The Failure of “Family Policy”
Welfare reform was supposed to discourage unmarried childbearing. However, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) recently disclosed that out-of-wedlock births are at a record high. The Census Bureau also reports that, for the first time, married couples constitute less than half of the nation’s households. Thus, whatever the budgetary savings over the past ten years, from the standpoint of the family, welfare reform has failed.
The continued rise in out-of-wedlock births no longer proceeds from just low-income teenagers. In fact, the NCHS reports that the birthrate among girls 10 to 17 dropped to the lowest level on record. It is the sharp rise in births among unmarried mothers in their late 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s that accounts for the record levels. Inspired by such books as Rosanna Hertz’s Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice and Peggy Drexler’s Raising Boys Without Men, these women are moving beyond divorce to dispense with marriage altogether.
It would be a mistake to attribute this trend solely to cultural and lifestyle decadence. The ongoing sexual revolution is now codified in government policies that do more than discourage family formation: They empower officials to dissolve families and offer generous rewards for doing so. The growth of unwed childbearing in the middle class, like the older problem in low-income communities, grows directly out of welfare.
While the conservative focus on the broader cultural causes of illegitimacy is appropriate, neglecting the practical legal issues can hinder our ability to confront the problem. Political scientist James Q. Wilson epitomizes the conservative establishment’s paralysis when he throws up his hands: “If you believe, as I do, in the power of culture, you will realize that there is very little one can do.”
Many social conservatives have cast “family values” in terms of issues that, while undeniably important, are more consequences than causes of family breakdown. Today, the most direct threat to the family is not homosexuality, pornography, popular culture, euthanasia, cloning, or abortion. It is the elephant that barged into America’s living rooms almost four decades ago: As Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes, “Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” While this, too, began as a lifestyle option, it quickly translated into highly destructive policies.
Beginning in the 1970’s, America quietly embarked on the boldest social experiment in her history. With no public discussion of the possible consequences, laws were enacted in virtually every jurisdiction that ended marriage as a legal contract and precluded couples from creating binding agreements to rear children. Regardless of the terms on which a marriage is entered, government officials can now, at the request of one spouse, simply dissolve it over the objection of the other and with no penalty to the moving party. As far as the federal and state governments are concerned, all couples are cohabiting.
The sexual revolution prepared the way for this massive change, but, as Melanie Phillips writes in The Sex-Change Society, “The divorce laws . . . were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion.” Changes in the law preceded the cultural shift, as “Public attitudes were gradually dragged along behind laws that were generally understood at the time to mean something very different from what they subsequently came to represent.”
The National Association of Women Lawyers claims credit for pioneering no-fault divorce, which it describes as “the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken.” As early as 1947, NAWL began promoting no-fault divorce to bar associations and state governments.
While the left was revolutionizing the legal structure of marriage, the conservative response was to lament and bemoan. “Republicans did not want to alienate their upscale constituents or their libertarian wing, both of whom tended to favor easy divorce,” writes Barbara Whitehead in The Divorce Culture, “nor did they want to call attention to the divorces among their own leadership.” When Vice President Dan Quayle famously denounced unwed motherhood, he was careful to add, “I am not talking about a situation where there is a divorce.” Maggie Gallagher’s complaint has become a prophecy for today’s politics: “Opposing gay marriage . . . is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue. . . . The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda.”
The divorce revolution weakened marriage and fatherhood among members of the middle class in striking parallel to what welfare inflicted on the poor. In addition, the surge in divorce has expanded the welfare state itself to include the middle class, turning programs conceived to address the problems of low-income, single-parent homes into financial incentives for middle-class divorce.
The welfare reform of 1996 did not end the federal subsidy of single-mother homes; instead, it shifted it to mandatory child support—after all, fathers should be supporting their children. Like the original federalization of child-support enforcement back in 1975, the target was willfully absent fathers who had abandoned their children, leaving them on the dole.
In fact, no evidence has ever demonstrated that large numbers of fathers were or are deserting their families and not paying child support. Unchallenged research has long established that fathers are forcibly separated from their children by divorce courts and criminalized by child-support orders that are patently impossible to pay. The “deadbeat dad” is largely the creation of bureaucratic policies and of the feminist ideology that drives them.
Over the years, child support has increasingly functioned less as a way to reduce or recover welfare costs and more as a forced subsidy on middle-class divorce. States are paid by federal taxpayers based on the amount they collect. This encourages them to neglect welfare families, for whom the program was designed, because there is little money to be had. Instead, enforcement agencies have shifted their focus to middle-class families, for whom the program was never intended, because they can collect large sums and, with them, lucrative federal funds, which can then be spent for any purpose. Using child support, state governments found they could raise revenue through the growth of single-parent homes.
The perversity of the incentives is diabolical. States have a financial incentive to generate fatherless children in the middle class, which they procure by providing sweeteners for single motherhood—expedited divorce, automatic and exclusive mother custody (regardless of fault), minimal visitation by fathers—turning as many men as possible into payers (including some who are not even fathers) and setting child-support awards as high as possible. It is hardly surprising that the vast majority of divorces in which children are involved are now filed by women.
Federally regulated child support effectively transformed welfare from an issue involving public assistance into one of law enforcement, creating yet another federal police force without clear constitutional justification. The welfare state is employing the penal apparatus to ensure itself continued funding and growth, with methods far more draconian than those used (so far) to collect taxation.
These programs are virtually unassailable, not only because they balance state budgets, but because they play upon our natural sympathy for women and children. Anyone questioning child support incurs feminist charges of defending “deadbeat dads.” Further, by appealing to superficially conservative values, feminists have gained allies among centrist Democrats as well as the neoconservatives who dominate Republican family policy. Even family-values conservatives are reluctant to challenge policies they know to be driving single motherhood and criminalizing fatherhood.
This tacit left-right collusion has locked us into a tragic bureaucratic cycle in which the cures are causing the disease. And the malady of fatherlessness will continue to worsen as long as government officials have a free pass to socialize childrearing.
Whatever its intentions, the state can never create or restore family life. The best it can do is stop destroying it.
Stephen Baskerville, an assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College, is the author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House).
This article first appeared in the January 2008 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
87 Responses »
Trackbacks
- The failure of Family Policy « Vox Nova
- dads & things » Blog Archive » The Failure of “Family Policy”
- ADF Alliance Alert » Baskerville: “The Failure of Family Policy”
- Anglican Mainstream » Blog Archive » The Price of Family Fragmentation: Charles Colson
Entries(RSS)
All too true. But there is another element equally important in my opinion. Our masters have seen to it that middle and working class families need two incomes to survive, unlike any other civilised country in history.
