User talk:Michael H 34/backup FRM

The Fathers' rights movement is a movement whose members are primarily interested in issues related to family law, including child custody and child support that affect fathers and their children. Though it has been described as a social movement, members of the movement believe their actions are better described as part of a civil rights movement. Objections to the characterizations of the movement as a social movement are related to the belief that discrimination against fathers moves beyond the social sciences and originates in government intervention into family life. The movement has received international press coverage as a result of high profile activism of their members, has become increasingly vocal, visible and organised, and has played a powerful presence in family law debates.

History
The fathers' rights movement emerged in the West from the 1960s onwards as part of the Men's movement with organizations such as Families Need Fathers originating in the 1970s. In the late twentieth-century, the growth of the internet permitted wider discussion, publicity and activism about issues of interest to fathers' rights activists.

The movement has been described as part of a gender war in response to increasing female power in Western society, and the consequent challenge to men's traditional roles and authority. Other factors thought to contribute to the development of the Fathers' rights movement include shifting household demographics brought about by rising divorce and falling marriage rates, changes in the understanding and expectations of fatherhood, motherhood and childhood and shifts in how legal systems impact families.

Membership
Despite the highly diverse goals, methods and political views of its members, membership of the fathers' rights movement is primarily composed of white, middle or working class, heterosexual men, who share a focus on a narrowly defined set of issues based on the concerns of divorced or divorcing men. The movement also includes women as well as men, often the second wives of divorced fathers or other family members of men who have had some engagement with family law.

Though membership is diverse, the fathers' rights movement can be viewed has having both liberal and conservative branches, with different viewpoints about how men and women compare. Though both groups agree on the victimization and discrimination against men, they disagree on why men and women differ (nature versus nurture) and traditional gender roles. The liberal version believes differences between the sexes are due to culture, and support the liberation of women; in contrast the conservative branch believes in traditional patriarchical families and that the differences between genders are due to biology. Scholars Ross D. Parke and Armin D. Brott, view the fathers' rights movement as one of three strands within the men's movement that deal almost exclusively with fatherhood, the other two being the good fathers' movement and groups forming the Christian Men's movement - the Promise Keepers being the largest. In their view, the Promise Keepers emphasize traditional gender roles, the members of the good fathers' movement idealize the man who embraces the breadwinner role and defers to, and learns from his wife's domestic authority, and members of the fathers' rights movement have not reached the millions of men in intact marriages who, for many reasons, are not able to be as involved with their children as they would like to be.

Some fathers’ rights groups have been short-lived and unstable, as members and leaders do not remain with the group after they have been helped. In 2005, disputes within Fathers 4 Justice occurred.

Beliefs, Activities and Criticisms
Members of the fathers' rights movement assert that fathers are discriminated against as a result of gender bias in family law,  that custody decisions have been a denial of equal rights, and that the influence of money has corrupted family law. The movement's primary focus has been to campaign (including lobbying and research) for formal legal rights for fathers, and sometimes for children, and to campaign for changes to family law related to child custody, support and maintenance, domestic violence and the family court system itself. Fathers’ rights groups also provide emotional and practical support for members during separation and divorce.

Some fathers' rights groups have become frustrated with the slow pace of traditional campaigning for law reform. Groups such as Fathers 4 Justice have become increasingly vocal and visible, undertaking public demonstrations which have attracted public attention and influenced the politics of family justice. Some protests have proved controversial and have led to public order convictions for participants.

The activities of some Fathers' rights groups have led to allegations of harassment and threatening behavior, and in a conviction for stalking. Fathers' rights activists have condemned violent behaviour, with Matt O'Connor of Fathers 4 Justice asserting that his organisation was committed to "peaceful, non-violent direct action" and that members caught engaging in intimidation would be expelled.

