[AKidsRight.Org] What's our name, our goal - Just your FEEDBACK

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: John Murtari (jmurtari@AKidsRight.org)
Date: Sun Jan 21 2007 - 20:30:30 EST

Good People & People of Faith,

1. Your FEEDBACK - What's in a name?
2. Your FEEDBACK - Goal for reform?

There was a lot of excellent FEEDBACK to a brief message that is
repeated below:

  Just look at the link below. All you mom's out there who have been
  hurt by the system.  Do you 'like' a link to mensnewsdaily or the
  actions of fathers4justice. To the men, if the link below was to
  momsnewsdaily would you click and be ready to join ladies4justice?

  One of the videos is of a protester climbing the roof of a Judge's
  home?  Is that how Civil Right's are won?  Should the blacks
  fighting segregation in the South have climbed the roofs also?
  Point out how bad the white man was -- or do we change deeply routed
  biases by changing hearts from within - by our demonstrations of
  personal self sacrifice?

After you check the FEEDBACK below, you are welcome to add additional
comments at our BLOG, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/wordpress/

Some good dialogs below, and we try to give you the last word.

1. Your FEEDBACK - What's in a name?

--- George Mason  <george.mason@ma.f4j.us>

> Saw your commentary wrt F4J actions.  Seen "Iron Jawed Angels"?
> Certainly they had the peaceful resistance down to a "T" and part of
> it was "Parades" and "anger" 
> http://www.f4j.com/index.php?id=ma&type=1

Thanks for the message.  I'm not familiar with Iron Jawed Angels, but
with Google I found it, about women's rights.  Actually I read a few
texts on WOmen's rights history and we have some detail at the site,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil_back.htm -- not sure if they present
the best example of success?  It took a long time to achieve what
maybe should have been a slam-dunk.

Hopefully the actions of King and the blacks that followed the
approach of NonViolent Action (also at the link above) will provide a
better example for us?

Intelligent people can disagree about methods, we are all trying and I
think folks will be attracted to what 'works'.  So far, nothing has
really happened -- we'll see.

--- Robin <robin@parental-alienation-awareness.com>

> I have read John Murtari's post, and feel that the nomenclature of
> some of these groups can be a "turn off". From my work with several
> men's groups here in South Florida, sadly, the statistics point to
> the fact that the greater percentage of NCP are men, with all of the
> ramifications that NCP brings with it.

> But I agree with you, Bob, 100%, that the focus should not be on
> gender, but, rather, what is in the best interest of the
> child. There can be no best interest to the child when either loving
> parent, along with extended family, is removed from a child's life.

> We must be united in our cause, we must be neutral in gender, and we
> must be focused on the child. In that way, I hope there will be more
> involvement and support.

> Today, the day we give tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, I want to
> thank you for reminding us of the meaning of and support for, faith,
> love, and sacrifice. May Dr. King's memory and example of
> perseverance toward a goal remind us that the road is long, the work
> is hard, the outcome is uncertain, but with faith, love, and
> sacrifice we must believe that miracles can happen

--- Louise <HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com>

> John, I am one of those moms who has been destroyed by the system, I
> am also one of the moms in the Boston Tea Party video. I agree, in
> order to have "change" we NCP need to approach things
> differently. The "fathers rights groups" have been stereotyped for
> so many years that sadly the public "thinks" they are a group of
> disgruntled men, when in fact I am very grateful that they are
> not. I am grateful they accepted me into their world and have tried
> to help my family.

> I feel a little uncomfortable standing with these men shouting
> "fathers rights" while it is obvious I am a "mother" and what is
> needed is PARENTS RIGHTS. <FAMILY RIGHTS> ( I added this Family
> rights since yesterdays reply as I thought about it and "parents
> rights still leaves out extended family"

> However, I strongly feel "fathers" NEED RIGHTS. They have been *&^%
> ed by the system for way to many years. But my theory is lets change
> what the public sees. "Parents rights" will force the public to see
> "women's rights groups" are a front, for ANGRY WENCHES. Not safety
> zones for "abused women" which I am with proof yet "NOW" refused to
> help me, because my children had already been turned against me when
> I contacted "NOW."

> I have also found many other "women" from abusive marriages that
> "lost" their children to the true abuser. If enough of us got
> together and "PROVED to the public that "NOW" simply wants
> "control/abuse these innocent men" and couldn't care less about
> saving the "abused women" "Fathers rights groups" aka (Parents
> rights groups) would finally get the recognition they deserve.

> ... The women's groups "NOW" had refused to help me, even though I
> have a permanent Order of Protection, obtained in another state
> (given to me after I proved to the court my ex pushed me backwards
> thru a glass table leaving a scar on my back, while my ex attempted
> to tell the judge "I fell" while he was advancing on me).

