Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 
 Eliminating fatherlessness 
 

Hi, I'm here, still in San Francisco.

Lou Ann

On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Fathers' Manifesto
wrote:

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry <lahenson@msuvx2.memphis.edu>
> To: Fathers' Manifesto <manifesto@christianparty.net>
> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 2:16 PM
> Subject: Fwd: Forwarding an excellent article from Lou Ann Bassan (rather
> long)
>
>
> >Everybody needs to read this article at least three times!
> >
> >Almost everything I have argued for is in this article. I don't know who
> >Lou Ann Bassan is---but I would love to send her note for such a well
> >written piece.
> >
> >I will post this to my website with all credits to her sometime this week.
> >
> >Larry
> >
>
> Thank you both Larry and Lou Ann for this article.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> John
> >
> >---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
> >Date:        11/10  11:50 PM
> >Received:    11/11  3:25 PM
> >From:        Will Steeves, goid@ican.net
> >
> >At first, this piece does seem to be a father fathers' rights article, but
> >then it quickly becomes much, much more.  Indeed, it reminded me of that
> >time, six years ago, when I first began to realise the inherent hypocrisy
> >of
> >the law allowing a woman to unilaterally choose to deprive a man of a
> >wanted
> >child (I of course support the right to choose, but there are few things
> >worse than being a pro-choice man who gets to witness the loss of a wanted
> >child), while at the same time forcing an unwilling biological father  to
> >spend half of his productive lifetime paying for someone else's unilateral
> >choice to have a child.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Children: Mealtickets for Moms
> >>
> >>If one parent is allowed to be supported for 18 years through the
> >>provision of child support, what happens when the child support ends?
> >>
> >>The supported parent has no skills, no self-esteem, no retirement
> >>benefits, and will likely end up on welfare.
> >>
> >>by Lou Ann Bassan
> >>Copyright (c) 1996 by Lou Ann Bassan
> >>
> >>A custody battle is one of the most horrific experiences that parent and
> >>child can be subjected to. With the advent of no-fault divorce, we have
> >>seen the "fault" element shifted to allegations against one parent by
> >>the other, with the intent to deprive a parent of custody  and/or
> >>visitation. For example, allegations of child abuse (emotional,physical,
> >>and/or sexual), spousal abuse, domestic violence, or substance abuse are
> >>common in contested custody cases, as is the phenomenon of parental
> >>alienation of affection.
> >>
> >>Child support guidelines, which mandate support far in excess of the
> >>actual cost to raise a child, and which ignore the custodial parent's
> >>obligation for equal financial responsibility, are the fuel for the
> >>fire. Parents fight over a mere one percent timeshare in order to be
> >>declared the custodial parent, and thereby win the custody jackpot. The
> >>custodial parent is the mother in more than 90 percent of cases; this,
> >>in turn, has resulted in the national social crisis of a Fatherless
> >>America.
> >>
> >>The time has come to dramatically revamp the issue of child custody. The
> >>financial incentives accompanying an award of custody must be
> >>obliterated. If parents agree on joint physical custody, each parent
> >>must be responsible for the child when the child is in his or her
> >>custody.  The child shares in the parent's standard of living when the
> >>child lives with that parent. When both parents are equally financially
> >>responsible for the cost of raising the child, each parent is encouraged
> >>to work to his or her full potential, instead of trying to minimize
> >>earnings in order to collect more in child support or to avoid having to
> >>pay child support. If one parent is allowed to be supported for 18 years
> >>through the provision of child support, what happens when the child
> >>support ends? The supported parent has no skills, no self-esteem, no
> >>retirement benefits, and will likely end up on welfare. This problem
> >>threatens to become a significant burden to our society, especially due
> >>to the skyrocketing rate of births to unwed mothers, who are ineligible
> >>for spousal support, never having availed themselves of the institution
> >>of marriage.
> >>
> >>A parent with a comfortable level of discretionary income should have
> >>the discretion to spend it on the child as he or she sees fit, without
> >>the government mandating a transfer of funds to the other parent to
> >>equalize households. In cases where the parents have grossly disparate
> >>incomes, there should not be any transfer of money, unless both parents
> >>agree, and agree without the intervention of the state. To do otherwise
> >>only reinstates the financial incentives for sole custody. Life is not
> >>fair; a child must be instilled with the value of our American work
> >>ethic, and should learn the rewards of work from seeing such with his
> >>parents. A child should not be conditioned to an unrealistic expectation
> >>that as an adult a check will arrive in the mailbox without the
> >>necessity of working for it.
> >>
> >>What is the responsibility of a parent who abandons a child. There
> >>currently exists a blatant double standard: a mother gives up her child
> >>for "adoption," but a father "abandons" his child.
> >>
> >>If one parent seeks sole custody, that parent must be willing to accept
> >>sole financial responsibility for the child. If one parent seeks sole
> >>custody, it can be assumed that that parent is attempting to excise the
> >>other parent from the child's life. It is here that the subject of
> >>parental alienation of affection comes up. When a custodial parent
> >>inculcates hatred and hostility in the child against the other parent,
> >>the custodial parent seeks to sever and destroy the parental bond with
> >>the child. This is, then, tantamount to the death of the noncustodial
> >>parent, and the custodial parent should not expect financial recompense
> >>from the other parent -- just as he or she wouldn't expect recompense
> >>from a corpse. To require the noncustodial parent to pay child support
> >>in such a case is simply punitive. Both parents have an equal
> >>responsibility to raise their child, emotionally, physically, and
> >>financially, and one parent cannot choose to have all of the emotional
> >>and physical responsibility, with none of the financial responsibility.
> >>Putting the onus of financial support on the parent who seeks sole
> >>custody would automatically remove the financial incentives for sole
> >>custody.
> >>
> >>A variation on this theme would be to have a default custody percentage
