kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

Discussion on NonViolent Action & New Support Guidelines

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Webmaster (kids-right) (
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 12:38:05 EDT

This is a message from a mailing list,
Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.

Good People & People of Faith,

This message contains info on:

1. NonViolent Action - these folks got the message.
2. Your FEEDBACK - we had a LOT.

(Our focus is not on support, but wanted to pass the following on)
3. Tennessee Support Unconstitutional - doesn't treat new family fairly.
4. Adult Children - Yes, you do have to pay for college.

1. NonViolent Action - these folks got the message.
Had a couple of good messages from a mom and a dad located in
Texas and California in response to a recent call for parents
to become active.

Montana - ( - Contact her if interested in Texas.

> If it weren't for the fact that I live forty hours from New York
> (driving time), I would love to be there at the Federal Building to
> walk with the rest of you.  With my current financial situation,
> there's no way I can afford to attend.

> I strongly believe in fighting for equal parents' rights.  I'm
> searching for ways in which to start similar "protests" here in
> Texas.  Your E-Mail this morning has given me several excellent
> ideas.

> I have a brother in Atlanta, Georgia; a brother-in-law in West
> Virginia, and myself in Texas.  How about if we try similar
> "demonstrations" in our three states?  Maybe the idea may catch on
> across the country.  Maybe if groups of parents across the United
> States write letters to senators and make serious efforts to meet
> with them, MAYBE we can get some positive outcome.  The websites on
> the internet from people around the United States are great; but
> it's obvious we need more "physical" displays of concern for our
> families, just like what you're trying to accomplish in New York.

 YES, that is exactly the idea.  What is happening in Syracuse
is just a demonstration/experiment on the concept.  If as a group we
can get a meeting with Senator Clinton, after petitioning and being
jailed outside her offices -- I do believe our other representative
will take us much more seriously when we come to visit them and
recognize that loving parents are also a political force.

> I am just a mom.  I have four children.  Even though I am divorced
> from their father, I have always realized the important part he has
> in their lives.  I realize he has expenses of his own.  I realize
> that there is so much more to being an ex-husband than a monthly
> check to me.  What I need help with, and I will find such
> assistance, is self-education on legal processes, terminology, and
> listings of ALL individuals holding public offices who have the
> ability to help in our cause.  I love children.  I believe in
> children.  I believe a father, even though he may not be living in
> the home with the children, can have a much more positive effect on
> his children, if he is able to maintain some sort of quality in his
> own lifestyle (which in so many cases outrageous child support
> prevents).  I have determination.  I have my children (whose future
> I believe in more strongly than even my own).  And now, finally, you
> have given me a place to start.  I want to wish you the very best of
> luck in New York.  Hang in there.  You're fighting for something
> that someday our own sons will hopefully benefit from.

 So glad to hear of your ideas and attitude, and especially
your willingness to sacrifice even though you have a good relationship
with your children.  Efforts from a person like you carry even more
weight than mine or others abused by the system.

 I will pass your message on the to list and hopefully people
will contact you from your local area.

--- Mike (  California

> John, I feel that it is unfortunate that so many people support the
> changes you are pushing for yet so few are willing to take a
> stand. I was recently forced out of my house because my wife went to
> court and said that my presence was stressful to my 4 year old
> son. This is completely false, but my wife knew that all she had to
> do was make the claim and I would be requested to leave. I stayed
> past the court ordered move-out date. I informed my attorney that
> sometimes you have to break the law when standing up for what you
> believe in and for what is morally right. I wish I could be there to
> join you in your efforts, but I live in California and due to the
> divorce, funds are extremely tight. I look forward to following the
> progress of your efforts.

 I think I told you my case was very similar to yours.
Sometimes I forget some of the pain I felt the first night Domenic was
in a different home than mine and also the tears he shed.  He was 3
when all this started.

 It is an awful system.  I feel for you as you go through the
future, sometimes you think it can't get any worse and it does.  I was
very worried about losing my relationhsip with Dom, but am VERY
thankful that has only grown stronger.  When he was with me, I didn't
go into work or do anything without him -- we were a team.

 I do not know how religous you are, but I encourage you to get
back to the Faith, because it is real.  It is the only thing which kept
me from bitterness and despair.   Like I've said in some of the messages,
when I started doing NonViolent Actions, I felt better, I felt I was now
doing something as forceful as I could.....

2. Your FEEDBACK - we had a LOT.
There is presently a NonViolent Action underway in Syracuse, New York,
with a goal of getting a meeting with Senator Hillary R. Clinton We
had a wide variety of feedback, event details at:

--- Lenoard (   -  A Waste of Time?
>          WHY waste your time?  Ms Clinton is not a friend of men who want
> human rights in this area.  Custody, Reciprocal supports, Respect in the
> courts for Fathers Rights?  Good luck.

