European Court Decision Advances Fathers' Rights

**haute macabre** · 4th-September-2010

September 01, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- A recent decision by the German Constitutional Court provides that men who father children out of wedlock need not obtain the mother's consent to seek legal custody. The court heeded a 2009 European Court of Human Rights ruling that German family law was inconsistent with a European directive to respect and sustain family life, and it also ran afoul of anti-discrimination laws. The interests of a German child in having a relationship with an unmarried father can no longer be subsumed by the mother's parental rights.

Some German conservatives decried the judgment, arguing that it undermined the institution of marriage and reduced its value to mere tax advantages. But reaction was generally positive, praising the long overdue recognition that all children equally deserve the benefit of having a legal relationship with both parents. The Frankfurt newspaper Allgemeine Zeitungput put it simply: "Children need both a mother and a father." Others recognized the practical realities in a country where nearly one of three children is born outside of marriage.

Out of Wedlock or After Divorce, Fathers Deserve a Say in a Child's Upbringing

The American legal system long ago moved beyond the regressive German process, which placed undue legal power in the hands of the mother. But significant issues, from subtle discrimination to blatant unfairness, still exist in American family courts. One prominent current issue is the difficulties many military parents (largely fathers) who are deployed overseas have in maintaining a parenting relationship if the other parent refuses to facilitate contact. In California, proposed legislation would allow designated family members to fulfill the father's parenting time during his absence.

Issues of child support can have a disproportionate effect on fathers, particularly in the slow economic climate of the Great Recession. In a recent statewide sweep in New Jersey, authorities served nearly 1,000 warrants for delinquency on child support payments, but were only able to collect about two percent of the arrears. Such a paltry return obviously says something about the actual ability of many of these obligors to pay.

For parents who feel that court-ordered obligations are unfair or unsustainable, or otherwise have concerns about their parental rights, an experienced divorce attorney can explain legal options such as post-judgment modification or mediation of a workable solution.

Article provided by Jeffrey W. Goldblatt Law Office
Visit us at www.jgoldblattlawfirm.com

**chevalier** · 4th-September-2010

It is good to see that fathers may some day be seen as necassary in a childs life by legal institutions.

**Marx** · 4th-September-2010

About time, too.

**nevosopelo** · 4th-September-2010

The conservatives are right to say that it "undermines the institution of marriage", but marriage has had some very bad battering by anti family, anti men laws accross Europe. The decision in the European Court to extend the rights to unmarried fathers is a rather timid step forward in favor of fathers, if compared with the large strides the feminist ideology has made into destroying the bond between a father and his children.

The only way to address this problems by European governments is that they must repeal all laws which are detrimental to family life and punish whoever brings the marriage to an end.

NEVO

**shaazam** · 4th-September-2010

I still say young men should avoid signing any sort of contract with any wimyn - wimyn employ such contracts as ass wipes

**Daveyone** · 4th-September-2010

Just been talking to my friend Sam Hallimond (Class Action Advocate) I will see if he knows about this.

Quote from shaazam

I still say young men should avoid signing any sort of contract with any wimyn - wimyn employ such contracts as ass wipes

Yep I have seen you say that before mate! LOL

**haute macabre** · 4th-September-2010

Quote from shaazam

I still say young men should avoid signing any sort of contract with any wimyn - wimyn employ such contracts as ass wipes

See this is why I don't like how marriage is viewed in USA and other countries.

They see it as a tax contract, which is not what God's view of marriage is.

Marriage is suppose to be devoting each other and coming together before the eyes of God.

Feminism is the one that has destroyed everything holy about marriage and the state help keeps it that way.

**Popadibs** · 4th-September-2010

Quote from haute macabre

See this is why I don't like how marriage is viewed in USA and other countries.

They see it as a tax contract, which is not what God's view of marriage is.

Marriage is suppose to be devoting each other and coming together before the eyes of God.