> >>of 50/50, regardless of how much time the child is in the physical
> >>custody of each parent. For example, even if one parent were to seek
> >>sole physical custody, s/he would only have a default custody of 50
> >>percent, while each parent would remain equally financially responsible.
> >>In this fiction, neither parent would be acknowledged as having more
> >>than 50 percent physical custody. This scheme, in fact, satisfies both
> >>the equal financial responsibility of each parent, while removing the
> >>financial incentives for sole custody. Further, it would not require
> >>protracted litigation, or psychological evaluations, or therapists, or
> >>any of the adjunct court attaches that have created an industry
> >>surrounding the issue of custody battles.
> >>
> >>What of the case where one parent abandons the other parent and child?
> >>First, each adult must be responsible for himself or herself, which
> >>narrows the question down to what is the responsibility of a parent who
> >>abandons a child. There currently exists a blatant double standard: a
> >>mother gives up her child for "adoption," but a father "abandons" his
> >>child. In essence, however, each abandons the child. Does this justify a
> >>penalty against a parent? A mother gives up her child for adoption to
> >>social workers, and incurs no penalty. Yet, a father abandons his child
> >>and becomes a hunted animal for the rest of his life. If a mother can
> >>give up her child for adoption to social workers, then a father should
> >>have the same right to give up his child for adoption (for example, to
> >>the mother). Again, the custodial parent should be solely financially
> >>responsible, because, again, the situation is akin to the death of the
> >>other parent.
> >>
> >>The issue of choice must also be addressed. Women have the right to
> >>choose whether or not to have a child; men do not enjoy that right. When
> >>a woman makes a unilateral choice to have a child, she alone is
> >>responsible for needs of the child. A man should not be forced to fund a
> >>woman's unilateral choice. This issue becomes more concrete when
> >>examined in the context of welfare. The majority of AFDC recipients are
> >>single mothers whohave exercised a unilateral choice to bear a child
> >>that they, apparently, cannot  afford. AFDC is obstensibly in place for
> >>the best interest of the child; yet it is the father who is expected to
> >>pay child support and to reimburse the government program, while the
> >>mother is absolved of all financial responsibility and is not expected
> >>to repay a dime. Father custody in lieu of welfare should be the first
> >>option; this, in turn, will alleviate some of our more pressing social
> >>issues, such as the high rate of births to unwed mothers, our
> >>skyrocketing welfare rolls, and our crisis of fatherlessness.
> >>
> >>At this point, you are probably wondering, "But, what about the best
> >>interest of the child?" The "best interest of the child" is an
> >>anachronism. It means nothing, and everything, to the parties and all
> >>those involved in the judicial system. It presumes the existence of the
> >>child in a vacuum, outside the purview of the child's two parents. It is
> >>engendering the most bitter and acrimonious litigation; it is here that
> >>the insidious issue of "fault" has landed, with parents accusing each
> >>other of the most horrific acts -- simply to gain an advantage in the
> >>custody battle.
> >>
> >>Society is making a terrible mistake by concentrating only on the "best
> >>interests" of one element in the dynamic of a family, while ignoring the
> >>other two critical elements: the mother and the father. Society needs to
> >>be concerned about all three persons, and not focus discreetly on only
> >>one; society needs to focus on what is best for the family as a whole
> >>(albeit divorced or separated), which ultimately will benefit society in
> >>general.
> >>
> >>A moveaway case is one in which the custodial parent seeks, for various
> >>and sundry reasons, to move outside the general geographic region with
> >>the child, thereby disrupting the child's life and severing the parental
> >>relationship with the noncustodial parent.
> >>
> >>In line with the concept of "best interest of the child," we are seeing
> >>an attempt to shift the debate to "what is in the best interest of the
> >>custodial mother is, de facto, in the best interest of the child,"
> >>particularly with regard to the issue of "moveaway."
> >>
> >>A moveaway case is one in which the custodial parent seeks, for various
> >>and sundry reasons, to move outside the general geographic region with
> >>the child, thereby disrupting the child's life and severing the parental
> >>relationship with the noncustodial parent. Again, the financial
> >>incentives for such an action need to be obliterated. As discussed
> >>above, the default custody percentage would fit nicely on this problem,
> >>as neither parent would be acknowledged to have more than 50 percent
> >>physical custody, regardless of the reality. The issue is then narrowed
> >>to the effect of fatherlessness on the child; it is becoming more and
> >>more clear that those effects are devastating, not only to the child,
> >>but to society in the long run. The solution would be that upon a
> >>mother's application to move away, physical custody is automatically
> >>changed to the father (with the same 50/50 default custody percentage),
> >>without the necessity for full-blown litigation on the "best interest of
> >>the child."
> >>
> >>Requiring both parents to live in close geographical proximity until the
> >>child is 18, as an alternative, however, invokes the spectre of being
> >>unconstitutional; and, further, involves the state in micromanaging the
> >>affairs of individuals. The state needs to proactively eliminate all
> >>financial incentives and rewards for custody; it needs to get out of the
> >>business of child-rearing; and it needs to reduce the litigation
> >>surrounding children. By so doing, the playing field will become more
> >>level, parents will have to rely on their common sense and their own
> >>inner resources, and will more quickly come to a resolution regarding
> >>their child that is best for all parties involved. When agreement
> >>between parents cannot be reached, default custody provisions must kick
> >>in along with default financial responsibility, whether it be sole
> >>financial responsibility of the custodial parent or whether the
> >>responsibility be shared equally by the parents.
> >>
> >> -------  end forwarded material -------
> >
> >
> >I realise that this is a long article, but after reading it, I thought,
> >"how
> >can I find this person?"
> >
> >W.
> >
> >---
 

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party