 I understand she may have some "biases", but I assume in
a public setting, and speaking as a US Senator, she would say both
parents have an equal right to be with the children.  This effort
is to get a meeting with her, let her hear from us, and to get her
position on the idea that Federal Civil Rights protection is necessary.

 Because she is so "high profile" on children's issues, her
being either for/against get's people talking about it and moves
things forward.  Right now, just the effort to get an answer from her
may generate some publicity.

 Also, hopefully (and this is why NonViolent Action), if she
gets to see the awful effect this has had on "real" parents who
obviously love their kids very much -- it may change her attitudes.
Also, public opinion may help her change.

---  Spike (  -  It is a Federal Issue.

> To the anomous person that said the feds have nothing to do with the
> issues they are state. If that is the case please explain the
> hundreds of cases that have been settled in federal court. Below
> being just two of these.

> Bell vs. City of Milwaukee 746 f 2d 1205; US Ct. App 7th Cir WI
> (1984) Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which
> is guaranteed by this amendment. (First) as incorporated in
> Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as
> that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
> and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

> Mabra Vs. Schmidt, 356 R Supp 620; DC WI (1973) "The United States
> Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to the companionship, care
> custody and management of his or her children is an interest "far
> more precious" than any property right.

--- Steve (  -  Keep trying.

>  Nice letter, give thos stinking TYRANTS hell; don't EVER stop.  You
> are OK!

 Thanks for the kind words -- although I am not really trying
to "give them hell."  No one has been more surprised than me by what
has happened in that Federal Building.  A loving parent, standing up
for their rights, has confused the "system."

        I wish just a few more people could get involved in the
effort. I think a "Syracuse 3" would make the TV/papers and Senator
Clinton would then respond.

--- Danny (   -   Advice from Canada

> Your e-mail came across my desk here in Toronto, Canada, and I felt
> this idea might be of use to you. You'll need to do some
> investigating on how to go about this in the US, but we do it here
> in Canada, as often as we deem advisable.  I suggest you find a way
> to get access for a press conference in the National Press Gallery
> (which I presume must exist in Congress). It's a central location
> where the press gathers for press conferences on Capitol Hill.  We
> have done the same here in Canada, and get national headlines any
> time we do. Your story is powerful news. In Canada, to get into our
> parliamentary press gallery, we simply book time and send a faxed
> press release to the Gallery. Here about 10-20 reporters, print,
> radio, TV attend.

> The press conference lasts about 10-15 minutes where we explain the
> the story to the press, provide the evidence and sumjmarize the
> problem. We then take questions for 10-15 minutes.

> Danny Guspie
> Executive Director
> Fathers' Resources International
> And
> The National Shared Parenting Associtaion

----- Anonymous (  - No more jail!

> They want you in jail, don't give them the satisfaction.  The shared
> parenting movement cannot afford to have its most devoted supporters
> jailed at this time.  You are worth much more on the outside.  Maybe
> start writing "open letters" to Hillary in the local news, or pass
> them out as flyers on the outside of the building, or something like
> that.

 Thanks for the message, I appreciate it!  Actually, I'm
beginning to wonder if they "want me in jail."  I really don't think
Senator Clinton would want that.  She might be able to stand a
"belligerant protester" or "foaming at the mouth radical" in jail, but
not some loving parents who just want to talk to her about the need
for serious reform...

 I think everyone plays a unique role, writing letters,
lobbying, court challenges, etc...  There seem to be a lot of people
active in those areas, but not to many in the "willing to go to jail"
group.  Hopefully there will be more soon!

--- Sabrina (   -  Wrote a letter.

> Please know you have our support and are in our hearts.
> I am sending off a letter today.
> Sabrina Montgomery, Utah

 Thanks for the kind words and taking the time to help!  I was
able to go home free on Friday and I certainly think actions by others
helped the Judge and DA realize that they needed to handle this

--- Jeff WOrkman (  -  Wrote a letter.

> Hello John, I just sent a letter to the website of Mrs. Clinton, I
> hope that it helps our cause. I just wish I could do more at this
> time. I have been following you now for over three years, and at
> times it seems that the system is not going to budge, but I know
> that the bureaucracy is slow in changing. Once enough of the elites
> are affected by the current family laws believe me it will
> change. Thank you for being persistent with this matter.  Jeff
> Workman

---  Joseph (   -  March on Washington.

>  I applaud your efforts. However, I think there is an easier
> way. Try to organize a fathers march on Washington. A few hundred
> thousand fathers will get attention and I am sure notice from other
> groups as well. The media coverage of such a march will certainly
> drive your message home without arrest. Think about it. I would
> certainly support and come and march with you, as would countless
> other fathers I know.

 Yes, such an event would get a lot of TV attention, but
unfortunately, you have to start somewhere -- and that is with just a
few people.  The history of Civil Rights movements sort of tells us

 Right now we don't have thousands, or even hundreds to focus
media attention.  But perhaps if a few loving parents are willing to
risk jail to get a meeting with their Senatore -- that is so "novel"
it will get attention.

