ANCPR

    Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights

HOME || DOWNLOAD HANDBOOK |||  LATEST HEADLINES |||  DISCUSSION FORUM ||  MEMBERS ONLY AREA

Welcome!

eNews & Updates

Protect Your Rights!
- How It Really Works -
Download it now

ANCPR HOME

QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CASE?

LEGAL RESOURCES FOR NCP'S

HOW TO FIGHT BACK

STATISTICS FOR NCP's

CONTACT ANCPR

Contribute to ANCPR If you feel the work of ANCPR is important, please consider contributing whatever you can to the continued existence of this voice for the rights of noncustodial parents and their children. All those who contribute, in any amount, will receive all the benefits of ANCPR Membership, including a username and password to download the ANCPR Winning Strategies Handbook.

99Mind.com
Supports the work of ANCPR
Explore Human Potential

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/humres/107cong/6-28-01/record/chillegalfound.htm

Statement of Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, Children's Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina

Bill Wood is a Business Management and Technology Consultant volunteering his time to help families and children in the State of North Carolina and around the country. He is a principal custodian of a 9 year-old girl. Jay Gell is the Founder of the Children’s Legal Foundation in Charlotte, North Carolina. A small group of about 10 people formed after personal experiences with the excesses and abuses of the divorce Industry. Its mission is to promote intact families and create national alliances to change the child-destructive divorce industry.

Effects of Fatherlessness on Children – Social Consequences.

"Children describe the loss of contact with a parent as the primary negative aspect of divorce." ¹ Meanwhile, society is just now beginning to recognize on a widespread basis what children have known all along--; father-absence is one of the most destructive forces to children in our society. As has been noted "[f]ather-absence is the greatest social problem we face."² Father-absence associated with divorce and sole maternal custody, is the primary predictor of a host of societal ills affecting and destroying children

"The decline of fatherhood is a major force behind many of the most disturbing problems that plague America: crime and juvenile delinquency; premature sexuality and out-of-wedlock births to teenagers; deteriorating educational achievement; depression, substance abuse, and alienation among adolescents; and the growing number of women and children in poverty…

Fathers are the first and most important men in the lives of girls. They provide role models, accustoming their daughters to male-female relationships. Engaged and responsive fathers play with their daughters and guide them into challenging activities. They protect them, providing them with a sense of physical and emotional security. Girls with adequate fathering are more able, as they grow older, to develop constructive heterosexual relationships based on trust and intimacy…

Why does living without a father pose such hazards for children? Two explanations are usually given: The children receive less supervision and protection from men mothers bring home, and they are also more emotionally deprived, which leaves them vulnerable to sexual abusers… Even a diligent absent father can’t supervise or protect his children the way a live-in father can. Nor is he likely to have the kind of relationship with his daughter that is usually needed to give her a foundation of emotional security and a model for nonsexual relationships with men… ³

Promiscuity, teen pregnancy, child sexual abuse, and ongoing difficulties in later family life are results of feminist misandry infecting society with a "father hatred" causing father-absence;

Single motherhood, once lauded by the feminist icon "Murphy Brown," has thoroughly produced its cultural "poisoned fruit" (Candace Bergen ⁴ and the feminists then attacked Vice President Dan Quayle for his support of the family). White teenage girls in 1988 were 72% more likely than their father-present peers to become single mothers, while there was a 100% increase for black teenage girls,⁵ other studies also reported up to a 600% increase in teenage illegitimate births.⁶ Over 10 years later, out-of-wedlock-births have reduced slightly and stabilized, while the subject population has reduced accounting for much of the difference. ⁷ In contrast, more involved fathers protect girls from engaging in first sex, lower the risk of using illicit substances, and also reduce the risk of violent behavior."⁸ This protection "from engaging in first sex," or promoting abstinence, is the most certain way to reduce teenage pregnancy and avoid a whole host of issues caused by promiscuity.

