I shamelessly promoted my critique of “choice for men” on mensactivism.org, and got a very nice reply from “Larry” (as well as some less nice replies from my faithful anonymous cyber-stalker).
I had pointed out that the inequalities of “choice” – women can have abortions, but men cannot – are biological, not legal. Larry agrees with that as far as it goes, but claims that I “left out one legal reality:” – the fact that mothers, Larry says, already have the right to (in my phrase) “cut and run.” “In my state, Michigan, a woman now has 30 days from the birth of a child to drop it off at any hospital, church or police station, no questions asked. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that both adoption and legal abandonment relieve the mother of any further financial obligation.”
Larry is referring to Michigan’s “Safe Delivery of Newborns” law, but I’m betting he’s never read it. Contrary to Larry’s talk about “a woman” and “the mother,” the Safe Delivery act is scrupulously gender-neutral. Under the law, either parent can drop off a newborn within the first 3 days (not 30) of the infant’s birth. The parent then has 28 days for a change of heart before a publicly-announced custody hearing. During those 28 days, either biological parent can claim custody of the child with a simple DNA test; additionally, the child placement agency must use that time to search for the “parent who did not surrender the newborn.”
So what happens when a mother wants to give up the child under Michigan’s law, but the father takes custody instead? Then the father has every right to sue for child support – just as my earlier essay said. By exempting fathers but not mothers from child support, “choice for men” would actually create legal inequality where it didn’t exist before.
Larry claims that “the law works one way for men and another way for women” – but his only example of a discriminatory law, Michigan’s Safe Delivery law, is gender-neutral. He says “mothers often do have the right to sign away a child’s future right to support, both before and after birth” – but that’s not true. My guess is that Larry is thinking of adoption laws, but an adopted child hasn’t had their right to support signed away; the identity of the parents changes, but the right to parental support does not. And legally mothers and fathers have an equal right to give up children for adoption. (In practice, sometimes mothers give children up for adoption without informing the father – but that’s only because it’s not biologically possible for a father to have a child without the mother’s knowledge. The inequality is in biology, not the law. And the proposed “choice for men” law won’t change that in the slightest.)
Although Larry isn’t intentionally lying, his argument is deceptive. Larry believes that “choice for men” is about fairness and will give fathers equal rights. But the law doesn’t allow mothers to tell fathers “I give you all responsibilities and obligations of raising our child, and you don’t even have the right to sue me for child support!” “Choice for men,” as described by Sacks and Thompson’s article, would create that right for men and men alone. How is creating a new legal right for men alone “equality?” How can depriving a child of the right to parental support be fairness?
As a father who has spent 2.5 years and over $65,000.00 to be a father and not a “disneyland dad, I feel the system is totally unfair to men. The majority of “deadbeat dads” are making less than $18K per year, or have lost thier jobs and still have to pay child support equal to their past wages. I have had to defend myself against everything in the book once my son’s mother decided she wanted to take him, move, and have me see our son 4 days a month. After a vicious family court battle the judge awarded me with 15 days, and full legal rights. Our orders included mandatory use of my last name, and that I was to be included in all aspects of my sons life. October of 03 was our court date, after 8 months his mom wanted to move again, I said no as I am rooted here in Morro Bay and she was only moving out of spite. The next week she accused me of sexually molesting my son. I have taught martial arts for 12 years, children from 5 years old to adults. I am a straight up horny heterosexual..The first allegation took 2 weeks to be cleared. I could not see my son for those two weeks. Then in the next 4 months there were 5 more allegations sent to the DA. I was also attacked by two or three guys and almost lost my finger and was stabbed in my foot. I have had to walk away from countless confrontations with her friends whom would try and get me to fight so they could have me arrested as I have earned several black belts. If i did not have my martial skills I may have been killed when I was attacked with a blunt object and a knife that nearly severed my pinky. All came back as unfounded. After a long and expensive psych eval (which I had to pay for $3500.00) the results were that she either has Munchhausen By Proxy or is mentally insane to the point where she would do anything to get our son to herself. We went back to court two weeks ago and I was awarded FULL CUSTODY of our 3 year old son. I am now trying to buy another home (had to sell mine to pay for litigation) andf get my life back together and raise my son. His mom see’s him once a week under the supervision of a therapist. In our society a woman can scream domestic violence or rape or child abuse and they will take that child from the man until he can clear his name. If I did not have a house and high end sports car to sell for attorney’s fee’s I would probably be seeing my son 4 days per month. My story is much more complicated, and I am not perfect, but I am a dedicated, loving father. I will write more, and am actually going to write a book about my own story to help other fathers in my shoes. I have been through it all..THANKS FOR READING AND LETTING ME VENT! If any fathers want some free advise, it would be my honor to help anyone who wants it. Thank you…
Carlos, statements like this, based on your experience and yours alone– “In our society a woman can scream domestic violence or rape or child abuse and they will take that child from the man until he can clear his name”—do not do you any good, because this is simply not true. Your statement contains the assumption that such an accusation is a malicious lie.
The fact is, men have a better than even chance of getting custody when they fight for it, and there’s all sorts of dirty tricks abusive men can play, too. There’s still a double standard for parenthood, and women get judged harshly indeed when they’re not perfect. Meanwhile, a guy who chnageds a diaper now and then is seen as Superdad.
