Father involvement is critical for your organization. Father Friendly Check-Up™ is a Low Intensity tool to help you successfully engage dads and strengthen the families in your community. This assessment allows you to analyze your physical environment, location, organizational philosophies, staff attitudes, and more.
Getting fathers involved is essential for happy, healthy, well-adjusted children and families. When dads aren't involved, children are more likely to engage in drugs, alcohol, violent crimes, and other harmful behaviors, drop out of school, live in poverty, face teenage pregnancy, and struggle with depression or even commit suicide.. GET STARTED NOW!
"24 million children in America grow up without their father at home."
—United States Census Bureau
There is a crisis in America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 24 million children in America—one out of three—live without their biological father in the home.
Consequently, there is a “father factor” in nearly all of the societal issues facing America today. Research shows when a child is raised in a father-absent home, he or she is...
1) Four Times More Likely to Live in Poverty- Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. (U.S. Census Bureau)
- Children of single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. (Journal of Marriage and Family)
- Infant mortality rates are nearly two times higher for infants of unmarried mothers than for married mothers. (National Center for Health Statistics)
- One in five prison inmates had a father in prison. (Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs)
- Study of juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. (Journal of Youth and Adolescence)
- Teens without fathers are twice as likely to be involved in early sexual activity and seven times more likely to get pregnant as an adolescent. (Child Development Journal)
- Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner had more than 8 times the rate of maltreatment overall, over 10 times the rate of abuse adn more than 6 times the rate of neglect. (Child's Bureau)
- Youth are more at risk of first substance use without a highly involved father. (Social Science Research)
- Adolescents whose fathers were drug abusers revealed that paternal smoking and drug use lead to strained father-child relationships. This weakened relationship led to greater adolescent maladjustment with family and friends and a higher risk for adolescent drug use and smoking. Fathers who smoke cigarettes were less likely to enforce antismoking rules for their children and had weaker bonds in terms of adolescent admiration and emulation. (Pediatrics)
- Obese children are more likely to live in father-absent homes than are non-obese children. (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth)
- Students living in father-absent homes are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school. (U.S. Department of Education)
- Father involvement in schools is associated with the higher likelihood of their children getting mostly A's. (U.S. Department of Education)
- In the typical elementary school classroom of 20 students, 7 of them—over 33 percent—are growing up without their biological father in the home. (U.S. Census Bureau)
Attribution to www.fatherhood.org with this graphic.
Fiscalía alerta de las agresiones ejercidas por hijos y nietos sobre sus familias
viso at CUSTODIA PATERNA
Domingo, 22 de Diciembre, 2013 Enlaces: - Los niños sin referente paterno pueden volverse adultos agresivos - IMPORTANCIA DEL PADRE EN LA FORMACIÓN DE LOS NIÑOS (youtube) - Estadísticas sobre comportamiento/consecuencias de hijos sin padre (EE.UU.) - La figura paterna en la adolescencia - FUNCION PATERNA Y FAMILIA MONOPARENTAL: ¿CUÁL ES EL COSTO DE PRESCINDIR DEL PADRE? - *FIGURA PATERNA AUSENTE:* Breivik, el autor de la peor matanza noruega desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial - El Supremo mantiene la custodia a una madre que se llevo a su hijo a EEUU - *¿La educación nórdica es la mej... more »
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
Every night is bad.
ReplyDeleteBut some are extraordinarily bad.
I miss my children so much.
It’s been 3 years.
I hear on here that it gets easier.
When? When does it get easier?
It’s been 3 years and its not any easier. Some nights, like tonight, the pain is deep.
It hurts so much I feel like I could die.
They say you can’t die from this kind of pain. From emotional pain.
Feelings never killed anyone.
Really?
Maybe I’ll be the first documented case of a man dying from the pain of missing his children so much.
The years that are gone, they are gone. Stolen from my children and I. You cannot give them back, you cannot make it right.
My resentment towards my ex and the judge doesn’t seem to diminish. It seems instead to grow. It grows larger with every passing day.
My soul is black and is turning even blacker. My heart heavy and continues to grow even heavier. My mind is clouded and becomes more clouded every day.
All I feel is pain. Nothing but heartache and misery. Hopelessness and despair. Hatred and resentment. Nothing but pain.
Tell me, when…..
….when does it get easier?
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
DeleteThe first case to recognize a non-custodial parent’s cause of action based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was Sheltra V. Smith, 392 A. 2d 431 (Vt. 1978). In this case, the non-custodial parent brought suit for damages alleging that:
“defendant willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and outrageously inflicted extreme mental suffering and acute mental distress on the plaintiff, by willfully, maliciously, and outrageously rendering it impossible for any personal contact or other communication to take place between the (plaintiff and child).”