The mass production of bastards first became rife among blacks and has spread to the rest of the population aided both by perverse incentives and propaganda.
Dr. Wilson's point is well taken. To which must be added, the difficulty high-school graduates now have in obtaining employment that will support a family increases the push to more people to go to college. When adulthood is postponed during the post-adolescent hormonal storm, irresponsible copulation is promoted, as is the all-too-frequent indoctrination of the young with the nostrums of the professoriat (with the likes of the learned Dr. Wilson as occasional exceptions).
Thus we weave the handbaskets in which we are toted towards the Inferno.
49.9% of hispanic births are out-of-wedlock now in this nation.
The black out-of-wedlock birthrate is as high as it ever was.
White women, some desperate to have a child if still single in their mid-late thirties will almost-proudly "get pregnant" and not tell anybody who the father is (one of our employees has pulled this, even though she lives with another woman...............yes there are rumors).
I have to echo Clyde Wilson more than anything. Our moms and dads of the sixties through eighties had it financially easy enough that mom could stay at home and have two or even three kids while dad worked. Its not that way anymore. This kind of stress on the marriage and the fact that she is "out there" amongst other men leads her into temptation as well as the temptation that he faces, doubling the chance for infidelity with a co-worker, etc.
The stigma of being a single mother with a "bastard" (I really dont like that term though, its not the kid's fault) child, is gone from the mother. Women will build up her esteem and tell her that she is "independent" etc., even if her parents have to help her out. Women can calculatitively get impregnated by men who make decent money whom they have no intent of marrying also (but honey, I was on the pill!!!!!, I promise, I don't know how this happened), and just to go shack up with a loser later. Our child support system has no doubt led to alot of that.
Pat Buchanan was right all those years ago when he suggested orphanages. If women who couldnt' pay for their own kids had to visit those kids in institutions and the state didn't provide her with Wica payments, food stamps, AFDC payments, section 8 housing or a project apartment, she might not be so excited to have that kid with no man in her life.
Anchor babies are probably a big part of this uptick in single-mother births. Youth icons like Britney Spears (and Jamie Lynn Spears) also set a lousy example for teenage girls that look up to them.
When my mentally ill, drug addicted husband divorced me (yes, that's right) over my objections, I found the court was most anxious to not overtax him with child support. I had to force him to pay by getting a court order for withholding. I had to force him to keep his visitation privileges. He complained to a Father's Rights group that I was interfering in his visitation by actually requiring him to have visitation and refusing to allow him to bring the children back before the appointed time. Needless to say, they declined to help him.
When it came time to re-up at the court for child support renewal, he, fresh from a European vacation with his girlfriend, made sad eyes at the court about how broke he was. The judge didn't buy it. I was subjected to screaming threats and vituperation for weeks afterward, until it was time to take the girlfriend on vacation again, when he had to make nice to me so I wouldn't insist he take the children during his appointed times and inconvenience her.
Perhaps it is as you say, that hordes of middle-class women are divorcing their perfectly decent husbands for a life on the dole, but I and others like me of my direct acquaintance have almost identical stories. The alcoholic/drug addict/mentally ill husband wants a new life of no responsibility with a more fun, younger woman. That is the real legacy of no-fault divorce. It is big business for the legal profession, and one they are going to protect at all costs. Those of us like me who value the sanctity of marriage and family, whatever the personal maladies of the partners, have absolutely no say in retaining that in the face of one partner who wants a divorce. I would be happy to not involve the state in collecting financial support for his children, but that is the only way he can be compelled to support them. I applaud the state I live in for its efficiency in doing its job, and I think they deserve every penny they get. If taxpayers don't like it, reverse the divorce laws. Let's see how many divorced judges, lawyers and politicians line up behind that one.
Add to this: our masters have destroyed the schools, which has destroyed the upward mobility of non-minority middle and working classes
No. 1 Clyde Wilson
"Our masters have seen to it that middle and working class families need two incomes to survive, unlike any other civilised country in history."
Bingo. I've grown weary unto death of hearing the "family values" crowd bemoan the decline of the American family without pointing out that the corporatocracy is the main culprit.
@Clyde Wilson,1 & 5
“Our masters have seen to it that middle and working class families need two incomes to survive, unlike any other civilised country in history.”
"Add to this: our masters have destroyed the schools, which has destroyed the upward mobility of non-minority middle and working classes"
Well, am I just paranoid or does every effort of the elite classes revolve around this axle. Why? Denying middle class aspirations accomplishes what exactly? Nothing of value to the middle class or any sane society has been spared the loving attention of faux reform. It's as if the politics of envy have been inverted and no one dares to notice.
@ 2:
"...The mass production of bastards..."
Whoever you are, deep shame on you for your incredibly callous label of innocent children.
Since you are cowardly hiding behind a pseudonym, one must ask you: do you know with certainty who your biological father is?
Christopher James:
The idea of abolishing the concept of bastardy "for the children" merits derision, even if this has been done in practice. The ill results are all around you. Broadly speaking, these innocent children having been subjected to the fickle winds of their elders disordered lives are turned loose on society, unmoored from any reasonable social standards. Where is your outrage at this real and growing evil? The shame lies in generating responsibilities you have no intention of discharging. Again, where is your outrage? Scolding Grumpy for calling this sad situation by its proper name is just dodging the issue.
I would deign to play my three-ugly-sister violin on this thread as I did on the "Frum" thread.
All three of the ugly-sisters - communism in all of its forms (long live Trotsky and Lukacs), fascism in all of its forms (long live the Straussians and the corporatists) and social democracy in all of its forms (most of the American liberal establishment) wanted to and continue to want to destroy Western society. Lukacs declared that the West was the enemy.
The New Left, the most virile ilk of the communists among us today, well ensconced in our universities and media, proclaimed through the mouth of Herbert Marcusa in the context of Critical Theory that one of the primary instruments which they, the New Left, would use is polymorphous perversity with the aim of destroying taboos in general and the family in particular. It is succeeding!
Corporatism - obviously not to be confused with free markets, free enterprise or capitalism - the soft fascism of which Dr. Paul has spoken of late, has played its role as well. The instruments have been the federal reserve in tandem with fiat currency. It was the inflation of the 1970's, wrongly blamed on Jimmy Carter, which ended the ability of moms to stay at home while dads worked. The trigger of this was Nixon's ending of the Bretton Woods Agreement, ending gold's tutelage of the dollar. By the end of the 70's, single incomes were no longer able to sustain a family.
Social democracy has played her roll in tandem with the weakened dollar: feminism, women into the work place, ERA, etc.