Sociologists Scott Coltrane and Neal Hickman state that like other political advocacy groups, members of fathers' rights groups cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems, and that they use rhetorical strategies to elicit emotional responses. Michael Flood states that its members support shared parenting only as a symbolic issue related to "rights", "equality", and "fairness." He further states that its members are not actually interested in the shared care of their children or on the wishes of their children, and he adds that fathers’ rights groups have advocated policies and strategies which are harmful to mothers and children and also harmful to the fathers themselves. In contrast, social scientist Sanford Braver states that the bad divorced dad image is a seriously inaccurate myth that has led to harmful and dangerous social policies.

Family court system
Members of the fathers' rights movement criticize the family court system. They define court-determined custody as not a right to parent one's children but as the power to prevent the other partner from parenting, and they state that family courts are biased against fathers and shared custody. They state that the outcome of divorce is overly one-sided, divorce is initiated by mothers in more than two-thirds of cases - especially when children are involved, and that divorce provides advantages for women, such as automatic custody of the children and financial benefits in the form of child support payments. They also state that family courts are slow to help fathers enforce their parental rights, expensive and time-consuming.

Members of the fathers' rights movement including Stephen Baskerville, a former President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children, state that family courts are secretive, censoring and punitive of fathers who criticize them, and they also state that employees and activists within the courts support and benefit from the separation of children from their parents. Baskerville further states that family law today represents civil rights abuses and intrusive perversion of government power.

Others contest these conclusions, state that family courts are biased in favor of fathers and also state that the lower percentage of separated fathers as custodial parents is a result of choices made by fathers rather than bias of family courts.

Shared parenting
Stating that "children need two parents" and that "children have a fundamental human right to an opportunity and relationship with both their mother and father", members of the fathers’ rights movement call for greater equality in parental responsibility following separation and divorce. They call for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody after divorce or separation, so that children would spend equal time with each parent unless there were reasons against it. They point to studies showing that children in shared custody settings are better adjusted and have fewer social problems such as low academic achievement, crime, pregnancy, substance abuse, depression and suicide, and state that shared parenting is in fact in the best interests of the child. Members of the fathers' rights movement and their critics disagree about the correlation of negative developmental outcomes for children to sole custody situations. Critics of the fathers' rights movement and researcher V. C. McLoyd state that father absence covaries with other relevant family characteristics such as the lack of an income from a male adult, the absence of a second adult, and the lack of support from a second extended family system and conclude that it is the negative effects of poverty, and not the absence of a father, that result in negative developmental outcomes. On the other hand, members of the fathers' rights movement state that although the consequences of poverty and having a single parent are interrelated, each is a risk factor with independent effects on children, and that the negative outcomes for children in sole custody situations correlate more strongly to "fatherlessness" than to any other variable including poverty.

Members of the fathers' rights movement criticize the best interests of the child standard currently used in many countries for making custody decisions, which they describe as highly subjective and based on the personal prejudices of family court judges and court-appointed child custody evaluators,   and that courts are abusive when more than half custody is taken away from a willing, competent parent. Members of the fathers' rights movement including Ned Holstein state that a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting is supported by a majority of citizens, and Baskerville states that proposals to enact such laws are opposed by divorce lawyers and by feminist organizations, the latter by invoking the specter of domestic violence and child abuse as propaganda directed against fathers and fathers' rights groups.

Critics of shared parenting state that joint custody arrangements are good for children only if there is no conflict between the parents. They state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children. Critics also question the motives of those promoting shared parenting, noting that it would result in substantial decreases in or termination of child support payments.

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting has been demonstrated to reduce parental conflict by requiring parents to cooperate and compromise, and that it is the lack of constraint by one parent resulting from the ability of that parent to exclude the other, that results in increased parental conflict. They add that only when child support guidelines exceed true costs do parents ask for or seek to prevent changes in parenting time for financial reasons, adding that any argument that a parent is asking for increased parenting time to reduce child support is at the same time an argument that the other parent is making a profit from child support.