> In closing I agree, PARENTS RIGHTS need to be the focus. That idea
> brings me to this question.. What is the definition of insanity?

--- John Fowler <DFowler885@aol.com>

> So I am confused. Are you supportive of F4J tactic or not? I get
> very mixed signals from you. Remember that some of our people
> supported you and your tactic. We need Unity.

I like the superhero stuff and climbing things for the love of your
kids. A hero willing to sacrifice for the love of their child -- it is
classic and powerful!

More recently I was not as excited about climbin a Judge's house or
venting anger in a 'hero' uniform.  I was a former AF pilot: Judges,
lawyers, and social workers are NOT the enemy.  Bias and a system
which gives a single person too much power is.

Loving self-sacrifice is our most powerful approach.  I can disagree
with you about the 'wrong' a judge, lawyer, or social worker did.  It
is VERY HARD for me to disagree with you when you tell me (and show
me) how you love your child.

- John replies:

> Thanks and I respect you viewpoints but also please keep in mind
> that F4J UK is NOT affiliated with F4J US. We are totally separate
> organizations.  THanks

> One other thought. We are not against every judge. There are good
> judges and bad judges just like in every profession. We feel
> strongly that bad judges need to be held accountable for bad
> decisions. Since they have almost total discretion THEY are
> responsible under current law in most states. We hope laws will
> change but unfortunately as you know that may take a while. We are
> not willing to wait.!

--- Joanna <hope4kidz@houston.rr.com>     http://www.hope4kidz.org/

> Your tireless effort to put a stop to the he-she b.s. is encouraging.

> I know I am blessed and although it has not always been easy, my ex,
> my husband of 17 years, and I have managed to put our kids first and
> put our own petty feelings aside, so that our children would not be
> forced to choose.

> I cannot count how many times my adult children have thanked me for
> having their father and grandfather over for Christmas,
> Thanksgiving, and their birthday parties.  No child should have to
> choose between their parents.

> I do not know how we will undo what has been going on in the she-he
> fights for so many years but you are making great strides in doing
> just that.

> Our children are only loaned to us for a short period of time and we
> must learn to act like adults so that our children can be children.
> As Mahatma Gandhi said so well, "You must be the change you wish to
> see in the world."

--- Bob Barker <rjbark2002@yahoo.com>

> Bob Barker from MA. here. First of all I think the video and media
> coverage helps to open up the eyes of people that are not aware of
> the problems in family court. Mostly because they have not
> experienced it. After all most of us if not all though the family
> court would be just and fair, did we not. That is how many people
> think and we need to educate them tat it is not.

> The question is would the woman got to the mensnewsdaily or if a man
> would they go to momsnewsdaily and join.

>  First of all thank you John for your efforts and sacrifices you
>  have made for this cause.

> Yes I would as long as the group recognize that it happens to both
> genders and acknowledges this in what they do. They support each
> other no matter what their gender is. After all this effects
> Grandparents Aunts and Uncles... Plus our children are also both
> genders and this affects them as well when parents are not allowed
> time and involvement in their lives.

> For this movement what ever you want to call it Fathers, mothers ,
> noncustodial parents.. right It is really about family rights and
> all of our civil rights and the way the courts do not respect or
> gives us our civil rights.

>  This one of the biggest issue for our movement, is there are so
>  many groups and working and speaking to one gender or the other. In
>  doing this they alienates others from supporting their perceived
>  cause.

>  When it is a cause we all need to speak out against to save our
>  families , our civil rights problems in family court..... . Which
>  is what we all are trying to do to make the future better for our
>  children.

> We need to join together as PEOPlE and demand change because this is
> wrong, Not for gender but for families and children and their
> future,.As well as protecting and demanding our civil rights.

--- Mark Young <markyoung12@yahoo.com>  http://www.exiledfathers.org

> I do appreciate your Christian non-violent approach. However, I
> disagree with your request for gender neutrality on signs, etc.  I
> joined F4J and call my website exiledfathers.org because they are
> accurate representations of the times.

> You and the vast majority of NC parents are exiled fathers seeking
> justice.  We are all always inclusive of all exiled parents in our
> demands for justice with chants like "two parents are better than
> one" or "kids need both parents".

> Of course 100 years ago women were treated as property and denied
> parental rights but now the opposite is reality.  Men are currently
> the slaves upon which an industry is based just as African Americans
> once were.

I think this is where the error is.  Men are not 'slaves' in our
system.  There is no law that explicitly targets men as 'men', unlike
the laws regarding segregation and women which explicitly said 'women'
and 'blacks 'in their wording.