All of these variables and others have uncoupled and destroyed the family.
The three ugly sisters have invited us into a dance macabre, and we have, to our demise, accepted the invitation.
French at 8
I absolutely agree with you. These kids are bastards - spiritual, emotional, intellectual and physical. It is not a term of derision at all. It is recognizing the evil. Using the correct term is not evil. The kids as such are not evil, although they will eventually manifest the evil of their situation. It is those who begot them who are evil. Not husbands and wifes and dads and mons, but mere DNA donors, fornicators who pass in the night, along with their culture-deconstructing enablers. The race of Adam is so fallen that the animals over which he was to have dominion behave in relation to their young more responsibly than does that so lowly fallen race. I, in fact, know one of these bastard children very well. My wife and I along with a foster mom whom he had love him dearly; yet, as a young adult he struggles, still in abject failure, that the male DNA donor to his life - still unknown, and the female DNA donor to his life, unknown for nearly twenty years, but found, with profound regret that she was found. He is only one of millions.
RMP
Right you say. I've lost track of the number of these unfortunates that I know. Even if they somehow avoided poverty it eats at them in ways subtle and profound. There's always a bit further to fall. The next step will be a lulu.
Euphemisms absorb emotion and stop thought. Here's a thought experiment:
Bastard Single-parent child
Black African-American
Cripple Differently abled
Felon Ex-offender
Heretic Freethinker
Moron Special needs
Queer, Dyke GBLT
Polygyny Polyamory
Pride Self-esteem
Sinner Neurotic
Whore Sex worker
On the whole, the items in Column A are shorter, clearer, more precise, and have historical resonance.
My intent was not to offend anyone or to claim superior lineage, or to deprive any half-brothers of their inheritance, but to clarify things. If I appear to have claimed anything but to be the chief of sinners, forgive me.
At one time, "bastard" implied bad character as well as irregular parentage. The word's implication of bad character and the lowering of status that went with it also no doubt acted as a deterrent to fornication in the absence of at least an implied promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.
Unfortunate and by contemporary lights unfair to the by-blow, but possibly an effective deterrent to dalliance. Any comment from you utilitarians out there?
#10 and #11 @ Dr Peters,
Thanks for using the "three sisters" motif. I found it helpful and it put a lot of Western political history in perspective.
Mr. Aitken at 14
Here is a somewhat more detailed version of "the model" on another thread on this very forum. Look, I believe, at Number 13.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=475#comments
This is an excellent thread and the comments illustrate why Chronicles is one of the few publications worth reading these days. As a state district judge who has raked in the criminal and family-law muck for years, I concur with Mr. Baskerville and Mr Wilson.
What I would disagree with is the underlying assumption that law is what holds our society together. In his work on the decline and corruption of a culture, C.E.M. Joad correctly notes that decadence is the identification of means with ends. Or as Mr. Wilson puts it , "When our masters have destroyed the schools."
When wealth becomes the end,for instance, there exists economic decadence. Or as Mr Wison would have it, when"Our masters have seen to it that middle and working class families need two incomes to survive..." When power becomes the end, you have political decadence; When pleasure becomes the end, you have moral decadence; and when emotions become the end, you have psychological decadence.
We must always remember that politics is more important than economics, that culture is more important than politics, and theology is more important than culture. In this way we can see that divorce was initiated when we lost the theology of marriage, it accelerated when sexual pleasure became the end of marriage ( instead of the procreation and education of children) This assertion that we are a nation of laws and not of men is misleading. We have become a nation of lawless men (culturally), who elect people to lead us ( politically) who believe " It's the economy, stupid."
If we passed a law tomorrow in America that prevented divorce before the yougest child born of the marriage was 18 yrs of age, the pleasure seeking people we have become, would prefer to ressurect the old whore house rather than the old homestead. The collapse is upon us, Humpty Dumty has fallen. The question is where and who will carry the elderly and household Gods out of the burning city. My thinking is it will be folks like burdened Aneas or men like St. Benedict living in the woods, where some old crow will bring them bread from time to time. Cheers rr
P. Stewart mentioned : "Perhaps it is as you say, that hordes of middle-class women are divorcing their perfectly decent husbands for a life on the dole, but I and others like me of my direct acquaintance have almost identical stories."
It sounds like you were stuck with a man who didn't care about his own children, and that is just awful. I hate to see that happen to good people. I have both male and female aquaintences who have gotten treated pretty badly. People sure can be horrible to one another.
RE: #1
My experience and general impression differs somewhat from Professor Wilson's. My wife and I have 1 middle class salary that is less than the national per capita income and we're raising a large family just fine. Modern Americans are incredibly spoiled, materially. Whatever happened to thrift as a virtue?
I can understand the problems of 1 salary if you live in a metro area with expensive housing. But the rest of the middle (and well paid working) class's financial problems come from over the top consumption.
I do agree with Prof Wilson's comment about the schools. We can't afford a good private school. Better to homeschool. Your kids will be better people and you can't possibly do as bad a job, academically, as most of the public schools.
RE:Bastards
My wife doesn't know her father (she knows who he is with pretty good certainty). She isn't offended by the term "bastard." She has contempt for what her mother did (he wanted to get married) and thinks it should be treated with scorn.
re:#16 Good comments! As a pastor ordained to serve the people on the margins of society (those who have become users and abusers, that our fallen society has propelled into the evil that they have embraced), I have yet met a addict, criminal, mentally sick, welfare client that did not come from a broken dysfunctional family. Yet society seeks to medicate, provide money and serve them as though they are victims of their own doing. The bottom line is society has rejected the model of family created by God. This model is only found on very rare occasions (much to my horror once my eyes were opened). We are at the brink of total chaos in western society. And it appears that I have said yes to an impossible job and would ask for your prayers.
An excellent article and illustrates one of the reasons why men are increasingly avoiding marriage altogether - there is nothing in it for them. The feminists criticize and ordinary women lament men's unwillingness to commit, but what are they commiting to? A permanent relationship? Not with unilateral divorce. Children? No, it's entirely up to the woman if they have children since abortion is 100% her option and in the event of divorce, she will almost always get to keep the kids if she wants to. Sex? Only if the woman consents on each and every occasion; otherwise it's spousal rape. In short a man can have sex with his wife on the same legal basis as he can have sex with any other woman - or man for that matter.
A virtuous society must make it easy for its members to practice virtue and this generally means some reward in this world, not just the next, for doing the right thing. Under the present marital economy with all its perverse incentives, it's amazing that any men bother getting married at all.