--- Greg Romeo (  -  The Courage to Sacrifice?

> Understand and prepare to take away the fear that most people have
> by being threatened with going to jail.  I have lamented for years
> that the Fathers should, instead of fear going to jail, prepare for
> the trip and do it, nationally, in multitudes and cram the jails and
> the courts with Fathers and flood the system nationally.  Yet, you
> know how Dads are...

 I agree with you on what needs to happen.  I remember the
freedom riders from the days go segregation, who went to jail by the
busloads for trying to site in the front of the bus.  That was a lot
of sacrifice for the right to use the same toilet as a white guy.  I
hope that soon people will realize that the right to be a parent to
your child will call for similar sacrifice.

3. Tennessee Support Guidline - doesn't treat new family fairly.
From: ANCPR ( Alliance for Non Custodial Parent's Rights

For the text of the decision, see:

Newspaper story below, for complete text follow link.,1426,MCA_437_1317783,

Tennessee child support rules struck down Appeals court favors Memphis

By Shirley Downing       August 10, 2002

The Tennessee Court of Appeals in Jackson on Friday declared
unconstitutional the guidelines judges use to determine child support
payments. Though the impact was unclear because the state has 60 days
to appeal, family law attorneys said it could result in lowered
payments to many children.

The appeals court decision stems from a Shelby County case in which a
Memphis father had argued the expense of raising two children in his
current marriage should be considered in figuring how much he should
pay to support a third child from a previous relationship.

The guidelines prohibit consideration of any children other than those
covered by court-ordered child support.

The appellate court, in an opinion written by Judge Holly Lillard,
reversed the juvenile court judge, finding the child support
guidelines "violate the equal protection guarantees of the federal and
state constitutions."

"We . . . find no rational basis for flatly prohibiting the trial court from
considering a parent's support of other children," Lillard wrote.

Webb Brewer, litigation director for Memphis Area Legal Services, said
the court ruling was "fair" and "proper" and could have significant

"My first reaction is that there was a real flaw in the statute and
that it was unconstitutional in that it seemed to treat children that
were subject to a child support order different from children that
weren't subject to an order," Brewer said.

In his appeal, Thompson argued that "the guidelines treated his later born
children less favorably than his first child and, therefore, violated his
children's constitutional rights to equal protection."

4. Adult Children - Yes, you do have to pay for college.
From: ANCPR ( Alliance for Non Custodial Parent's Rights
College Support Law Taking Effect    August 11, 2002
By ROBERT A. FRAHM, Courant Staff Writer

Even when two married parents are working, the soaring cost of college
can strain a family's budget, but what happens to the children of
divorced or unmarried parents? Too often, those children cannot afford
prices of $10,000 to $20,000 a year or more and must postpone college
or forego it entirely, some experts say.

But now Connecticut has joined a growing number of states allowing
judges to order divorced and unmarried parents to pay for higher
education, just as courts can order child support. "Children of
non-married parents are statistically less likely to have higher
education," said Kate W. Haakonsen, a lawyer with the Connecticut Bar
Association's Family Law Section. "They go to college later. They go
to less prestigious schools. They take longer to finish." Haakonsen
and others helped craft a college support law adopted earlier this
year by the legislature.

Until now, Connecticut courts have been able to order child support in
divorce decrees or paternity suits only until a child reaches age 18.
Although divorced parents have been able to agree voluntarily to
provide college support, the new law will allow courts to order
support for undergraduate college expenses for children until they
reach the age of 23.

Critics have questioned whether courts should be able to compel
divorced parents to pay for college, but 21 other states either have
laws or legal precedents allowing such payments, according to a study
by the Connecticut Law Revision Commission.

In Connecticut, the law will allow judges to enter a college support
order as part of a divorce decree as long as the court finds the
parents would have provided such support had the family remained

The courts can order payments as high as the cost of attending the
University of Connecticut - currently about $12,600 a year. The law
also requires the court to consider individual circumstances such as
parents' income, the level of need for support, the child's aptitude
for higher education and the availability of scholarships and other
financial aid.

Critics of educational support laws contend those laws deprive
divorced parents of the discretion that married parents have over
decisions on college.

"I don't think the courts are the answer to this," said state
Sen. Robert L.Genuario, R-Norwalk, who voted against the legislation.

However, state Rep. Art Feltman, D-Hartford, one of the sponsors of
the legislation, said it is unfair to put children at a disadvantage
for college simply because their parents are divorced. "I want to
equalize the life chances of kids whose parents stay together and kids
whose parents split apart," he said.

Although each case should be reviewed individually, it is reasonable
to expect divorced parents to help pay college costs, considering the
importance of a college degree, said Dallas Martin, president of the
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

"I'm old-fashioned," he said, "but I still believe if you bring a
child into this world, you have a responsibility to support the child
the best you can."

To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to with the following 1 line in the
BODY of the message (Subject is ignored).

unsubscribe members

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 03:12:02 EST