Carlos, I’m sorry for what you’ve gone through, but you’re not really talking about what Ampersand is talking about.
Larry’s proposal gives fathers rights mothers do not have. How is that fair?
A better way to divide the baby (so to speak) would be to give unmarried fathers an opt-IN, rather than opt-OUT requirement. That is, there is no presumption of rights nor responsibilities unless the father signs irrevocable papers to the contrary. Mom can give the baby up for adoption, raise the baby alone, and keep Dad out of the kid’s life, and can’t ask for child support–all unless Dad chooses to ‘opt in’ and assume full parental rights.
As a bonus, men never need worry about a ‘Father’s Day surprise’–absent signing on for daddyhood, an unmarried father is never on the hook. Of course, he also has no right whatsoever to custody or visitation, ever, but isn’t that a small price to pay for escaping child support?
Funnily, I don’t get many men’s-rights activists who are takers on that one.
In our society a woman can scream domestic violence or rape or child abuse and they will take that child from the man until he can clear his name.
But in our society, a woman can be jailed for “failure to protect” in the event of domestic violence, rape and child abuse, even if she was unaware of the events occuring.
That aside, I feel sorry for you Carlos, but I think the system is not particularly unfair to men, and that your situation (physical violence, near murder etc.) is the exception rather than the rule. The situation/people involved are unfair, not so much the system.
Off topic, but something there stands out to me – why mandatory use of your last name?
What if the child would rather use his mom’s name?
I don’t use my father’s name. I chose my own surname.
I don’t understand the last name thing either, my daughter has my last name I am guessing that was one sexist Judge.
“Meanwhile, a guy who chnageds a diaper now and then is seen as Superdad.” I loved this, and its true my guy is a great dad nad Partner and he receives countless praise for it where as I am just expected to do it all without the same praise… I don’t expect it but I don’t see why women are always just expected to do everything and do everything absolutely right.
“In our society a woman can scream domestic violence or rape or child abuse”
This is absolutely NOT true, so many women and children go on suffering because this is not true. You got full custody despite the accusations and I would be worried with a system that didn’t immediately remove a child from an abusers care so they can further investigate (even if it was false.) I hope your ex wife gets the help she needs and deserves.
Regarding the last name thing: I knew a couple in which the ex-wife was trying not to use the ex-husband’s last name for their child as a way of erasing, or trying to erase, the connection between father and child both in terms of public perception–for example, at the kid’s school, where the father was questioned about whether or not this was really his kid–and in the child’s own head, since the norm is still that children tend to have their father’s last name. I also knew a couple into whose divorce agreement–it was done by mediation–was written the requirement that the ex-husband was the only person in the ex-wife’s and child’s life who could be referred to as “dad” (in reference to the child), which I assume was to avoid a situation such as the one that held when my mother got remarried, which was that she asked me and my brother to call our stepfather “dad” around the house, despite the fact that we saw our father regularly. At the time, I didn’t understand why my father was so upset, because, after all, I still knew who my father was and calling him by his first name at home didn’t change that; though I do understand now that this was a very particular kind of jab aimed at him by my mother, independently of whether or not it worked to undermine our relationship with him.
I should add that both men were involved non-custodial parents, trying to do their best with their kids in a bad situation.
My daughter has always had my last name, that is the name that was written on the birth certificate. I can very much relate to said situation where-by this woman was trying to erase a person from hers and her childs life.
My daughter also calls my guy Dad as he is the only Dad she has known, we didn’t encourage it she just decided to start calling him Dad after she figured out that all the men who lovingly came and picked their kids up from daycare etc and played with them at the park were Dads. In your particular situation I think that would have been confusing and upsetting, as I said we didn’t encourage anything she didn’t feel completely comfortable with. In all 100% honesty I would be over the moon if my ex would just leave us alone forever and my man would adopt our daughter officially and if it weren’t for his meddling Mother I am confident he would agree to that.
Regarding the last sentence, I find it very difficult to trust that men are decent involved fathers, scorned? bitter? probably but my faith in fathers has only been restored from seeing how great my man is with his daughters. My own father to everyone on the outside including his new wife who has now divorced him and fled the country seemed like a great family loving guy and that could not be further from the truth it is very hard for me to understand why women leave good men/fathers to their children and then keep them from them.
I find it very hard to believe that all these wonderful dads are being kept away from their kids. In my experience and in that of a lot of people I have been in contact with the assumption from the court’s point of view is the father has his rights and the woman must not be allowed to take those away.
As a child, I was forced to see a father who liked to verbally intimidate me, behave in very inappropriate ways with comments about death and abuse, and threaten me with violence. This man had admitted to having fantasies about raping a small girl. Social workers had testified that this man was dangerous and should not be alone with a child. Yet the court demanded that I be brought to see him – thankfully a public contact centre where there were witnesses everywhere, so he didn’t dare try anything physical. Why? Because the overriding concern were HIS RIGHTS. Not the child’s welfare. HIS RIGHTS.
I don’t think I need to explain why this is wrong.
This is not an isolated case.