Pastor Woodcutter,
Keep up the good work, for some reason God always chooses the poor, the ignorant, the simple, etc and even Plato , Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas preferred teaching beginners. In the words of Mr. Frum, God uses the "hicks" that you are helping. We have undermined the admiration of peasants and independent gentleman by vocational education, like we have undermined the fresh beauty of young women by lunching at Hooters and howling for health care that covers the cost of killing infants at the same time we perform " breast enhancements " for the rich and sterilizations for the poor. Kepp up the good work. You are in my prayers.
Sex? Only if the woman consents on each and every occasion; otherwise it’s spousal rape.
Isn't it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say according to the new way of thinking, the husband has no conjugal rights? Or that there is no such thing as a conjugal right now?
Woodcutter, you've got another Christian praying for you - and the people you're working with.
"All too true. But there is another element equally important in my opinion. Our masters have seen to it that middle and working class families need two incomes to survive, unlike any other civilised country in history." -Dr. Wilson
Yes and we Don't like that at all in Australia. It's the first time women have been brainwashed that it is their 'liberation' to have to go out and do the loathsome jobs we men have always had to do.
We don't mind as long as it's For something, like say her and our family and the local community. I'm all for women having the right or for the custom being they can if they want be a lawyer or whatever etc.
But now they can't be moms without also having to be say waitresses or barkeeps or troopers or what have you. It's absurd.
That's what the media and inflation which our masters have heaped upon us has wrought. I'm not surprised as Dr. Wilson points out, it's the first time in history. I'll tell'Ya this mate - it's going to be the Last time, at least in Australia no doubt, Abso-bloody-lutely = beyond any doubt whatsoever, mate, or i'm not wearing a crocodile belt.
Woodcutter at 19,
Are you also referred to as Wynfrith or Bonifacius? Be careful of those Frisians when cutting that wood!
From me and from the food folk of the Red River Valley whom I am going to tell of you, our prayers as you go about our Lord's work. May He bless you in those quiet and simple ways which make efforts on His behalf so meaningful.
25 robert m. peters, I have stood in front of the tomb of St. Bonafice in the beautiful city of Fulda, Germany, and I will watch my back for those Frisians. Thank you for your prayers. May St. Bonafice, and all the saints and angels pray for you. You have brought back fond memories of good friends.
God bless you.
Woodcutter at 26
That I have been the unwitting agent who has brought back fond memories of good friends is one of God's good kindnesses. He gets the glory. Thank you for the request of prayers on my behalf. I have spent a lot of time in the Rhön near Fulda.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Mom? Mom? Is that you?
Thanks for teaching me that all men are evil. It really helped me growing up.
I just can't figure out why whenever a school hires a man, a troop of boys always follows him around with sad, lonely eyes.
Aren't boys nasty little creatures?
PcH - when you do actually grow up, perhaps you will understand what you quoted above.
Mom! It is you.
I haven't seen you in years. How's your job?
Still full of vim and vinegar, I see.
Here's some more drama for ya. Have fun!
Unto the woman he said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.
And unto Adam he said,
Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,
and hast eaten of the tree,
of which I commanded thee, saying,
Thou shalt not eat of it:
cursed is the ground for thy sake;
in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
And you should see what Paul says about this. God sure has some funny ideas about how to run his world. He even talks about love, as if men and women are not supposed to be competitors.
It is a combination of a few institutions here, which have taking us all into a downspiral and chaotic world. The feminist behaving more like men than anythinng else. Men becoming the wimps these women want and a legal system bent on destroying anything that's good and Godly. Not only is the divorce rate as high as it has ever been. It keeps the legal and mental health communities lining their pockets with our money, denying our children their innate right to both parents and shattering their lives in the process. Today, young men are doing whatever it takes to avoid marriage. Our grandchildren have no clue who their parents are. One, the father, was chased away by a corrupt system catering to the female species and dear"mom" is always out there climbing the ladder of success and looking for her other half, usually another woman. We had a similar situation back in the 1800's with the feminist movement. It took 3 generations for men to regain their proper place in society. We will see.
Stephen,
i notice you dont reply to emails any more. is this because you are too busy telling everyone how wonderful you are or your too busy making money on your books.
like the sad souls responding here you have lost the plot. i spent nearly a decade thinking you knew what you were talking about. unfortunately you dont.
as for the depraved scum who refer to children as bastards ... were there a god he, she or it should strike you down with with a bolt of lightning.
i really hope that these articles are written by americans .. because the rest of the world understands that you are simply ignorant garbage.
as for the idiot claiming to be an australian, let me say to all others (not americans) that this idiot does not typify australian male attitude.
and.. for you simple minded residents of the great USA, the shortened version of mother is MUM. its just that you bastardise the english language like everything else you touch.
finally ... a family is a group of blood linked or close loved humans living together in peace, love and harmony. while attempting to spend there time on this earth being healthy and happy.
the trouble is that bastards like you lot cant keep your noses and your sad ideals out of their lives.
president torney
president@lizzy.com.au
p.o. box 356 carnegie
australia
I have heard some stories concerning Dr Baskerville's marriage and divorce. It is said he abused his wife. I would like to hear Dr Baskerville address why he thinks his marriage failed? Does he take any personal responsibility or was it all a government conspiracy to rip him from his family?
Don't take the bait!...this blatant personal slanderous attack is by a hateful rabid rancid feminist. Note too the denial of the truth and projection onto Mr Baskerville. Some adults never grow up and in her self-centered sociopath's world of Me Me! she can only deflect her own guilt in ruining her marriage by projecting assumed blame/wrongdoing on another. GROW UP FEMINAZI !!! we know your game - you'll not play the victim and accuser and get away with that stunt... you MUST take personal responsibility and accountability for ruining your relationship - you will iron my shirt!!!
Statistics prove that 75% of the time the divorce is initiated by the Moms who "are unhappy" - an attitude that cannot be delivered by the Dad, and 80% of the time the Dad does not want the divorce.
"Family" court actions prove that it is NO voice, NO choice, NO appeal...Done Deal BEFORE court convenes, for the one who does not want the divorce.
It is easy-exit, uncontestable, unConstitutional, unilateral divorce...for the quitter/abandoner/deserter of marriage contract, spouse, and family, with no penalties.
Upon receiving a Summons to Court your first question is "What did I do wrong?", but no cause is demanded of the petitioner by the courts for divorce. A divorce is granted even without excuse.
Due process, equal protection under the law, and trial by jury of peers are thrown out the window, rights protected by our Constitution, but not for the respondent in divorce. A response is permitted, but has no effect on the actions.