Father-absence creates increases in child sex-role conflicts,⁹ and a 100% increase in gender identity struggles.¹⁰ Before it became "politically correct taboo" to treat homosexuality as a potential malady or disorder,¹¹ father-absence created a significant increase in the likelihood of homosexual behavior in males as well as females.¹²

The contrasts are striking because reversing the trend of illegitimacy requires, above all, presence of a father in the daily lives of children. It is not just "participation" of a father in the lives of children. It is primarily the "presence" of a father:

"Fathers who actively engage in joint activities and interaction with adolescents promote their educational and economic achievement and fathers who maintain a close stable emotional bond with adolescents over time protect adolescents from engaging in delinquent behaviors." ¹³

Some of the additional "poisoned fruit" deeply planted and rooted in young women by the "enlightened, anti-marriage, male-hating feminists" include difficulty for girls in building a stable family in adulthood,¹⁴ increased incidence of child sexual abuse,¹⁵ and heightened incidence of fatal child abuse by mothers.¹⁶ Teenage boys risk a 77% ¹⁷ to 100% ¹⁸ increase in

the overall likelihood of fathering an illegitimate child and therefore, as the research has shown, perpetuating the father-absence cycle for another generation (or generations to come). Teenage girls run a 92% greater risk of continuing the divorce cycle. ¹⁹ Infants and toddlers (two and younger) proved up to 100 times more likely to be killed by stepparents than by biological parents.²⁰ Preschoolers living without their biological father were 40 times more likely to be a victim of child abuse as compared to those living with their father.²¹

Even stepfathers do not foster improvement much better than outright father-absence.

There seems to be little substitute for the presence of a caring biological father. "Receipt of child support does not appear to make a significant difference" and "the presence of a step-parent does not significantly improve a child’s situation, either."²² Children living with a mother and stepfather fared poorly on most indicators. ²³ Child abuse occurs most frequently within stepfamilies, and, in fact, most sexual abuse occurs in stepfamilies.²⁴ Sexual abuse of girls by their stepfathers can be at a minimum six or seven times higher, ²⁵ and may be up to 40 times ²⁶ that of sexual abuse by biological fathers in intact families. When it comes to the risk of abuse with unrelated males, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead explains:

"Stepfathers also pose a sexual risk to children, especially stepdaughters. They are more likely than biological fathers to commit acts of sexual abuse, and are less likely to protect daughters from other male predators. According to a Canadian study, children in stepfamilies are forty times as likely to suffer physical or sexual abuse as children in intact families." ²⁷

It is worth noting that stepfathers cannot make up for the lack of a biological father. In fact, Maggie Gallagher notes:

"Children in stepfamilies do no better on average than children in single-parent homes…Failing to understand the erotic relations that are at the heart of family life, they [sociologists] failed to predict what, sadly and surprisingly, later research strongly suggested: Remarriage is not only not necessarily a cure; it is often one of the risks children of divorce face" ²⁸

Father-absence promotes anti-social behavior as well as criminal activity and psychological problems.

Delinquency of children, and in particular boys, is promoted by father-absence.²⁹ The problems with not having fathers in children’s lives can be so severe that they can cause an 86% increase in the likelihood that a child will become a psychotic delinquent. ³⁰ Some of the widely recognized statistics of the ills, and cost to society of father-absence include; 90% of all homeless and runaway children,³¹ 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions,³² 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers,³³ 85% of prison youths,³⁴ and talk about promoting a danger to women -- up to 80% of rapists, motivated by displaced anger.³⁵ There is also a threefold increase in the likelihood that a child will be involved in gang activity.³⁶

Over the existing population, there is a 200% increase in the likelihood that a child will require psychological treatment ³⁷ with 85% of all father-absent children exhibiting behavioral disorders³⁸ This is a crucial point for consideration for every attorney, and every judge that separates a fit father from his children. They are PROMOTING behavioral disorders. Low self-esteem is suffered by both girls ³⁹ and boys.⁴⁰ There is a 200% increase in attempted or successful teen suicides ⁴¹ with 63% of all [successful] youth suicides from fatherless homes.⁴²

Academic performance is severely affected

Father-absence creates a significant decrease in school performance, ⁴³ a significant increase in disruptive school behavior, ⁴⁴ a significant decrease in performance on aptitude tests, in cognitive skills, in terms of grades, and is cumulative in nature; ⁴⁵ and predicts truancy and grade repetition. ⁴⁶ Fatherless children also account for 71% of all high school dropouts. ⁴⁷ Some of the affects of this low academic achievement can be seen in the substantial increase in men’s odds of ending up in the lowest occupational stratum ⁴⁸ repeating the "illegitimacy cycle, and ending up "dead-broke" unable to support their children.

In contrast to this academic destruction of children, father-present children "are more likely to get mostly A’s, to enjoy school, and to participate in extracurricular activities if their nonresident fathers are involved in their schools than if they are not." The report laments that "[t]he majority of nonresident fathers, however, are not involved in their children’s schools." ⁴⁹ There are ample studies to show (explored later) that this is not entirely by their choice.

