hadn't even been aware he was the child's father and once he found out, he sought custody.

"The adoptive parents argued they followed proper procedures in adopting the baby. In testimony heard last year, the biological mother said she chose the couple to raise her son because she already knew them and knew they couldn't have children of their own.

"In a 35-page judgment released Monday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench said the unofficial adoption had served in the child's best interests and should be maintained...

"As well, the court found the biological father was capable of having a positive presence in the baby's life, but not in a parental role. So in order to give the child a year of 'familial calm' to promote bonding and attachment in his current home, the court banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year.

"'My concern is [the boy] could have immense difficulty, particularly in the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult relationships in his life. In the interests of [the boy's] stability, it is best that he have intermittent exposure to [the biological father], rather than structured continuous access,' the court said in its ruling.

"Although this case has generated considerable heartache and stress, it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong. Although lives have been disrupted, the turmoil arose from the often complex circumstances that flow from the unfolding lives of real people with human frailties."

A few comments:

1) I do recognize that the judge was in a very difficult situation here. I would've allowed the father and his new wife to raise the boy but given the adoptive couple liberal visitation time with the baby. But the judge is correct--there's no easy or completely satisfactory solution here.

2) I would disagree with the judge's assertion that "it cannot, in a fair-minded way, be said that any party has been in the wrong." The mother was wrong--she should have allowed the father to raise his own child, instead of sneaking behind his back to put the child up for adoption.

3) While the judge insists that mom didn't do anything wrong, I wonder why nobody mentions the obvious possible motive she had to surreptitiously adopt out the baby--the desire to avoid paying child support to the biological father for the child. This may not have been her motive but I know one thing--if it had been the father in her position, everybody would have assumed from the beginning that this was his motive.

4) The judge "banned the biological father from seeing the baby for a year"--nice. And what a jerk the dad is--wanting to impose on the adoptive couple by visiting his own child. I wonder if the mother--who caused the whole problem to begin with--has been "banned" from seeing her baby, too? Somehow I doubt it.

5) According to this story the father apparently has to pay child support to the adopted couple to raise the child he should've been allowed to raise. So he gets the financial responsibility for his child without having any parental rights to his child--what a cynic might call one of the core principles of modern family law.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

'I do not agree with your premise in the protest of Fox's show Bad Dads

Below is a letter from Bruce, who does not agree with our campaign against Fox's new reality show Bad Dads. Like many people, he has been misled by the media onslaught about "deadbeat dads."

Mr. Sacks,

As a non-custodial father, I have maintained a good payment record of child support, and make those payments a priority. I do not agree with your premise in the protest of Fox's show Bad Dads.
 
There are huge numbers of non-custodial fathers who simply walk away from any and all responsibility for their children. This show will attempt to find those selfish , narcissistic scoundrels, who never seem to be lacking for beer, cigarettes, cable TV, trips to Vegas, nice cars, dating expenses, clothes, etc., but are "unable" to meet court requirements to financially support their children.
 
I can appreciate men having an advocate, but your position doesn't pass the smell test, in my opinion.

Sincerely,
Bruce

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Another Engagement Ring Story, but This Time a Different Ending...

In my recent blog post Man Gets Engagement Ring Back, but at a Steep Price, I blogged about a man who was engaged to be married and who lost the engagement ring he intended to give to his fiancée, and was then extorted from by the person who found the ring. It certainly was not a particularly pleasant story--one would like to have a higher opinion of the kindness of strangers. However, one reason why the story struck me was that it paralleled an experience my wife and I had.

Many years ago when my wife and I were newlyweds, my wife was having some back problems and went to Kaiser for an MRI. The lab technician told her to take her ring and jewelry off before she went into the machine. She did this, but the incompetent technician did not tell her she needed to remove her shoes. When they turned on the machine, my wife was in enormous pain -- apparently the metal nails in her shoes were being drawn towards the machine, and the effect was that it compressed her aching spine sharply. My wife was very upset and left quickly.

When she got home, she realized that her engagement ring was missing. We raced over to Kaiser and looked through the MRI room, asked security, etc., etc., but nobody knew where her ring was. My wife was very upset and in tears.

I took her out to eat, and at one point I took her hand from across the table and explained that the ring wasn't important, what really mattered was that we had each other, and that we really were very lucky after all. She agreed with me and cheered up. A couple minutes later, our cell phone rang.

A woman who had also been at Kaiser for a medical procedure had found the ring. I guess she reported it to security and they gave her our phone number. We went over to her house and got the ring.

She never mentioned anything about money or a reward. We asked her if there was anything we could do to thank her, and she politely declined. It's been 15 years, and I'm sure she has long since forgotten her kindness to us. I have not.

I suppose the story would not be complete without a little information about the way Kaiser handled it. Having mishandled/manhandled my wife during her first MRI, Kaiser graciously offered her another one--in three months. I think I called and screamed at every Kaiser official from here to Sacramento in order to get her another MRI quickly.

All in all, I still remember the incident warmly, both for the woman's kindness to us and also for those special "We were young, had no money, were struggling but we had each other" memories that most couples have.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Vanity Fair Quotes Kathleen Parker, Glenn on 'Men Evolving Badly'

Vanity Fair's new piece Men Evolving Badly quotes numerous authorities on modern gender issues, including Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, authors Harvey C. Mansfield and Guy Garcia, comedian Jerry Seinfeld, and myself. It's kind of an odd piece, for a few reasons.

One is that it focuses a lot on Rabbi Shmuley and his various discontents. I never label pro-feminist men "self-haters" or "M***ginas." However, from my experiences as a guest on Shumley's national radio show, it was quite apparent that he is often very hostile to men. His mantra was "men have to change"--not "men and women have to change," of course, but "men have to change."

But odder is the way Vanity Fair quotes Kathleen Parker and I:

"In The Decline of Men, Garcia introduces us to one of the leading fathers’-rights advocates, radio talk-show host, blogger, and columnist Glenn Sacks, who rails against the deconstructionists who minimize the importance of male parental influence, which results in a legal system that’s 'skewed against fathers maintaining a close relationship with their children': 'Sacks blames a social predisposition to treat men as unworthy parents, betrayers and incorrigible philanderers who have no interest in maintaining close ties to their children.'

"Ramping up the defense argument, Kathleen Parker writes in Save the Males, 'One of the cruelest pieces of propaganda in the war against fatherhood has been the myth of the ‘deadbeat dad.’ Certainly, some fathers may be first-rate losers, but the ‘deadbeat dad’ trope has become so entrenched that all fathers are presumed low-lifes.' She lays out a case regarding the inequities of child support and visitation rights without trying to make excuses for the real finks. 'Those who abandon or otherwise ignore their children do not deserve our charity. But if children are, indeed, our primary concern, we might find more constructive ways to help fathers participate in their children’s lives rather than demonizing them.'”

Fair enough, but rather than dealing with the very real problems Kathleen and I cite, or even acknowledging them, Vanity Fair goes right back into men-have-everything/women-have-nothing--"Keep in mind that the odds still favor the penis-bearer. The passport privileges of being a man have hardly been revoked. If anything, they’ve been super-ratified for roof entry to the helicopter pad."

The full article is Men Evolving Badly: American manhood is in crisis, judging by a surge of manifestos such as The Decline of Men, The Disposable Male, and Save the Males. Performing his own culture check, from High Noon to The Simpsons, the author crashes the pity party by James Wolcott (Vanity Fair, 4/21/08).

To write a Letter to the Editor of Vanity Fair, click on here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.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