The Civil Rights act of 1983/4 stipulates that a citizen's rights may not be removed under "color of law", but these three rights have been taken away by "family" court, referred to as "equity" court, and defined by attorneys and their attorney friends in black robes.
Every person in a courtroom -- including criminals -- has a right to their day in court. Why don't family court judges declare, "No more divorces in this courtroom until state laws guarantee a defense?" Why don't defense attorneys ask, "What has my client done wrong?" Isn't justice important to married people?
If we have justice for all in family court, how is it that the one filing for divorce is granted one every time?
How can a father, who has never been found guilty of committing a crime, be jailed as a criminal, without a trial, for non-payment of civil court child support? This action creates "debtor's prison" -- pay or go to jail, which is illegal.
Dr. Edwin Cole says, "The lack of effective, functioning fathers is the root cause of America's social, economic, and spiritual crises," but that has basically been brought about by the anti-family, anti-marriage judicial mindset and actions, that trash the fathers.
Research proves that children raised in homes with their biological fathers have a much higher chance of succeeding in life. Unfortunately, approximately 25 million American children live absent or apart from their fathers. The reason: the fathers are routinely cast out of the family by the courts, except for minimum contact with the children, called "visitation rights." They are also cast out of the house, which the mother needs "to keep the family together," and for "what is in the best interest of the child."
The family court system parcels out families for profit to that system, like stolen autos in a chop shop. Follow the MONEY.
Tragically, the pages of history are rife with the terrible misdeeds of those who experienced a broken home: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden. Who would dare chance having one of their children joining that bunch by divorcing?
Michael Reagan, in his book Twice Adopted, says "Divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child – the child’s home, family, security, and sense of being loved and protected – and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess."
Children have needs and two of their most basic needs are home and family from which to launch their lives. Without them they feel abandoned, rejected, hopeless, and unloved. Divorce says "I don't care. My wants are more important than your needs".
Dr. Bob Moorehead, author of the splendid book "Before You Throw In The Towel" says "Divorce devastates children, whether they are pre-school age, grade school age, teens, or college age. Even if they are grown and married, the effect is felt full force".
Divorce is murder - the murder of a marriage, family, and home, and it is long-term death for the children. It is ruining the lives of our young people. But where IS "home"? With Dad and "Sweet Thing" Number 2 or with Mom and "Mr. Wonderful" Number 3 or 4"?
In battle we send our soldiers and armory to "the front" where the attack is going on. The "divorce system" is attacking our marriages and families in order to destroy them, the homes, and eventually, the churches.
If war were to break out at the Mexican border we would not send our armed forces to the Canadian border.
Where are the soldiers today in the battle against the marriages and families? Are we involved with actions or are we inactive and SILENT?
Remember, "silence is consent" - consent to divorce - and makes you an accomplice to murder - the murder of marriages and families.
The comment most often heard after divorce proceedings begin is "I had no idea it would be like this". What they are referring to is the "family" court system of "justice" in dealing with divorce and families.
What happens to the children in divorce? They become the wards of the state and your family is no longer your own. A divorce leads to years of court battles over finances, child "custody" rights (visitation/parenting), accompanied by plenty of interference from outside entities, such as Guardians ad litem, Child Protective Services, court-appointed therapists, mediators, etc. A divorcing couple now finds themselves locked unwillingly into an unending adversarial situation entirely out of their control.
What happens to the home, which the children treasure and need for stability - home where Mom and Dad and children are together? In divorce the children get bounced back and forth between Mom and Dad like a ping pong ball. Home is gone, to never be returned, except through reconciliation. The children, and what is best for them, has been thrown away in favor of what is in the supposed best interest of one or both parents.
Children, who up till now, without court intervention, have been able to see their Dad every day, are told that they can see him usually every other weekend under a schedule set by the FAMILY COURT. Mom and the children are going to need money for housing and the other usual living expenses, and Dad gets to pay these. The amounts of these items are set by the FAMILY COURT. The community properties must be divided, and the schedule for doing this is supervised and finalized by the FAMILY COURT. When changes and problems in these areas arise in coming days, it is understood that all of them will be handled by the FAMILY COURT. I hope you clearly see that the FAMILY COURT literally takes control of your family, your time, your budget, and your actions toward each other in your family. A friend who is a judge said "If only people could see what I see".
Just who is the "Family Court"? They are a group of very tightly knit judges and attorneys who have no real interest in the well-being of your family. Their motivation is money - YOUR MONEY. Attorneys get huge fees to keep the animosity stirred up, requiring filing after filing with the court. Each time any papers are filed the court shares in the fees charged.
Divorce is an industry - 250 billion annually - where the court system and affiliates profit from the destruction of your family. No one in "the system" discusses keeping the family together. The terms of "cash cow", "deep pockets", and "Mother load" will be heard, but that's all about money.
Divorce is not a solution to any marital problems, according to Dr. James Dobson of Focus On The Family,and is never what is in "the best interest of the children".
Divorce eventually proves to be worse than any bad marriage, and many couples experiencing the accrimony and, seeing the devastation which divorce heaps on their children, have risked arrest and jail time for contempt of court, after giving up on the "family" court system and setting up their own living arrangements, in an effort to cause as little harm to their children as possible.
People try divorce as a solution to marital problems almost entirely unprepared, and completely uninformed that the only solution the family court has to marital problems is an endlessly troublesome divorce. There are other ways for a couple that doesn't get along to deal with their problems without involving the family court, and causing irreparable damage to their children. One judge that I communicate with said "The court is the worse place to make family decisions".
"Perhaps the main cause of failure (of love and marriage) still lies in our attitude to love itself -- that it is good only so long as it pleases, and that as soon as it drops one degree below the level of self-satisfaction it is somehow improper to attempt to preserve it. This is but a natural expression of that contemporary fallacy -- the divine right to personal happiness, the rule of self-love, to be enjoyed without effort, at no matter what cost to others. Whoever gave us this right to be merely happy and what makes us think it so enlightened an idea? In claiming the sanction to withdraw from any relationship the moment our happiness appears less than perfect, we are acting out a delusion which denies all but the most trivial kind of love. Worse still, it makes a paper house of marriage, flimsily built for instant collapse, haunted by rootless children whose sense of incipient desertion already dooms them to an emotional wasteland. Indeed the interpretation of rights that allows the jettisoning of children in furtherance of their parents' right to happiness, not only cancels that happiness but makes more than reasonably certain that the next generation will be denied it too."
--Laurie Lee, quoted in "Models of Marriage Morals and the Law," a paper prepared for "The Salisbury Review" by Dr. John Campion
Children need both parents. Unfortunately, the moment a divorce suit is filed the current system regularly initiates an ongoing "Trash the Dad" program.