Critics state that some fathers' rights groups are more interested in enabling men to re-establish authority over their children and ex-partners and that issues of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse are ignored. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that fathers have a constitutional right to shared control of their children and through political action they intend to establish parental authority for the well-being of their children. They also state that a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting preserves a child's protection against unfit or violent parents.

Child support
Members of the fathers’ rights movement campaign for the reform of child support guidelines, which in most Western countries are based on maintaining the children's standard of living after separation, and on the assumption that the children live with one parent and never with the other. Activists state that the current guidelines are arbitrary, provide mothers with financial incentives to divorce, and leave fathers with little discretionary income to enjoy with the children during their parenting time. In the US, fathers’ rights activists propose guidelines based on a Cost Shares model, in which child support would be based on the average income of the parents and the estimated child costs incurred by both parents. Critics of the Cost Share Model guidelines including Laura W. Morgan state that it focuses on the relative living standards of divorcing parents rather than the best interests of the children and financially supporting them at the same level after divorce.

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the law should value a broader definition of fathering for poor fathers by reducing the focus on collecting child support and encouraging the informal contributions (such as groceries, clothes, toys, time with the children) of these fathers, by counting these contributions as child support.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that child support should be terminated under certain conditions, such as if the custodial parent limits access to the children by moving away against the wishes of the other parent, gives fraudulent testimony, or if paternity fraud is discovered, adding that two men should not have to pay child support for the same child.

They state that it is often difficult for fathers in financial hardship or who take on a larger caregiving role with their children to have their child support payments lowered. They also state that unemployment is the primary cause of child support arrears, and further state that these arrearages make the father subject to arrest and imprisonment without due process.

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the purpose of child support should be publicly determined, and enforcement programs must be designed to serve that purpose, observing the due process of law.

Domestic violence
Supporters of the fathers' rights movement assert that some women make false claims of domestic violence, sexual or child abuse in order to gain an upper hand in divorce, custody disputes and/or prevent fathers from seeing their children, and they state that lawyers advise women to make such claims. They state that false claims of domestic violence and child abuse are encouraged by the inflammatory "win or lose" nature of child custody hearings, that men are presumed to be guilty rather than innocent by police and by the courts, and that false allegations hurt the real victims of domestic violence. They oppose the use of certain definitions of violence in child custody hearings that are based on fear, harassment and/or stalking, viewing them as vaguely defined and difficult to refute. Lawyers and advocates for abused women assert that family court proceedings are not uncommonly accompanied with allegations of domestic violence because of the prevalence of domestic violence in society rather than as a result of false allegations of domestic violence. They also assert that domestic violence often begins or increases around the time of divorce or separation.

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the paternal risk of child abuse is minimal. They add that when child abuse occurs, the perpetrator is not likely to be the father, and that the child abuse most often occurs after the father has been separated from his children. They state that government policies are creating child abuse by separating children from their fathers.

Supporters of the fathers’ rights movement point to domestic violence studies based on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), which suggest that men and women act violently toward their partners in about equal percentages. Members of the fathers' rights movement including Michael McCormick and Glenn Sacks state that men comprise a "significant minority" of the victims of domestic violence, and other supporters call for more services to be provided for male victims of domestic violence. Critics of the CTS dispute its reliability. Michael Flood states that the CTS definitions of domestic violence obscure "variations in the meaning, consequences, and context of violent behaviors in families and relationships."

Supporters of the fathers' rights movement propose that domestic violence and child abuse must be adjudicated as criminal assault, observing due process protections, and that government funding for programs addressing these issues must be made contingent on such protections.

Parenting time interference
Members of the fathers' rights movement state that some mothers interfere with the father's parenting time and that such interference should be stopped. They state that parenting time interference can result from the custodial parent's relocation beyond a practical distance from the noncustodial parent and they campaign for a rebuttable presumption prohibiting such relocations.