Surprising CAUSES of Fatherlessness

Certainly, no reasonable person would suggest that some fathers do not abdicate, or completely avoid and abandon their responsibilities to their child(ren). Surprisingly, that is not one of the larger causes of fatherlessness. ⁵⁰ The largest causes of fatherlessness will come as a surprise and shock to most. The single largest reason that fathers do not see their children is a result of female-initiated divorce for no "good" reason. ⁵¹ There are a number of studies and commentaries that indicate the reasons of female-initiated divorce, and rates that may be greater than 80% while most of the studies indicate 66% - 75%. ⁵²

"In reality … throughout most of North American history wives have filed for divorce twice as often as husbands…"

The proportion of divorces initiated by women ranged around 60% for most of the 20th century, and climbed to more than 70% in the late 1960s when no-fault divorce was introduced: so says a just-released study by law professor Margaret Brinig of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia and Douglas Allen, economist at Vancouver's Simon Fraser University. The researchers undertook one of the largest studies ever on divorce, using 46,000 cases from the four American states that keep statistics on which partner initiates the action. In addition to women filing twice as often, the researchers found, they are more likely to instigate separations and marriage break ups.

The Brinig-Allen study also explodes the myth of the brutish husband, finding, for instance, that cruelty is cited in only 6% of divorce applications in Virginia, one of the few states that still uses fault grounds for divorce…

Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver provides backup for the Brinig-Allen study. In his new book, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, Mr. Braver surveyed 400 divorcing couples seeking causes for the breakdown of their marriages. He found "violence or abuse strikingly absent." Instead, less dramatic factors prevailed, such as "growing apart" or "spouse not able or willing to meet my needs."

…In 25% of marriage breakdowns … men have "no clue" there is a problem until the woman tells them they want out. …[W]omen are more likely to file if the divorce rate is high in their area or if their friends and families are doing it. "Where the divorce rate is low so there's a lot of stigma attached," … "they won't leave..."

"The rights of women in society have been pushed to such an extent that they now feel if they're not happy, it's their partner's fault," says marriage researcher Walter Schneider… "That perception is heightened by the social conditioning of men to be chivalrous. Men have to be protectors of women and children, so they are reluctant to become involved in an adversarial process against a woman. They're also less likely to seek divorce because that would destroy their self-image as providers and protectors of the family. It would destroy their world; all they've sacrificed for would go down the drain."

Mr. Schneider points to an Australian study indicating that… divorced persons have the highest suicide rate...

But according to Professors Brinig and Allen, [the mother’s] custody of the children may be the very reason her husband provides so little support. There are three basic reasons people file for divorce they say: (1) to stop being exploited within the marriage, (2) to exploit the other spouse by running off with marital investments, or (3) to establish custody over children. They believe that determining which of the three predominates could assist divorce law reformers.

If divorces result mostly from bad (or exploitive) marriages, the Brinig-Allen study suggests, then divorce should be made (or kept) easier; if divorces result mostly from a desire to exploit the partner, then it should be made more difficult or expensive; and if it is custody outcomes which most influence divorce filings, a presumption of joint custody, except where one parent can demonstrate the other is unfit, would "mitigate the incentive for one party filing for the purpose of gaining unilateral control over the children and therefore the other spouse."

After analyzing 21 wide-ranging variables, the Brinig-Allen study concludes that the person who anticipates gaining custody of the children is the one most likely to file for divorce. Therefore, Prof. Brinig speculates, if joint custody were the norm, there would likely be fewer divorces, not more…

In fact, however, divorce rates are plunging in states where courts typically award custody of children to both parents. A study headed by Richard Kuhn of the Children's Rights Council based in Washington, D.C., found that states with higher levels of joint custody awards in 1989 and 1990 "have shown significantly greater declines in divorces in the following years through 1995, compared with other states." Overall divorce rates declined nearly four times faster in high joint-custody states compared with states where joint custody is relatively rare. A large factor, the researchers believe, is that joint custody "removes the capacity for one spouse to hurt the other by denying participation in raising the children." ⁵³

Dr. Richard Warshak, among America's leading experts on father custody, described the history of routine custody arrangements as follows:

"In earlier times it was assumed that men, by nature, are better suited to protect and provide for children. Since 1920, it has been assumed that women, by nature, are better suited to love and care for children.