The Louisiana State Law Institute, made up of "family" lawyers, in April 2001 presented a report to the Senate Judiciary "A" Committee in response to the question "Should current no-fault, easy-exit divorce laws be changed?". Their answer was the no-brainer response of "No" because divorce is their major source of income. However, they added some excellent suggestions about the cause and prevention of divorce.
The causes are treatable and the prevention is what is in the best interest of the children.
The Institute borrowed from "Making Marriage Last" by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. They listed the causes of divorce in the order of their findings as:
1- poor communication
2- finances
3- a lack of committment to the marriage
4- a dramatic change in priorities
5- infidelity
6- failed expectations or unmet needs
7- addictions and substance abuse
8- physical, sexual or emotional abuse
9- lack of conflict resolution skills
A question to ask here is, Did anyone, in speaking their marriage vows, include any of these items as a reason to leave the marriage? For instance, did either person say "I do, until there is poor communication or financial trouble or a lack of committment"? Did either promise to remain in the marriage until there was a dramatic change in priorities or infidelity? The answer to all of these is "No", yet many marriage partners leave because of one or several of them. The promises are trashed, usually because the thinking of one of them makes the leap from "we", "us", and "ours" to "me", "I", and "mine", guided by the personal advice of others who have trashed their marriage vows.
Why do people seek excellent advice from those who have all F's in Relationships 101?
Dr. Baskerville continues to do excellent work in calling attention to the elephant in the room, the state, and the federal government: No-Fault divorce.
P.T.:
I,too, wondered about the "Australian." However, if you are going to criticize someone's English usage, you would do well to use standard English in your own writing, as for example capitalization and spelling (English and bastardize). As to Dr. Baskeville answering e-mail, he obviously is not bothering to answer yours. I don't have that problem. One must wonder why.
And Rita, why the personal attack? There are legions of us who have been falsely accused of domestic violence! My ex couldn't even cite a year in which the alleged violence occured when she testified in court, because it never occured! Yet, I hold her blameless, because Dr. Baskerville is correct as to where the accountability and blame lie.
To President Torney:
It is very sad to see that your maturity barely rises to that of a 6-yr old. Instead of making personal attacks on Stephen Baskerville (and ALL Americans...simple minded?) and then following them up your own facts (of which you have none), you show nothing but the minutia inside your own shrunken mind. Suffice it to say that my own prejudices regarding Australians (and their descendants) will not be mentioned here, as they are irrelevant to the problem at hand. Dr. Baskerville cites numerous facts as they are...documented, undisputed facts. Your decision to take pot-shots at the messenger just because you do not like the message doesn't change or even alter the facts. It only shows the evidence of your own deep-seated angers...much like that of the ever-plundered fathers in the USA that support their children 2 times over...such as myself...and still remain to be abused by the curt system. The facts clearly show what they show...that
there is a needless plundering of the middle class people of this country thanks to the vicious desires of a few. To those "few" that control this type of thinking in America...the ones your moronic thinking obviously supports...to them I would say (and I quote you) "the trouble is that bastards like you lot cant keep your noses and your sad ideals out of (our)(sic) lives."
It does not does not surprise me that Australia is plunging into the same kind of Women's Lib-mentality that has obviously destroyed the fiber of the American family, as well as the UK. Good luck on your ride to the bottom...you're almost there!
It's ironic that a paleocon webiste would publish an article by a writer associated with "masculism" or the "men's movement." Although there's a Taliban-wing of the father's rights movement that wants to reverse the gains of 19-century feminists, virtually all "masculists" are left-liberals, sexual egalitarians, absolute cultural determinists, and male feminists who came to feel betrayed by what they define as "radical feminism." "Masculists" espouse the basic dogmas of feminism and support 80-90% of the mainstream feminist agendum.
But in respect to victimization, "masculists" turn feminist ideology on it's head. As Paul Gottfried once observed, "masculists" and feminists" are "victimologists wearing interchangeable masks." But as feminism is the ideology of female victimization, "masculism" is the ideology of male victimization. According to these ideologues, men are angels and victims and women are devils and victimizers, and "radical feminism" is to blame for all our social ills.
Though Steven Baskerville appears to be more rational than the typical left-wing "masculist," he obviously shares this worldview to a large degree. To give but one example:
In a spectacularly dishonest article, he blames the Duke rape hoax abomination on "feminist justice." Put differently, man-hating "radical feminists" were almost entirely culpable for the outrageous persecution of three innocent young white men with black assuming only a minor and tangential role. White-hating blacks such as Al Sharpton, Houston Baker, Grant Fared, Karla Holloway, the New Black Panthers, the national and local chapters of the NAACP, ad nauseum, were all the dupes of white "radical feminists."
It's difficult to imagine a more perverse inversion of reality. In truth, this sickening travesty was a grotesque synthesis and interaction of black "justice" and "feminist justice," with black "justice" (i.e., vengeance and "payback) obviously predominant, overwhelmingly so. The most vicious attacks on the innocent young men and the most credible threats of violence against them were from black men and the comments and actions of white men were just as egregious as those of white females and "radical feminists."
But to Baskerville and his fellow "masculists," this outrage was almost entirely driven by the "misandry" (hatred of men) of "radical feminists" and other white females.
to paraphrase president bush, there are no nelson mandelas of the father's rights movement in american because they've been killed.
There are no single mothers without single fathers.
Until BOTH parties take the creation of a new person seriously and the care and upbringing of the person they created seriously, the problem will never go away.
Millenia of blaming women exclusively for the problem of out-of-wedlock children hasn't done anything to stop it happening. Perhaps there needs to be a new tack?
This isn't a new phenomenon. Google 'baby farming' in England.
Having been literally shot at in front of my children and repeatedly thrown in jail on absurdly false charges and ordered to not communicate with my children for three years, perhaps, I am in a position to comment regarding Divorce in the U.S.
Stephen Baskerville raises an excellent argument. Clearly our Courts and Family Law is utterly out of control. The behavior of Judges, District Attorneys, Sheriffs and Lawyers in this filed can only be described as criminal. My children have literally been kidnapped from me after the sheriffs attempted to blow my head off in front of them, then proceeded to file seven insanely false cases against me.
If you have not been subject to the Family Court and our police state, you probably wont have a clue as to how extreme the situation is.
