Parental abducting

[FloatyBoaty]

I'm making this thread for people like dinohip51 who have had their children taken away from them for no other reason than because the state has given the woman all the power.

It doesn't matter if the parents aren't living together, both parents should be allowed to see their own children. Neither parent should incite disdain for the other parent in the children - it takes two people to make a child. If a mother says bad things about the father, she should have thought about those things before she decided to have children with him. "Don't make a decision unless you're willing to pay the consequences."

[Rof L Mao Esq]

I'm with everything you say and I appreciate your doing this.

But I do want to deal up front with one pet peeve for men in my situation: the word "see". That is the word lawyers and well-wishers use to describe and sum up a man's rights with his children. Fathering goes far, far beyond that. The verb "to father" describes a process that only just begins with conception, though the feminists, as if they were talking about horse breeding, would define the concept of fathering as if all we ever do is lie atop them for a while and then leave, and they do the rest.

I work with a man who has three sons and a loyal and faithful wife who trusts him. The other day he had his two-year-old in the cab of his backhoe while he ran it, as his four- and eight-year-olds hovered around me while I built concrete forms with power tools and heavy objects all around me, both of them asking questions and showing off how much they already knew about their daddy's work.

That is fathering, and "seeing" one's children doesn't even come close. Having that offered by a lawyer as the product of his or her two-hundred-dollars-an-hour shell games is an insult to the very concept of fathering, though I know you as a non-parent didn't mean it that way.

The woman who stole my son decided all for herself that I was unfit to father my child, that my profession (which she never lifted a finger to support me in) was beneath her middle-class ambitions, and part of her decision to remove him was a clear calculation that I would never have a little boy running around asking me what tools were called or a teenager learning from me how to cut hip and valley rafters or lay out a curved wall. Her unilateral ruling was as much one of class as of gender: having been raised in Chicago apartments by a drunken slut who had one "construction worker" (which I am not, I am a professional homebuilder) after another get bored with her mom and start in on her, she was determined not to allow me to pass one iota of my knowledge, experience, leadership or capability on to "her" son. She does not approve of my trade as a whole, and spent fifteen years of my working life turning her nose up to it even as it fed her, bought her a home, appliances, dinners out, vacations and an education.

"Daddy" is a man to whom children look for example, guidance, training, insight; "going to see my Dad" is a drudging chore of a weekend or holiday or block of summer calendar boxes, ordered by a court and spent with a stranger, one who is careful what he says, shares no secrets with his child, and waits for the backlash for every decision he dares make before sending them home to Mommy for debriefing, and has nothing at all to do with fathering.

The distinction is not only important, it is the whole point. The reasons her actions and those of so many women like her have already been made felonies by legislatures have something to do with not denying children fathering. But apparently the decision by police and prosecutors not to indict for this crime has to do with their disapproval in the field (again class prejudice at work) of the individual father.

[FloatyBoaty]

Partake in, or influence, their child's life might be a more accurate terminology.

I have been learning a lot of stuff about the world and, inherently, the universe lately. There are so many things about nature that "modern" science can't explain. An example would be water. Two glasses of water can have completely different attributes. One man put rice in three beakers and covered the rice with water. Every day he said "thank you" to one, "stupid idiot" to the second, and completely ignored the third. After a few days, the first one produced a nice wine, the second turned black, and the third began to rot.

Being a parent isn't about any one thing - it is about life. Giving the child only half the necessary parenting is like only giving half of the required food, or only teaching half of the material in school (which, now days, they don't even give that much). It really is negligent and abusive to rob a child of one of the parents.

Children are human too. Feminist brain wash people into believing that anyone but themselves are not human. On that logic, I would also be correct to say that only non-feminists are human. If one were to take only the understandable parts of what feminism teaches, what's left can be used against them rather easily.

[RobYork]

I have been learning a lot of stuff about the world and, inherently, the universe lately. There are so many things about nature that "modern" science can't explain. An example would be water. Two glasses of water can have completely different attributes. One man put rice in three beakers and covered the rice with water. Every day he said "thank you" to one, "stupid idiot" to the second, and completely ignored the third. After a few days, the first one produced a nice wine, the second turned black, and the third began to rot.

The joke is that “Modern science” ony actually knows about 1% of what is “Reality” lets face it, anyone who tells you that your ancestor was a “Fish” has a problem with “Common sense.”


A curious experiment was reported, two rows of seeds were planted, the seeds were chosen from the same package, planted in the same earth by the same people, and cared for and tended equally.