"These assumptions, which so powerfully affect so many children's lives, are based on nothing more than folklore and sexual stereotypes... As guidelines for custody dispositions, folklore, sentiment, and stereotypes are poor substitutes for factual information. In the last two decades, social scientists have examined different custody arrangements and their effects on children's development. If this information is ignored, and we continue to allow myth and sentiment to rule custody decisions, we short-change our children and we short-change ourselves." ⁵⁴

Excerpt as adapted from US House of Representatives written testimony of Richard Weiss and William Wood.⁵⁵

Non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. And the picture gets worse. When mothers are awarded primary or "sole" custody, 37.9% of fathers, end up with no access/visitation rights.⁵⁶ And another study found that 42% of fathers fail to see their children at all after divorce. ⁵⁷ The very narrow difference (~ 4% variance) between these two studies where the COURTS remove the father, and the overall loss of parental contact indicates that the courts themselves are the biggest culprit in this. ⁵⁸

Non-compliance with court ordered visitation by custodial mothers prevents 77% of non-custodial fathers from being able to "visit" their children ⁵⁹. 40% of custodial mother SELF-REPORTS indicate they interfered with the father's visitation to "punish" children’s fathers, ⁶⁰ other fathers "often experience intense conflicts with their former spouses, and these conflicts typically interfere with their on-going parent-child relationships." ⁶¹ Another study reported that 25-33% of them outright DENIED visits (in defiance of an established order) ⁶² ~50% see no value in the father's involvement with the child, ⁶³ and many use the children to retaliate against the father for their own ongoing personal problems. ⁶⁴ Sole custodial mothers exert power and control to abuse court orders, denying fathers visitation, ⁶⁵ and they would also sabotage father’s involvement in their children’s lives. ⁶⁶ And finally fathers absolutely WANT to be with their children, or these child-destroying, spiteful acts would be useless ⁶⁷ without a "control and power" incentive.

The court system does not enforce orders for "visitation" ⁶⁸ but jails for non-compliance with a "child" support order. This is a clear indication that the whole DIVORCE INDUSTRY ⁶⁹ is about money ⁷⁰ and children are just the "poker chips" in this high stakes "game". Their destruction is just "collateral damage" for the marriage hating special interests pushing their child destroying propaganda.

As the Family Law Quarterly noted as early as 1984, the majority view of the psychiatric and pediatric profession is that mothers and fathers are equals as parents ⁷¹. There is an abundance of studies indicating fathers are equally qualified parents. ⁷² And fathers have been seeking to be involved in family matters for some time now. ⁷³

The legal system uses an indeterminate criteria, pseudo-named a "standard" called the "best interests of the child standard". If the courts were honest in their use of the "best interests of the child" then so much social science information and information that "[t]he primary negative aspect of divorce reported by children in numerous studies was loss of contact with a parent" ⁷⁴ could not be ignored so easily. After all, there is a repeated description of "the dissatisfaction of so many youngsters who felt they were not seeing their fathers often enough. If custody and visiting issues are to be within the realm of the 'best interest of the child,' then such widespread discontent must be taken very seriously." ⁷⁵ When examining the undisputed child’s viewpoint, cutting through the hysterical feminist propaganda and hyperbole, and looking at the child’s viewpoint, there is only one tenable answer--; the "best interests of the child" dictates something akin to 50-50 shared parenting. "One clear message from the accumulated divorce research is that children profit by continued [frequent] exposure to both parents." ⁷⁶

Unfortunately it is the rule, rather than the exception that trial courts are bound by the relics of antiquated stereotypes in their dealings with child custody and visitation questions. Especially when there are modern approaches that better serve the "best interests of the child".

Courts are ruthlessly efficient in establishing specific standards, guidelines, criteria and rules for dealing with Child Support where the state has a vested interest in collecting TANF funds provided by the Federal Government. So much so that there are almost NO reasons that some party cannot be found to PAY. Even in those cases where there is CLEARLY fraud involved (such as in the case of an unfaithful spouse who becomes pregnant and deceives the other).

Recommendations:

Make TANF funds contingent upon a statutory presumption of 50-50 shared parenting with the rebuttal to that presumption being a VOLUNTARY reduction by either party, OR a detailed finding of unfitness by one of the parties. ⁷⁷ When mothers are awarded primary or "sole" custody, 37.9% of fathers, end up with no access/visitation rights ⁷⁸.