Perhaps some raw statistics regarding the U.S. can shock people into reality. Today, the U.S. incarcerates more people than all the other nations combined. The average citizen works more than six months of the year to pay the multitude of taxes. Following the illegal invasion of the Gulf States, 73,000 U.S. Gulf War Veterans are dead and far more than a million are disabled. The U.S. has killed three million Vietnamese and over one million Iraqi’s. The U.S. spends more on developing weapons of mass destruction than all other nations combined. In Iraq alone, the U.S. has blasted close to two thousand tons of nuclear waist in the form of armor piercing rounds and bunker busters – birth defects in Iraq are up 600%. More than 100 concentration camps have been built across the U.S. (Official references all available on the http://www.libertyforlife.com site)
Divorce in the U.S. is a symptom of the overall decline of freedom and liberty in the U.S. Underlying this trend is the establishment in 1913 of the Federal Reserve Bank Act which placed private individuals, principal of whom are the Rothschild’s, in complete control of the U.S. Dollar. The Federal Reserve Bank enabled and funded World War One, they initiated and caused the Great Depression and were entirely instrumental in enabling World War Two. When Hussein stopped selling oil in U.S. dollars, the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank lost out on billions of dollars on each sale, that is why we invaded Iraq, and also to incur more bankers debt on U.S. citizens.
The Rothschild’s banker oligarchy also funded Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution, Hitler and Stalin. In other words we have all been subject to what is known as a Hegelian Dialectic Process, one where conflict is induced so as to profit those inducing the conflict who claim ‘the end justifies the means’.
After they induced the Great Depression, Communism was implemented in the U.S. by the bankers boy, Franklyn Delaware Roosevelt.
Until we understand root or underlying causes of our ills, we will not solve the problem.
Many, such as the IRS, our military and most government employees, are agents of the Rothschild’s without even knowing it. From a divorce and child custody perspective, communism places the State at the head of family. Judges without hesitation step up to determine the best interest of the children over and above the child’s own parents.
In my case, judges literally set aside a Stipulated Custody Agreement and Order and made up their own, breaking even the Family Code. The Courts are presided over largely by criminals who have been appointed because of their obedience to the real masters, the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Steven thanks for your tremendous work,
Clive Boustred
Chairman Liberty For Life Association, http://www.libertyforlife.com
Clive: From the bottom of my heart, thanks for saying something, that I, because of my profound anger and resentment towards the system, has never been able to vocalize so well. I, as you, went through a letany of "false allegations", made up by the legal and mental health communities, over a period of ten years. After seven attorneys, my life savings and a rare, honest attorney I met, I was cleared up of any wrong doing and finally re-united with my precious child. During those years, I learned more about our sick system than any degree or books, could ever have accomplished. Attorneys, guardian ad litem, therapists, social workers and the like, are only interested in one thing and one thing only:M O N E Y. "To hell with the children, forget the father, and the mother, soon will be okey" is their motto.
As far as Dr. Baskerville, he has ALWAYS been a gentleman. Always returned every email I sent to him. ALWAYS had a response or word of encouragement, when I was in the middle of the court's circus. He has been of great help for many of us. I hate to see him leaving the ACFC. Best wishes to you Sir.
Time to stir up the hornets' nest again. Here goes....
I am an attorney in Upstate New York, and my primary concentration of practice is Family Court. I've been representing both parents and children in all manner of cases (everything from Child Protective to custody/visitation matters) for nearly 18 years.
The vast majority of custody cases in modern Family Courts involve children of unmarried parents, predominantly from the lower classes. I'd have to estimate that parents practicing bastardy account for at least two-thirds of FCt. cases, if not more.
The typical situation involves shack-ups or hook-ups between two casual acquaintances where momentary pleasure counts for more than intelligent foresight. When the near-inevitable occurs, the male generally either disappears or is pushed out of the relationship by the female. It is not uncommon for drug use, alcohol abuse, physical abuse to play a role, often in various combinations. Quite often, the situation turns into a giant variation of "Family Feud", where entire lines choose up sides and go after the offending male.
Child support is often difficult for the males to deal with; most of them are poorly educated (not even HS grads, for the most part) and many of them are stuck---by their own choices, obviously---with more than one child to pay for. Since the support is taken directly from their paychecks by withholding, they generally treat it like any other tax payments. The result is predictable; most of these males---those that are actually capable of working---go from job to job trying to dodge what they see (functionally) as a murderous tax burden.
The females are very jealous and possessive of their children; I have personally witnessed numerous situations where the mother and her friends will cluster around the children both at court and at visitation transfers in an effort to intimidate the males and discourage them from having contact with their children. While court proceedings are going on, I have known the women to engage in all manner of shenanigans to discourage and interfere with the males' visitation; everything from exaggerated complaints about the males' households to calling the courts and demanding that visitation be changed and/or halted to suit their whims.
One of the more interesting developments I have seen in recent years is a rise in males' filing paternity petitions---which are increasingly contested by the females---in order to obtain standing to see their children.
In the most bitterly contested matters, there is INVARIABLY a new sexual partner (more often than not, a new female for the male, although I have seen females with new female partners act in a similar fashion) that is egging things on in an effort to discourage contact between the parents. Increasingly, there is often serious verbal and even physical violence between the parties involved; police interventions in such matters have skyrocketed in the areas I directly know about within the last 10 years.
I have to ascribe this to a combination of two things: the loss of the norm of sexual self-restraint (among both sexes, but particularly among women) and a nearly irrational hedonism and self-centeredness on the part of BOTH sexes, bordering on the solipsistic. Most Family Court judges of my acquaintance (15 to 20, over the entire state) have complained to me at some point about their increasing workload and the increasing unwillingness of litigating parties to discuss anything with the opposite side short of unconditional surrender.
Allow me to correct one other point: Family Court attorneys and judges are generally the poor stepchildren of the legal profession. For assigned-counsel Family Court matters, the pay scale is set at $ 75 an hour, when private counsel is involved at all. Most counties in New York have public-defender attorneys handling such cases; they are paid a salary (quite low) and have a very high caseload. "Cookie-cutter" law is the norm, even considering the relatively high level of experience they generally have. The size of the caseloads prohibits anything else. Many kinds of cases formerly handled by judges are now either handled by lower-level judicial "hearing examiners" (child support) or, in the case of PINS (Persons In Need of Supervision--juveniles getting in non-criminal-level trouble) are simply not brought to court at all.
The problem is not so much ideological as it is logistic (fixed resources and expanding caseloads) and moral (parental hedonism and short-term time horizons). Family Courts aren't controlled by the owners of the Federal Reserve; they're controlled by the court secretaries and law clerks trying to keep their judicial bosses from drowning in paperwork.