Members of the fathers' rights movement also state that parental alienation is a well-documented phenomena and that parental alienation syndrome is a valid syndrome in which a child is alienated by a parent against the other parent for the purpose of gaining or retaining full custody of the children, and they offer advice to fathers about what to do if their access to their children is affected by parental alienation.

Critics of the fathers' rights movement and of parental alienation syndrome note that it is not considered a syndrome by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association and state that it is nothing more than a legal strategy that has been rejected by some members of the legal community, including the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Critics and members of the fathers' rights movement agree about the danger that claims of parental alienation syndrome may be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody.

No-fault divorce
Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce did not stop at removing the requirement that grounds be cited for a divorce, so as to allow for divorce by "mutual consent"; they also allow either spouse to end the marriage without any agreement or fault by the other. They also state that no-fault divorce should be referred to as unilateral divorce.

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that laws establishing no-fault divorce can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in modern history that have effectively ended marriage as a legal contract. They state that it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family, adding that government officials can, at the request of one spouse, end a marriage over the objection of the other. They state that no-fault divorce has left fathers with no protection against what they describe as the confiscation of their children. Baskerville states that fault has entered through the back door in the form of child custody hearings, and that the forcibly divorced spouse ("defendant") is presumed guilty. Similarly, some other members of the fathers' rights movement believe that men fail to get appropriate recognition of their innocence as a result of no-fault divorce. Some fathers' rights activists support the reintroduction of fault into divorce and custody decisions adding that the deserting parent (including a parent initiating a divorce without justification) should be given less consideration in Family Court decision making. Baskerville describes a proposed amendment of no-fault divorce laws that would create a rebuttable presumption that custody of any minor children be awarded to the respondent [who is innocent or does not wish to divorce] regardless of gender. He also notes the predictions of Tim O'Brien, the author of the proposed amendment and a Libertarian, who states that the proposed amendment would result in a plummeting divorce rate and reduced negative consequences for children.

Members of the fathers' rights movement propose "reasonable limits" on no-fault divorce when children are involved. Some members of the fathers' rights movement state that the availability of divorce should also be limited.

Government involvement
Members of the fathers' rights movement state that governments throughout the United States and other democracies are engaged, by accident or design, in a campaign against fathers and fatherhood, which, in their view, lies at the root of a larger problem that undermines parents, threatens marriage, destroys families and damages children. Baskerville states that replacing parents with judges and police undermines democracy and accountability throughout society by creating an army of officials who have power without responsibility. He adds that it is the removal of the father from the family through divorce that initiates problems for which the government is perceived as the solution rather than the problem, and that these problems are then used to justify the continued existence and expansion of the government. He also states that modern divorce involves government officials invading parents' private lives, evicting people from their homes, seizing their property, and taking away their children.

Unwarranted termination of parental rights
Parents' rights advocates state that many parents' parental rights are unnecessarily terminated, and that children are separated from fathers and mothers and adopted through the actions of family courts and government social service agencies seeking to meet their own targets, rather than looking at the merits of each case.

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that government employees harm children by disregarding the loving bonds they share with their fathers, when social workers place children in the foster care system without informing their fathers.

Terminology
Fathers' and parents' rights campaigners state that parenting time should be used to replace contact, visitation and residence. The term visitation is particularly objectionable to fathers' rights activists, who believe that this term reinforces the idea that only one parent raises the children. It is perceived that there is a stigma associated with treating one parent as resident and the other as non-resident.

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that child support should be referred to as parental transfer payments.

Notable supporters
Public supporters of the fathers' rights movement and their issues, include divorced (and subsequently widowed) Live Aid founder, Bob Geldof, Irish writer and journalist John Waters and Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women.

Significant writers

 * Bettina Arndt
 * Warren Farrell
 * Michael Flood
 * Michael Green
 * Wendy McElroy
 * Glenn Sacks
 * Phyllis Schlafly
 * Christina Hoff Sommers