Require all, or at least a portion of the TANF funds to be used to promote marriages and father involvement. ⁷⁹ [Federal and State governments have an obligation of promoting "a more perfect union… establish[ing] justice… insur[ing] domestic tranquility… promot[ing] the general welfare… and secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" ⁸⁰. Anything less is a violation of the INTENT AND PURPOSE of the US Constitution and is therefore, unconstitutional.]

Tie TANF Funding to enforcement of visitation orders. Courts ROUTINELY imprison for Child support under the GUISE of "contempt" (which could reasonably be argued as the forbidden "debtor’s prison"), yet rarely prosecute for, or enforce visitation except under extreme circumstances. ⁸¹

Tie TANF fund bonuses, and additional block grants to those states that are successful in reducing divorce, and in promoting stable families. If this is really all about the children, then a father’s wallet can no longer be a substitute for his presence. Change the Health and Human Services mission to strengthening marriages and parental relationships, away from "divorce industry support." What greater "Human Service" than promoting children’s Health by supporting marriage and fighting divorce??

Have the Federal Government begin gathering social studies data once again. ⁸² In spite of the studies listed in this paper, the federal government no longer collects data on many family issues and only the Census has given any indication of how bad the situation REALLY is.

Conclusions:

In tying TANF funds to those things that are anathema to the divorce industry the culture is stabilized, and the repair and restoration of our children can begin. It also removes the pressure, and the performance measures from the state to knowingly, or unknowingly, advance anti-family, and anti-father policies. While no "Family Law" judge will admit it, it will also remove any incentive or pressure upon them to "maximize" child support awards even if it destroys one parent or the family. ⁸³ Additional benefits of a 50-50 legal and physical custody presumption (akin to the Child Support rebuttable presumption), are: 1) Reduces parental incentives to carry out litigation; 2) Reduces judicial discretion; 3) Creates greater incentive to settle outside of court; 4) Lowers acrimony and "back and forth" battles; 5) Lowers case backlogs and judicial burden and thereby maximizes judicial economy; 6) Lowers some of the incentives to divorce; 7) Reduces some of the struggles that children must endure by being "caught in the middle"; and a whole host of other benefits.

No matter how mighty America may be, and no matter what this country may believe, there is no nation in recorded history that has long survived the destruction of its families and culture. There will certainly be those who are opposed to these recommendations, but careful scrutiny will quickly reveal that they have some vested interest (usually financially) in the continuation of the current family destroying, and child injuring system.

In the shining light of the evidence, government and judicial policies that reduce fathers to little more than "wallets" and do not promote involvement as their PRIMARY focus, serve to undermine the Constitution’s purpose of "a more perfect union… establish[ing] justice… insur[ing] domestic tranquility… promot[ing] the general welfare… and secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Fatherlessness studies can no longer be ignored for the affects it has on our "posterity." The government and the judiciary MUST change their "automatic-men-at-fault" policies lest our posterity look back upon this and see today’s policies as an attempt to undermine the Constitution and the country. There is enough data to suggest that any policy OR PRACTICE by government, or its agencies, that prevents father involvement, whether by legislation or judicial decree, is promoting child abuse and may violate the intent of the United States Constitution (noted in the preamble) making it unconstitutional!