Divorce, however, is another matter, which I may try to address later. I have the honor to remain, as always,
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Apologies for the ignorant and embarrassing rantings of my countryman, Torney, or Torner, or whatever his name is. As for nasty Rita, she'd be a plant from some awful bossy "wimmin's" list no doubt. Her query has already been answered anyway. Needless to say, almost every man who has found himself divorced against his wishes, has been accused or smeared with being a domestic violence offender.
Take myself; I am a serial offender. Sometimes I just got out of control and returned items of my children to their letterbox, emailed them and tried to watch them play sport.
Shocking stuff, I know, and for which I should be deeply ashamed.
On every occasion, was advised to plead "guilty" because the ludicrous Magistrates "will find you guilty anyway". Jailed, fined, you name it.
If this tyrannical institution ever gets its come-uppance, it will in no small measure be due to Baskerville.
His painstaking scholarship and lucidity is impossible to refute.
Rita, I suggest you stick your head up a dead bear's posterior.
Just think about the damage that is being done by suspending thousands and thousands of noncustodial parents driver's licenses and even occupational if they get behind in their child support payments.
Just think of the damage it is doing to the public to have all of these people driving around without a license. People have to travel the highways to be able to earn a living and support themselves and their families!
Dr Baskerville has been a champion for the abolition of the abusive and unconstitutional Family Court System.
My personal experience is as follows:
My children are emotionally scarred for life from the abusive Family Court System that awarded custody, child support, alimony, private school tuition and private summer camp to my ex-wife without a scintilla of evidence of need nor a scintilla of evidence of my ability to pay in open violation of US Federal Law.
Threats of imprisonment were continuously made against me for failure to pay or for defending myself were veiled as contempt of court.
False allegations of child abuse against me were thrown around as if they were common greetings.
My ex-wife's perjured testimony was met in silence by the presiding Family Court Judge.
The State administered forced garnishment of wages was unaccountable to no one, especially me and the Court was silent when my ex-wife claimed she wasn't paid despite documented proof to the contrary.
My divorce decree was issued over my written objections contrary to law.
This is our Family Court System which provides "service to society." This Divorce Industrial Complex benefits the judges, lawyers, social workers, guardians ad litum (friends of the judges who make easy money rubberstamping what the judge wants anyway), and other asorted ancillary predators that feed off the victims of this unsavory system.
The social fabric of our society has been deeply scarred by this greedy, destructive and demoralizing system. Our society is becoming increasingly dysfunctional due to this bizarre Divorce Industrial Complex that has ripped the basic family unit to shreads in the name of "Uncontested Divorce, the sacrosanct "adversarial system of justice" and the "hypocritical lip service to family court mediation."
Absent is public consciousness and debate of the true nature of marriage and divorce. Female sexuality is idolized by Madison Ave to drive sales of everything from automobiles to tooth paste. No wonder America has the most neurotic society in the world with the worst and dysfunctional healthcare system in the industrialized world.
No wonder we have a criminal occupying the White House who has issued executive orders installing him as dictator thereby effectively abbrogating the constitutional system that our founding fathers created some 200+ years ago if and when there is another 9/11 event.
Lord Karth:
You make some cogent points about the dissolution of our society and the total lack of any moral or ethical codes of conduct by both males and females today. Have you ever stopped to think, that you, as a bottom of the scum pond, family law shyster must bear a huge portion of the responsibility for destroying the family in America. The lack of family is at the root of most of the evil that you cite, yet you accept no responsibility for it. It has been my experience that when anyone challenges one of you, the only response you know is to threaten, never engaging in a dialogue. I truly believe that your genre does not merit the apelation of lawyer! You are a divorce shyster because you can't make it in a real court of law.
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com
Don’t get me wrong, I love Stephen Baskerville, and think he does an excellent job of meticulously describing the injustice in remarkable detail and clarity. However, what’s conspicuously lacking in most of his writings is a solution to the problem.
It’s perfectly clear that the Legal Profession, States, Local Governments, and the Family Courts are in collusion to reap the windfall of “federal dollars” for the collection of the coveted child support. (At least for those of us unfortunate enough to be caught in their tentacles.)
Let’s fix the problem.
Everyone seems to be focused on the price that fathers and children are paying for this corruption, but what seems to escape most people is that the *lion’s share* of the financial burden is on the taxpayer.
Please bear with me:
The national child support debt is 112,000,000,000 (Billion) dollars and growing. Carol Rhodes (a former “upper echelon” Michigan child support collection agent with twenty years experience) is quoted saying that they collected upward of $50 for every $1 collected in child support. If that number is correct on a nationwide basis, (please indulge me) then the total *eventual cost* to the taxpayer would be 5,600,000,000,000. (5 Trillion 600 Billion)
Keeping that in mind; then account for all the salaries of judges, lawyers, caseworkers, psychologists, CPS personnel, enforcement agents and all the other associated parasites who make their living from kidnapping and exploiting our children. All of these salaries are paid by taxpayers.
Then take into account the need to expand infrastructure like courts, county jails, prisons, police, county sheriffs and all the associated maintenance and support personnel. Think of the fleet of vehicles needed for transportation and the maintenance involved.
I could probably keep going, but I’m starting to get carpel tunnel. The point is that every nickel comes from taxpayers, not just fathers separated from their children. The vast majority of these expenses are paid by everyone who pays taxes. If we can show the actual cost to the taxpayer, in a factual manner, we will be making progress.
The point I’m trying to make is that few people are prompted to act unless they are directly affected by the injustice. If we can show the public what it’s costing them then maybe we can make this a nationally important issue.
This is basically an “extortion racket” unprecedented in American History. The public needs to be made aware of the magnitude of this corruption. Most people think this nonsense is saving them money, but in reality it’s bankrupting our nation, destroying our future, our children, and our heritage.
Let’s just forget about what it’s costing fathers and their children long enough to make the public aware of just how much it’s costing them.
By the way Rita, I understand perfectly why Mr. Baskerville doesn’t drag his personal life into it. That just gives ignorant people, with tabloid mentalities, something to wallow in.
Kevin Merck
Scott in #40.
Sir, you are mistaken. While I was entertained by your trying out that line of reasoning as if it were a low level paper of some sort, it is only that, an experiment. I'm aware that Baskerville speaks from experience and further, that he's taken some years to do a bit more than trial-fit his hypothesis.
Convenient little baskets will not contain this issue. And while it's not got a perfect historical analog either, it's not all that hard to understand: Follow the money.
Heed Kevin Merck in #50. Like myself, and like Baskerville, I suspect he speaks from experience. And Kevin, the solution is as unspeakable as this crime of State is: Abolish social government.