Yes, I agree men are the ones usually effected, but it can (and does)
effect mothers also -- the problem is giving a single person complete
control over your family life, making you subject to whatever petty
biases that person has, whatever that person think 'normal' family is
-- which depends a whole lot on how they were brought up in their
family.  The problem is recognizing the 'civil rights' of parents, not
just of men.

> The first sentence on my website gives a definition for exiled
> parents in recognition that some women are also NC parents,
> including my stepdaughter.  But it would not make sense in these
> days to call my website exiled parents or the call to call f4j
> parents 4 justice.

I saw the site and the first sentence.  It would make a lot of sense
to change the name to agree with your own definition.  I see no
betrayal or inconsistency in an F4J group that wants that to stand for
Families for Justice?

I do like what you say about requiring a criminal conviction before
any parent is labeled unfit or less than EQUAL -- that is the

> Judy Smith-Phelps of F4J gets it and her presence among fathers
> hugely amplifies the truth that fathers are, at this time, the great
> majority of victims.

> It saddens me that you would put a damper on free speech - true
> speech.  I pray you reconsider and withdraw that request.

I fully support free speech and I think the F4J folks have done
amazing things.  My 'free speech' is that I don't think labeling our
groups as 'men/fathers or mom/mothers' will make us politically
powerful in bring the change we seek.  The favorite 'out' of any
politician on this issue is to avoid a gender was, no one wants to get
involved in a mom v. dad thing -- we are the most powerful when we are
men and women together, in name as well as fact.

- Wes replies

> It doesn't really matter that the word "man" or "father" isn't used
> in the text of the laws here in VA, in practice the law results in
> 96% of fathers losing and mothers winning. Just as it would have
> made no difference if the old segregation laws used the word
> "african american" or "less desirable" or "not like us" the results
> would have been the same.

> I've been thru the gender neutral discussion many many times before
> and its a waste to time to debate it for long. Here is the insight
> I've gained.

> 1. You MUST have a group that indicates it is for fathers. Fathers
> are the overwhelming majority of people that both need help, want
> help and will be activist. A gender neutral group name won't attract
> nearly as many people, especially since feminists have been using
> gender neutral group names for anti-father groups. The feminists
> have been so successful I don't even waste time on looking into
> gender neutral groups, as gender neutral in practice implies woman
> only.

> 2. Its not a single gender issue for the 4% of mothers that lose and
> of those I've seen they are MUCH more likely to be politically
> active than the men who lose. You definitely want to attract and
> involve them. They don't seem put off by male only group names.

> I think the real solution is to accept if you really want to
> organize successfully you will have to have group names. Gender
> neutral is right but it will lose you most of the people you want to
> attract no matter how much you try to paint it otherwise. So make
> two groups, a male only name to bring in the fathers and then you
> can always attract the mothers and lobby with the gender neutral
> group name.

> For example nothing wrong with saying Fathers 4 Justice and Families
> 4 Justice will hold a joint protest....

- Mark replies:

> Thanks for responding.  I believe we are involved in a numbers game
> to achieve a critical mass of fellow victims joining the "army" to
> defeat the divorce industry.  I care more about reaching fellow
> victims than pleasing legislators.  Legislators will not do anything
> until they fear the PEOPLE.  Right now the people fear the
> GOVERNMENT.  That's the heart of the problem.

> If I put "exiled parents" or "familes for justice" on a sign, my
> van, or the internet, that is not going to get the attention as many
> of the class which in this particular point in history is most
> victimized: men, the de facto, if not de jure, slaves of the times
> we live in.

> I think Wes is right: inclusion of both angles at any particular
> event.  But if John is restricting his rallys or whatever to gender
> neutral language or speech, I'm sorry to say I likely would not
> attend.  I trust the wisdom of those willing to demonstrate as to
> how they express what's in their hearts.

2. Your FEEDBACK - Goal for reform?

--- Tammy Bowman <tamdpm@yahoo.com>  'That's the parent the child has'

> Divorce and custody are worlds apart from Ohio to New York.  OH at
> least tries to help the couple move to a better place of agreements,
> a healthier place for the children.... I think that ultimately,
> mediation will be the best way to go if it is at all possible.

> I've thought a great deal about our conversation, and you are right,
> the best interests of the child remain with the parents, Equally.
> Courts really have no place in this arena.  If a child has a
> particular talent, or disability, it's up to the school's teacher
> who notices this to convince BOTH parents that it's in the child's
> best interest to have time in either of those areas.  If a parent
> still doesn't "buy it" it's too bad, that's the parent that child
> has.

--- Carl Street <cjstreet@comcast.net>   http://cjstreet.com 

> Just a quick thought -- I do NOT agree with the current CPS
> interventions; however, I think their tactics can be exposed for
> what they are IF only a single item is introduced into the
> equation....