¹ J Kelly. Assoc. of Family and Conciliation Courts, California Chapter Mtg, Sonoma, CA, Jan. 1991.
² D. Blankenhorn. Fatherless America. (New York: BasicBooks, 1995), Title page.
³ D. Popenoe. “Life without father.”  In: C. Daniels, ed. Lost fathers: The Politics of Fatherlessness in America . (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998).
⁴ June 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the TV show Murphy Brown for promoting single motherhood.  Chaos ensued and he was incessantly ridiculed by Hollywood and the media.  Candace Bergen wins an Emmy for her portrayal of Murphy Brown and begins another career giving commencement speeches on University campuses.  [Author commentary] With the complete absorption of feminist, anti-family, anti-father philosophy so deeply entrenched in Hollywood, the media, and gaining a stranglehold over the courts, is it any wonder that families are being destroyed, children are suffering, and our culture is decaying?
⁵ S. McLanahan. Demography 25, Feb. 1988, p. 1-16.
⁶ Y. Matsuhashi et al. (1988).   J Adolescent Health Care 10, 409-412.
⁷ Most WW2 baby-boomers are past child-bearing age and their children are beyond teenage years.
⁸ K. Harris et al. Paternal involvement with adolescents in intact families: The influence of fathers over the life course, presented at the annual meeting of the Am. Sociol. Assoc., New York, N.Y., August 16-20, 1996; Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, N.C., 27516, p. 28.
⁹ H. Biller, (1974).  Paternal Deprivation: Family, School, Sexuality, and Society (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath)
¹⁰ G. Rekers. Journal of Family and Culture, 2, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), p. 8-31.
¹¹ As was listed in the Psych profession’s DSM-III before it was removed through political pressure from the DSM-IV.
¹² H. Biller, Paternal Deprivation: Family, School, Sexuality, and Society (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1974), p.114.
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ S McLanahan, L Bumpass. (July, 1988).  Am J Sociol, 4, 130-152.
₁₅ A Sedlak (August 30, 1991).   “Supplementary Analyses of Data on the National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect” (Rockville, Md.: Westat) table 6-2, p. 6-5.  see also, Gomes-Schwartz, Horowitz, and Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse Victims and their Treatment, 1988 (69% of victims of child sexual abuse came from homes where the biological father was absent)
¹⁶ H. Biller, (1974).  Paternal Deprivation: Family, School, Sexuality, and Society (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath), p. 21f. see also, Fatherless Families Spawning Virulent Form of Child Abuse," New York Tribune, June 6, 1984
¹⁷ W. Marsiglio Family Planning Perspective 19 Nov/Dec, 1987, 240-251.
¹⁸ B. Christensen. The Family in America. Vol 3, no. 4 [April 1989], p.3.
¹⁹ Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992; Hetherington, 1972
²⁰ Wilson and Daly, "The Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents," in Richard J. Gelles and Jane B. Lancaster, eds., Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, Foundations of Human Behavior (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987), p. 215-232.
²¹ Wilson and Daly in Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, 1987.
²² K. Harris. Reuters. Fathers’ Care Benefits Children. N.Y., August 25, 1998.
²³ National Center for Health Statistics, June 1991.
²⁴ David M. Fergusson, Michael T. Lynskey, and L. John Horwood, (1996).  "Childhood Sexual Abuse and Psychiatric Disorders in Young Adulthood: I. Prevalence of Sexual Abuse and Factors Associated with Sexual Abuse," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 34, pp. 1355-1364.
²⁵ Diana E. H. Russell, (1984).   "The Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse: Stepfathers vs. Biological Fathers," Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 8, pp. 15-22.
²⁶ See Wilson and Daly, "The Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents," p. 228.
²⁷ M Daly, M Wilson. Homicide (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988), p.89.
²⁸ M. Gallagher, (1996).  The abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love.  DC., Regnery Pub, Chapter 6.
²⁹ M. Wynn. Fatherless Families: A Study of Families Deprived of a Father by Death, Divorce, Separation, or Desertion Before and After Marriage (N.Y.: London and Maxwell, 1964), p. 147.
³⁰ R. Zagar. J Am. Acad. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28 [1989]:437-440.
³¹ US Department Health and Human Services Bureau of Census
³² U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988.
³³ Rainbow for All God’s Children
³⁴ Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Corrections, 1992.
³⁵ R. Knight, R., R. Prentky. Criminal Justice and Behavior Vol. 14 (Dec 1987), 403-426.
³⁶ Christensen at footnote 24.
³⁷ N. Kalter. Am. J Orthopsychiatry, 57 (4), October, 1987.
³⁸ Center for Disease Control
³⁹ E Wakerman. Father Loss: Daughters Discuss the Man that Got Away. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, p. 109.
⁴⁰ H Biller. Father, Child, and Sex Role. (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1971), p.3.
⁴¹ Prof. Victor R. Fuchs, Stanford Univ., LA Times, Oct. 24, 1988.
⁴² U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
⁴³ M Thompson, K Alexander, D. Entwwisle. Social Forces, 67, Dec. 1988, 424-451.
⁴⁴ R Forehand et al. Journal of Behavior Therapy and experimental Psychiatry, 18, (Dec 1987): 325-328.
⁴⁵ H Biller, R Solomon. Child Maltreatment and Paternal Deprivation: A Manifesto for Research, Prevention, and Treatment (Lex, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1986), p. 136.
⁴⁶ G Bauer. Report to the President from the White House Working Group on the Family. Feb., 1988.
⁴⁷ National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools
⁴⁸ T Biblarz, A Raftery. Am Sociol Review, 1 (Feb 1993), p. 97.
⁴⁹ U.S. Department of  Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 98-117 (June 1998).
