Advocating for Lower Child Support
Payments Undermines Awareness of the
Tyranny Fit Fathers Face
© Shane Flait (2011)
The U.S. requires the states to review
their child support guidelines. Family
court judges oversee hearings where
anyone may give his opinion on current
state child support guidelines. Fathers
groups who push simply for more
reasonable (lower) child support
payments lend justification of a
tyrannical system that controls them
and, thereby, help cover up the real
denial of rights they face.
A recent review process prompted me to
consider how father’s rights advocates
should generally address this review
process. First, though, I want to
clarify the circumstance that produces a
child support order.
What is child support
and who is supposed to pay it?
Under divorce & paternity suits in
Massachusetts, a judge orders one of the
two fit parents into a non custodial
status, while the other takes on a
custodial status (i.e. the child lives
with the parent). Fathers are
overwhelmingly assigned, indeed
targeted, to be non custodial parents
for operationally one reason – they are
men. I shall not beat around the bush on
this!
The significance of the non custodial
status is that it encompasses the loss
of a host of fundamental (i.e.
constitutional) rights. These include,
first and foremost, parental rights
(i.e. right to care, control, nurture,
and directly support your child),
effectively what job you can work at as
it relates to your ability to pay an
assigned child support order, limitation
on where you can go such as traveling
out of the country if you owe child
support. Nonpayment of the assigned
child support will prompt confiscation
of your property and jail.
Such a status is constitutionally
illegal. It is virtually a slave status.
Additionally, the legal process by which
a father is assigned this status is
unconstitutional since the denial of any
fundamental right, such as parental
rights, must find the parent to be unfit
by clear and convincing evidence and
shown to present serious (i.e.
life-threatening) harm to the child.
This is generally never the case
Child support payments under this
scenario are more accurately termed
child extortion payments. The law puts
no restriction on what the mother can
use these ‘child support’ payments for.
Many studies have shown, time and again,
that the judicial and legislative
creation of this dual and extremely
unequal status for fit parents - with
the father operationally relegated to
non custodial status - actually
encourages women to file divorce and
paternity suits for the selfish benefits
it brings them and thereby helps to
create a society growing more fatherless
everyday.
At the same time it most often leads to
the destruction of father-child
relationship, the dissolution of
families, and the undermining of the
wealth and legacy that fathers create
for their children (and families) since
it effectively brings about the civil
murder of those fathers. The present
system is, in large part, responsible
for much of the social pathology
associated with fatherless children.
This system is obviously not in the best
interests of the child not to mention
freedom for all.
This non custodial status, with the
guaranteed child extortion payments that
it brings, is the engine that makes this
tyrannical system grows since the
process by which this status is imposed
funds a whole industry known as the
Divorce and Domestic Violence Industry (DDVI).
The DDVI with all its extortion payments
and fees as well as state and federal
funding continues to lobby for more of
the same. Importantly, it always lobbies
against a status guaranteeing equal
parenting rights and full individual
rights for both fit parents which is the
only constitutional status for parents
(i.e. a real father and mother).
Now, fathers rights advocates always
correctly claim that these payments
leave non custodial fathers with little,
if anything to live on. These payments
are almost never diminished when
fathers’ incomes go down, and many
fathers are assigned or fall into
support orders significantly above the
already draconian child support
guidelines levels for their
circumstance.
This puts fathers in an untenable
position and ripe for jailing - a clear
unconstitutional arrangement. Horror
stories on these issues are ubiquitous.
Often fathers, left dead broke, careers
destroyed, homes broken irreparably, are
tracked down by ‘our government’ to be
thrown in jail under the applause of a
public ignorant of the evil that is the
divorce and paternity process carried
out by our family courts judges.
Enabling the tyranny
Unfortunately, many fathers’ rights
advocates simply argue for a solution to
their untenable or grievous circumstance
that the guidelines need to be made more
reasonable, more easily adjusted when
incomes drop. Unbelievably, though, this
approach is fundamentally a
justification of the present system that
I’ve called unconstitutional in every
way.
Some years ago Judge Ginsburg (a family
court judge) instructed a father (a 35
year old fireman) who was complaining of
a child support order that required him
to work an extra job just to squeeze by
(and who’s ex-wife was alienating his
daughter) that fathers rights groups had
participated in the process of
determining child support to quiet the
objections of the father. It was a
disgusting justification.
After his retirement Judge Ginsburg
actually testified that child support
guidelines should be raised, while
fathers, participating at the hearing,
are testifying that the problem with the
system is that child support is simply
too high. Sure enough, under the new
federal review laws, fathers are indeed
helping to determine what the child
support guidelines should be – within
the construct of such a malicious and
unconstitutional divorce/paternity
system.
Unfortunately, these fathers are
validating the very system that is
extorting money from them while stealing
their children - a system based upon
putting them in a constitutionally
illegal status by means of a
constitutionally illegal process.
Fathers’ rights advocates such as these
are acting like slaves arguing for
better slave conditions (or as prisoners
fighting for better prison conditions).
What they fail to realize is that they
aren’t supposed to be slaves in the
first place; or, they are not prisoners
who belong in prison. And that most
important point is NOT getting out to
the public! Such advocates are, at best,
only pruning the branches on the tree
that is a divorce/paternity tyranny.
Pruning is generally healthy for trees!
Wake up
and Smell the Coffee:
What we need are fathers (and other
decent people) hacking at the roots of
this tyranny and its unconstitutional
basis. Fathers’ rights advocates should
recognize what they ought to be fighting
for a return to constitutional rights
and protection for everyone including
fathers.
For
slavery to exist, it requires the
cooperation of the slaves. Fathers’
slavery is part of the war on fathers
and fatherhood taking place now. Those
who don't fight for their rights and
freedom, neither get them nor deserve
them.
END