Feminism is the one that has destroyed everything holy about marriage and the state help keeps it that way.

Where in the bible does it say that a marriage requires a legally binding contract by the government?

It is obvious that the biblical marriage referred to in the bible is different from the legal institution of marriage. It's not that feminism has destroyed what is holy about marriage and that state keeps it that way but marriage in God's eyes has nothing to do with the legal institution of marriage to begin with.

If a couple decides to have a biblical type of marriage then marriage laws would not matter in their arrangement, however, when a man does decide to cohabitat with a woman he puts himself at other legal risks, anyhow. The biblical practice and legal practice of marriage are not the same except in name.

**haute macabre** · 4th-September-2010

Quote from Popadibs

Where in the bible does it say that a marriage requires a legally binding contract by the government?

It is obvious that the biblical marriage referred to in the bible is different from the legal institution of marriage. It's not that feminism has destroyed what is holy about marriage and that state keeps it that way but marriage in God's eyes has nothing to do with the legal institution of marriage to begin with.

If a couple decides to have a biblical type of marriage then marriage laws would not matter in their arrangement, however, when a man does decide to cohabitat with a woman he puts himself at other legal risks, anyhow. The biblical practice and legal practice of marriage are not the same except in name.

I didn't say anything about the bible saying that marriage requires legally binding by government. I just don't like how countries view it. Perhaps I didn't say it right.

That's why I said it's not in God's view of marriage, for God has a different meaning of marriage.

God views marriage as two people devoting each other for life and promising to love each other through good times or bad times. When you are married, you are married for life in his eyes. Divorce isn't recognized by God. He still considers them married in his eyes.

**Popadibs** · 4th-September-2010

Quote from haute macabre

That's why I said it's not in God's view of marriage, for God has a different meaning of marriage.

God views marriage as two people devoting each other for life and promising to love each other through good times or bad times. When you are married, you are married for life in his eyes. Divorce isn't recognized by God. He still considers them married in his eyes.

Moses permitted husbands to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts but God originally had not intended so. Divorce is acceptable in God's eyes in the case of fornication. If someone divorces another except for immorality and marries another then it is adultery. Obviously, in the bible it refers to husbands divorcing their wives because the bible wasn't written during a time when wives could just divorce husbands as they do today.

**haute macabre** · 4th-September-2010

Quote from Popadibs

Moses permitted husbands to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts but God originally had not intended so. Divorce is acceptable in God's eyes in the case of fornication. If someone divorces another except for immorality and marries another then it is adultery. Obviously, in the bible it refers to husbands divorcing their wives because the bible wasn't written during a time when wives could just divorce husbands as they do today.

That's true. I remember that now.

With the way most people divorce, he would still consider them married. Money is one of the number one reasons why marriages are going into divorce. If the government wasn't involved with marriage, the divorce rate would drop like an anvil in the sky.

**Popadibs** · 4th-September-2010

Quote from haute macabre

That's true. I remember that now.

With the way most people divorce, he would still consider them married. Money is one of the number one reasons why marriages are going into divorce. If the government wasn't involved with marriage, the divorce rate would drop like an anvil in the sky.

Well, if people get married again they commit adultery and I think once someone commits adultery they're no longer considered married.

**Kargan3033** · 5th-September-2010

Quote from haute macabre

See this is why I don't like how marriage is viewed in USA and other countries.

They see it as a tax contract, which is not what God's view of marriage is.

Marriage is suppose to be devoting each other and coming together before the eyes of God.

Feminism is the one that has destroyed everything holy about marriage and the state help keeps it that way.

Nailed it in one, these people who have done these are going to burn in hell for this and all of their other evil towards life it'self, I pity these blind, evil, ingorent assholes for they know not of the horrors that wait them come the day of judgement.
It boggles the mind at the sheer evil that women, the femanazis and their goverment pimps have comitted on not only men and boys but ladies and good girls as well by twisting what once was good in life when it came to love, marriage and parenthood.