⁵⁰ "Non custodial parents, who are usually men, are likely to be negatively affected in psychological ways. A most pervasive problem is suffering caused by the feeling that they have lost their children." Increasing Our Understanding of Fathers Who Have Infrequent Contact With Their Children. James R. Dudley, Professor, University North Carolina, under a grant from Temple University, Family Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1991 pg. 279, col. 2, 2, lines 1 - 5
⁵¹ This is a limited list as there is an abundance of sources:
Friedman and Percival (1976).  “Who sues for Divorce?” – 5 Journal of Legal Studies 61-82.  see pages 71, 75, 78, 81.
Gunter and Johnson (1978). “Divorce Filing as Role Behavior:  Effect of No-Fault Law on Divorce Filing Patterns,”  Journal of Marriage and Family 571-574.  see page 572.
Pettit, E.J. & Bloom, B.L. (1984).  “Whose decision was it: The effects of initiator status on adjustment to marital disruption.”  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 587-595.
Stark (1991).  “Divorce Law, Feminism, and Psychoanalysis:  In Dreams Begin Responsibilities,” 38 UCLA Law Review 1483-1531.   see page 1514, note 149.
Braver et. al. (1993).  “Who Divorced Whom?  Methodological and Theoretical Issues,” 20 Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 1-19.
Brinig  (1993).   “The Law and Economics of No-Fault Divorce,” 26 Family Law Quarterly 453-470.
Brinig and Buckley (1998).  “No-Fault Laws and At-Fault People,’ 18 International Review of Law & Economics 325-340.
Brinig, M. and Allen D (2000).  “These Boots are Made for Walking:  Why most divorce filers are women.”
⁵² This is a limited list as there is an abundance of sources:
Weitzman, 1985.  “The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America,”  New York: The Free Press, page 460. 
Chambers, 1979.  “Making Fathers Pay -- the wife is the moving party in divorce actions seven times out of eight."  Chicago: University of Chicago Press. page 29.
Hite, 1987.  “Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress” where it is stated "ninety-one percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands."  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987, page 459.
Colorado Supreme Court - Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts.  Gender and Justice in the Colorado Courts from the Task Force Report, 1990.  Revealed that 7 out of 8 divorces are initiated by women (88%)
Fetzner, William of WFEJ clerk of the courts data from a five county study of child custody and support assessments in Marian, Howard, Hancock, Grant, and Rush counties (Indiana) in 1985.  Petitions filed by mother: 76.7% - of 2,033 dissolutions granted, 1,599 (76.7%) were filed by wives, 474 (23.3%) were filed by husbands.
Joan Kelly, author of Surviving the Breakup, “Divorce is sought about three to one by women” (cited in Joint Custody Newsletter, January, 1988). 
Ahrons, C. (1994).  The good divorce. NY: Harper Collins page 92.
⁵³ Mclean, Candis.  Look Who Doesn't Want A Divorce.  New Studies Indicate Women Are First To File, But That Joint Custody Keeps Families Together.  January 11, 1999
⁵⁴ Dr. Richard Warshak, The Custody Revolution (1992) ppg. 33-34.
⁵⁵ Serial No. 106-107 -- H.R. 1488, The ``Hyde-Woolsey'' Child Support Bill, March 16, 2000.
⁵⁶ Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.  p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5
⁵⁷ Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Christine Winquist Nord, "Parenting Apart: Patterns of Childbearing after Marital Disruption," Journal of Marriage and the Family 47, no. 4 (November 1985): 874, cited in Sylvia Ann Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks (1991) at 286-287.
⁵⁸ While it is possible that the correlation between these two studies may be anecdotal, the time frame is similar, and can the courts continue to “flirt with disaster” in so many separations of children from their fathers?
⁵⁹ Visitational Interference - A National Study, Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W. (September 1992)
⁶⁰ Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991. p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton)
⁶¹ See footnote 50.  Family Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1991 pg. 279, col. 2, 2, lines 15 - 19
⁶² Frequency of Visitation by Divorced Fathers: Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers - Sanford H. Braver, Ph.D., Sharlene A. Wolchik, Ph.D., Irwin M. Sandler, Ph.D., Bruce S. Fogas, Ph.D., Daria Zvetina, M.Ed. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry pg. 451, col. 2, 2, lines 11 - 14
⁶³ Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125
⁶⁴ Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, November 1989
⁶⁵ "Unilateral abuse of parental custodial power is more common in court ordered sole custody situations." Child Custody and Parental Cooperation - Frank Williams, M.D., Dir. Psychiatry - Cedar-Sinai - Presented to the American Bar Association, Family Law Section, August 1987 and January 1988 pg. 4, col. 1, 1, lines 17 - 20
⁶⁶ The Effect of the Post Divorce Relationship on Paternal Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis - Constance R. Ahrons, Ph.D., and Richard B. Miller, Ph.D., American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 3, July 1993 pg. 442, Col. 1, 1, lines 23 - 27
⁶⁷ "Most men were dissatisfied with the frequency of visitation".   Visitation and the Noncustodial Father - Mary Ann P. Koch, Carol R. Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984, pg. 54, 4 lines 5 also noted was "70% of fathers felt they had too little time with their children."  pg 54, 4, lines 5 - 7
⁶⁸ "The court's failure to enforce or expand visitation agreements were a frequently mentioned complaint" Increasing Our Understanding of Fathers Who Have Infrequent Contact With Their Children - James R. Dudley, Professor, University North Carolina, under a grant from Temple University, Family Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1991 pg. 281, col. 2, 2, lines 14 - 16
⁶⁹ This is a list of some who benefit or participate, financial or otherwise, in the continued breakdown of the family, destruction of marriage, or in the increased male acrimony (termed misandry – male hatred).