Id. at 433.
The Superior Court, Caledonia County, dismissed the complaint for failure to state of cause of action on which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court of Vermont, however, found that the plaintiff stated a prima facie case for outrageous conduct causing severe...
Hey Bio-Mom,
DeleteI see you have found our little club here and you've decided to troll around for a bit. I first would like to say "welcome" on behalf of the men and women who suffer daily inside and outside these pages. We are glad you are here.
Feel free to take your time and peruse the stories of men and women who have lost everything. Take in the agony and the pain, read the horror stories of men who havn't seen their children in 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years. You will notice that all the stories share a familiar tone. The pain is real. The disbelief is palpable. The constant barrage of men ready to give up is unfortunately true. They may give up and stop fighting vindictive exes for their children and just move on, only to be later called a deadbeat loser from the same woman that deprived him of his children. They may give up and eat a bullet, jump from a bridge or tie a noose around their neck and say their final goodbye. You win, they lose. You are now an accessory to murder.
Stick around and look at the pictures of the children that are left behind. These are the other victims. The victims without a voice in all of this. Had they had a choice they would almost always choose to have a loving caring father by their side. You deprive them of that. Not only do you assist in the murdering of fathers, but you're also a child abuser. Congratulations.
Be sure to keep coming back to our little club here. Make jokes about how we are all domestic abusers who feel we have some ghastly privilege of fathering our children. Keep your kids close to you, be sure you cash that child support check and keep the children from Daddy if he misses a payment. It's only a fair punishment for him. Make him suffer. Make him hurt so bad he stays awake at night crying because he misses his kids so badly. Make him out to be the deadbeat you just know he is. Make his feel the depths of depression and despair by keeping his kids from him. Threaten to have him arrested and thrown in jail for inability to pay child support. You're cruising now bio-mom. You show them who is boss. Don't allow him to talk to his kids on the phone. Don't allow him to have one extra minute of "visitation". Marginalize him and make him feel what a scumbag he truly is. Don't tell him of your children's accomplishment or how they are doing in school. Keep any and all medical records from him. Keep him guessing who is with his children and where they are living. Keep doing what you are doing bio-mom. Now we all know who the boss is. It was never the judges or lawyers who caused all this. It was you.
Now look down at your children and realize everything you have done to your ex has also been done to them.
See, you are a child abuser after all.
Sleep tight,
Joe Makem
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children, and however they may feel, they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeleteA Support and Advocacy blog for Protective Parents and innocent Children harmed by wrongdoing under the color of law, the Family Law and CPS Industries. We investigate where the media can't or won't go.
ReplyDeleteThe people "have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good." In Keeping with the Constitution, Blind Bulldog is committed to serving the common good in Shasta County.
The following, brilliant take is from a Blind Bulldog affiliate from Southern Cal:
"The untethered aggression of family courts is due to a vacuum of institutional client advocacy--unlike criminal courts, which have firmly-established constitutional rights, strict state and federal oversight of state court judges, and a dedicated “criminal defense bar” to thwart government aggression, or civil courts that have “plaintiffs'” and “defense” bars to balance one another’s private agendas, family court has no “litigant bar.” The divorce attorneys themselves favor aggression for the simple reason identified in the movie--follow the money. Attorneys have not filled that vacuum to defend their own clients, leaving them vulnerable to the natural tendency of government to intrude. Family court litigants are, sad to say, woefully unaware of what they’re up against, and the body count shows results that are entirely predictable--but we think preventable.
Family court was created by lawyers and judges--literally--rather than the citizens it should be protecting. We’ve located the history through testimony and other documentation showing something like a Jekyll Island series of “off the record” meetings between California judges, attorneys, and bureaucrats in the 90’s to “set up” family court to their liking, then seeking what became essentially a rubber stamp granting unheard of discretion from the California legislature. This system is now unfortunately the model or trend for many states--hence our nationwide membership and approach. Citizens had virtually no input and maintain no control.
Federal courts have observed unusually broad adaptations of “federalism,” “comity,” “standing,” and “abstention” legal doctrines to leave the vacuum unoccupied by otherwise ordinary protections of federal rights for individual citizens and legal consumers. Litigants themselves are outmatched in organization--they’re a revolving door commodity. No one wants to stick around long enough to enforce reform. Hence rampant abuse in a lop-sided system of foxes guarding the henhouse, and you and I are on the ever-expanding menu."
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
ReplyDeleteWritten by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."