Rep. Bill McCollum
2266 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0908
Dear Congressman McCollum,
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, H. CON.
RES. 182 is now before your committee. On the surface, this resolution appears to confirm
the obvious - everybody is against child abuse and domestic violence. But upon further
examination, this resolution turns out to have a much darker side - one the promotes,
legitimizes and legalizes family disintegration.
First, I was surprised at the blatantly sexist tone
of this resolution. It is clearly written as father-bashing rhetoric. The bad news
is...mothers are just as guilty, if not more (since they get custody more often), of child
abuse as fathers. This was clearly illustrated in the Dec. 15, 1997 issue of People
Magazine.1
Child support and custody are major social issues
facing our nation. We know the negative impact of single-parent households, especially
fatherless homes. Children from single-parent households are more likely to dropout of
school, become involved with gangs, drugs and crime and girls are more likely to get
pregnant. Surprisingly, there is a strong movement to legitimize single-parent households
by claiming that a "stable" household is better than letting the child spend
time with both parents.
Why would someone assume a single-parent household
is more stable than joint physical custody? Maybe the single-parent would rather go out
("girls night out"), date or spend time badmouthing the ex-spouse, poisoning the
child's mind. The Children's Rights Council[MN1]2 hits the nail on the head when it says
"The best parent is both parents" and has a "2 Parents by 2000"
initiative. Lowell Jaks3states "Just because you dissolve a marriage, doesn't mean
you should dissolve a family."
These same groups claim money will solve all
problems and therefore, the more child support money lawyers can extract from the
non-custodial parent, the better the child will be raised. It has been shown in studies
that "intact" (2 parent) families and not money is the determining variable of
academic success.4
After 20 years of trying to make a flawed system
work, it's time for a complete overhaul. I hope you will vote against this misguided
resolution and allow us to give input into reforming the child support and custody
debacle.
Sincerely,
John Smith
John Smith, ANCPR
cc: House Subcommittee on Crime
Brief Analysis of H. CON. RES
182
"...Whereas domestic violence
has serious detrimental effects on
children, even when they do not
directly witness such violence;"
What does this mean? This sounds like an attempt to
deny the child's access to a parent without any conclusive proof of abuse.
"...Whereas, as a result of
this gender bias, many myths are that women
make false allegations of domestic
violence or child abuse, and
most particularly of child sexual
abuse, during divorce and custody
proceedings;"
Statistical analysis would be able to verify who
files claims and how many turn out to be true (i.e. result in convictions).
"...Whereas there are many
myths that fathers are discriminated against
in custody proceedings, even though
studies show that fathers
fighting for custody actually win
sole custody or joint custody in
40 to 70 percent of these
disputes;"
According to 1995 Census Bureau figures, a total of
18.938M children live with only 1 parent - 16.477M with mothers, 2.461M with fathers.
Cathy Young, The Detroit News5 (12/10/96) writes:
"...Whereas many courts and
professionals use the baseless parental
alienation syndrome to force mothers
into joint or shared parenting
arrangements..."
This not only illustrates the blatant sexism of this
resolution, but it is also trying to permanently split families.
"...or to give custody to
fathers, especially when mothers
try to protect themselves or their
children from men who abuse them
or their children;"
Sounds like they want to be able to
kidnap the child(ren) and not be criminally responsible.
"...but often fails to
recognize the
importance for the child of
maintaining its living arrangement with
the child's primary caretaker
parent;"
Translated: Only the mother should be allowed to
have physical custody of the child. People Magazine's (12/15/97) cover story on Child
Abuse illustrated how many single-mothers were abusing their children. If a
"single-parent is best" approach is to be followed, then steps to prevent
discrimination against fathers must be enacted immediately.
"...Whereas when there is
domestic or family violence or major discord
between the parents, shared
parenting arrangements, couples
counseling, or mediation
arrangements only exacerbate the
difficulties of the
children..."
What is "major discord?" A disagreement?
Arguments? If the mother allows her daughter to stay out until midnight but the father
wants her in by 10 PM - is this a major discord? Is it realistic to think you can raise a
child and not have arguments? The world is full of differences (I think we can it
diversity) and the child should be able to see how two people can work these differences
out. Vague definitions like this allow for inconsistent interpretations which is a major
source of problems.
"...(2) for purposes of
determining child custody, it is not in
the best interest of children to--
(A) force parents to share custody
over the objection of
one or both parents or when there is
a history of domestic
or family violence;
If "...both parents or when there..." was
changed to "both parents when there..." then I could agree. So if the father
wants to have custody, the mother can simply object and then the father looses his right
of parenting? I would hope this would be interpreted as "if the mother objects to the
father having shared physical custody, then the mother gives up her right and the father
becomes the primary caretaker (putting in sexist the terms HCONRES182 is written
in)."
In the ABA's Feb. '97 issue of "Journal6,"
James Cook and Ron Henry "favors the notion of making the parent who opposes joint
custody prove that the arrangement is unsuitable rather than placing the burden on the
parent seeking it."
1 The Fight Against Child Abuse, People
Magazine, Dec. 15, 1997, pp. 48 - 58.
2 Children's Rights Council, 220 I Street NE,
Ste 140, Washington, DC 20002-4362 http://www.vix.com/crc/
3 President, ANCPR (Alliance for Non-Custodial
Parent's Rights http://www.ancpr.org
4 Testimony of Cynthia L. Ewing, Senior Policy
Analyst, Children's Rights Council, Feb. 6, 1995. http://www.peak.org/~jedwards/crc.htm
5 http://detnews.com/EDITPAGE/9612/10/young/young.htm
6 Make Room for Daddy, American Bar
Assn, http://www.abanet.org/journal/feb97/02FMEN.html,
p.4
[MN1]