⁷⁰ "Few men can afford to legally contest every infringement of the visitation agreement." Visitation and the Noncustodial Father - Mary Ann P. Koch, Carol R. Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984 - pg. 60, 3, lines 11 - 12
⁷¹ See J. Atkinson, "Criteria for Deciding Child Custody in the Trial and Appellate Courts, " Family Law Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, No 1 (Spring 1984).
⁷² Michael E. lamb & Abraham Sagi eds., 1983) Studies show that fathers can be "just as sensitive and competent in care-giving as mothers"; William Marsiglio, Fatherhood, Contemporary Theory, Research and Social Policy (William Marsiglio ed., 1995) Men interact differently with children but their ability to parent is just as effective; Pamela Daniels & Kathy Weingarten, The Fatherhood Click: The Timing of Parenthood in Men's Lives, in Fatherhood Today: Men's Changing Role in the Family (Phyllis Bronstein & Carolyn Cowen eds., 1988) ("Fatherhood Today") Nurturing is not inherent in either a mother or father, but must be learned and developed by both.
⁷³ "[A]part from any response to the women's movement, men are also seeking increased emotional closeness with their infants as part of a men's movement toward fuller personhood, and as a reaction against the alienation and burnout of the purely instrumental role of family provider." Michael W. Yogman, James Cooley, and Daniel Kindlon, Fathers, Infants, and Toddlers, in Fatherhood Today
⁷⁴ Hetherington et al., 1982; Kurdek & Berg, 1983; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980, Warshak & Santrock, 1983.
⁷⁵ J. Wallerstein and J. Kelly, Surviving the Breakup, 142-143 (1980) . See also, D. Luepnitz, Child Custody, A Study of Families After Divorce, (1983).
⁷⁶ M. Koch, C. Lowry. Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984.
⁷⁷ 1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173. pages 6-7.  90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the child support due.
⁷⁸ Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.  p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5
⁷⁹ 5 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 1 (1998) - HOW JUDGES USE THE PRIMARY CARETAKER STANDARD TO MAKE A CUSTODY DETERMINATION.  Page 37.  “Compared with those [children] raised in intact two-parent families, adults who experienced a parental divorce had lower psychological well-being, more behavioral problems, less education, lower job status, a lower standard of living, lower marital satisfaction, a heightened risk of divorce, a heightened risk of being a single parent, and poorer physical health.”  (as cited from Paul R. Amato, Life-span Adjustment of Children to Their Parents' Divorce, in 4 The Future of Children page 146. (1994))
⁸⁰ As excerpted from the preamble of the US Constitution.  This preamble sets these principles forth as the GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ALL CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION.
⁸¹ 1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173. pages 6-7.  79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the child support due. Only 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the child support due.
⁸² Government studies in a number of family issues that were not “politically correct” were stopped in 1993 under the previous administration.
⁸³ All judicial pensions and retirements are tied to the State’s bonds, funds, and the general fund.  When TANF funds are allowed in the general fund, it supplements and supports the strength of their retirements and is a strong motivator for potential abuses by some (though certainly not all) unscrupulous judges.