> Legally require BLIND justice in all child custody cases by
> REQUIRING that all documents, evidence, etc. be presented WITHOUT
> DISCLOSURE as to WHICH litigating parent is responsible for what.
> This would IMMEDIATELY remove the bias claims by either side and
> force the authorities to do what they purport to do -- make
> decisions in the best interests of the children.

Thanks for the message and idea.  But why give an 'authority' that
kind of power.  Right now CPS can separate parents/kids for a 'long'
time even if they don't win a criminal conviction.  How about
requiring that, and how about saying if they want an 'emergency'
separation between parents/child, that would trigger a 30 day speedy
trial for the parents if they desire.  It would just be using the
existing guidelines in our Criminal system and 12 people have to find
you guilty?  That is what we have in a draft Family Rights act,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/act.htm -- I welcome your thoughts.

- Carl replies:

> At the risk of appearing pedantic let me say I was NOT advocating
> this in terms of criminal convictions; rather; in terms of civil
> litigation between alienated marriage partners.  I just wanted to
> make sure my idea was not misunderstood.

> Regarding the criminal side of things, the government pretty much
> does what it damn well pleases; constitutions, bills of rights;
> ethics, logic, and laws be damned -- ask any American Indian,
> Japanese concentration camp survivor, Muslim traveler; and/or any
> other group the authorities decide to target.  The answers to THAT
> problem do not lie within the court system and never will.

--- "JIMMY" <justicemaker2@eircom.net>

> Please go to http://cps-victims.wetpaint.com & look under Navigation
> for your Page.  Petition: http://cps-victims.memory-of.com

Got both your message, very interesting web sites.  Thanks for the
mention.  I should be able to mention the petition in an upcoming

Best regards to you in Ireland!  I did see the CPS site you had there
and the goals seemed weak?  The government should only remove children
when it is serious/has to?  I guess the problem always is who decides

I think the only serious protection is requiring a parent be convicted
by a unanimous verdict from a jury of their peers.  Has that been
considered?  I'm not sure if criminal juries are used in Ireland?

--- William L Spence <wls@redshift.com>

> I would enact a legal presumption that courts order the
> parent-submitted parenting plan that provides for the closer to
> 50-50 timeshare, to be rebutted only on a showing to a high standard
> of proof that the plan is infeasible, i.e., that the parent or
> parents cannot actually carry out the duties the plan assigns.

> Although they could consult and take advice from therapists, parents
> and their legal counsel---not mental health practitioners---would be
> responsible for introducing and defending parenting plans, which
> would constitute essentially the entirety of custody orders.  Only
> if specific need were shown would therapists ever appear (in person
> or through a written report) as expert or factual witnesses.

> BTW, the Wisconsin doctor has the right idea, but unfortunately
> conflates several distinct aspects of child support, and child
> custody, law.  It should be emphasized that it always takes action
> on the part of the obligee to bring the agency into a non-welfare
> child support case, although federal policy---especially through
> things like disallowing wage assignments written to the
> recipient---is making it increasingly difficult for parents to
> remain independent.

Thanks for the messages -- but I keep going back to what gives all
these people the right to interfere or dictate based on any standard
of proof?  Both parents are considered Fit & Equal, by default
alternating weeks (but they can agree between themselves or with the
help of mediation to any arrangement they like).  No court has the
authority to intervene unless a criminal conviction has been won
against one of the parents for being a demonstrated serious threat
(with malintent), to the safety of their kids.  Your thoughts?

--- "RJ Mills" <rjmills@tmlp.com>

> Let me also mention that the Public is becoming aware, and people
> are seeing these signs. Membership has increased and the mention of
> shared parenting is being discussed openly now. I have just one hour
> ago, gotten a call from my Representative regarding a Bill we have
> in the House for shared parenting. He had said he will Support and
> Push for this bill. Our monthly meetings are growing and we have
> plans for Activities of making the public made known by doing Fund
> raisers, Golf tournaments and More. I have not seen activates in
> this so upbeat than what we have done now to make the Public
> aware. They have no Clue this is happening. WE MUST BRING IT TO
> THEM, The Media will than becoming to Us. Instead of us going to
> them. Our Children are being hurt, and we must let everybody know!! 
> We have a four stage process on signage over the Highways. The
> messages will becoming more direct to those in Opposition to us. We
> need to shame those whom are Hurting our Children and we intent to
> do this.

                                       John Murtari
Coordinator                            AKidsRight.Org
jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org                "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
Toll Free (877) 635-1968(x-211)        http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jan 06 2008 - 03:12:01 EST