With one exception, the first row was prayed over, the second was cursed, the first row flourished, the second row withered.


Source: One Step Beyond.
Citing: 13th April 1959 issue of Time magazine.
__________________________________________________ ______


Matthew 21:18 – 22.
18. Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.
19. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
20. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
21. Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
22. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

[outdoors]

I'm making this thread for people like dinohip51 who have had their children taken away from them for no other reason than because the state has given the woman all the power.


antimisandry.com Parental abducting

The state sanctioned kidnapping is nothing but a ploy to extort a father's money from him.

There is no vested best interest to the children or the system would not steal the child's future security.

[Rof L Mao Esq]

What are we gonna DO about it?

Clearly many of us agree the current norms are wrong. How do we right them?

[Marx]

Suggestions..?

[outdoors]

294260_10150386868587049_533117048_9893364_1886021900_a1.jpg

What are we gonna DO about it?

Clearly many of us agree the current norms are wrong. How do we right them?

Pull some Davey1's on every street corner.

[Rof L Mao Esq]

Since you mention it, yes. In the US (I don't know about UK or Commonwealth law, but the opportunities may be similar) many if not all states have EXISTING CRIMINAL STATUTES specifically defining parental abduction as a felony. The problem is, when this crime is reported to police, individual officers have no clear procedure with which to respond, and may not even know such laws exist, and the standard error they make is to assume they are being called to respond to a custody dispute, which is CIVIL law and not their jurisdiction. The throwaway advice they give is to "get a lawyer", as they assume they are dealing with just another dad having a fight with his children's mom.

This is incorrect. Parental abduction is not a custody dispute. It is ABDUCTION precisely because custody is NOT IN DISPUTE by any legal means, and the unilateral act of seizing a child without consent is thereby a crime.

There are two basic problems. One is that an existing marital or other custody arrangement arrived at and in practice by the two parents but not ordered by a court is considered legally vague, therefore requiring a court order to settle the issue, whereupon the abducting mother goes to court and plays the victim, the court by habit and expediency rules the mother the sole custodian, and the father is left out of the process other than being ordered to document his income so that child support may be assessed. By that point the issue of an abduction is legally moot, having never been presented in a criminal court by a state prosecutor. In such a prosecution, the abducting parent may present what is called an "affirmative defense", saying to the court, "yes I took the child but for good reason. He was abusive, negligent, etc". This defense is allowable and makes the action not a crime, if and only if it is reviewed by a criminal court as evidence in a criminal proceeding. Failure to present the case at all as a criminal matter essentially underwrites the position of an affirmative defense without ever naming the abductor as a defendant, and the legal precedent is established by non-legal means that the mother MUST have had good reason, and the case proceeds to civil court with this non-fact presented as civil evidence.

The other problem is that police officers and police culture consider all custody matters not attended by a court order to be not their bailiwick, and there is no procedure for them to follow other than to do nothing but instruct the abandoned parent that their complaint is a civil one.

My suggestion is to draft a uniform code for all law enforcement officials to follow and have it passed at a national level by legislation, an utterly mundane lawmaking project which has resulted in uniform codes governing everything from seatbelt usage to the thickness of a light bulb. Such a code would require that every case of alleged parental abduction be immediately sent to the local prosecutor the same as any other criminal complaint processed by police, and that the case be indicted as a criminal matter before any further civil custody issues may be heard by civil courts.

If the MRM wants to look for victories to claim and build on, such a legislative triumph would establish not only clear procedures and training for first responders to follow, but demonstrate that the "movement" is capable of coherent, informed, citizenlike initiatives that go beyond predictable accusations and innuendoes to sympathetic audiences about generalized injustices.

Next question?

[FloatyBoaty]

If I were in a similar situation, after telling the police that "my ex' kidnapped my kids", I would then talk directly with the prosecutor. However, before that, I would probably track her down and take my kids back where they belong. But that's just me; I don't have kids yet so I can't say for certain.

[Rof L Mao Esq]

Unfortunately, the will, the knowledge, the resources and the opportunity to do what you say do not always arrive at the same time, especially when a man married for fifteen years suddenly finds out he has been played for a sugar daddy and a sperm donor by an entire family, who only wanted him to create the first grandchild for them and then cease to exist.

My whole premise in contributing on this website is that we have no right to challenge feminism or misandry either one if we do not do so as civilized men. Reacting to injustice with vigilantism cancels the whole moral foundation of our outrage. We have to work for a civilization that does not endorse institutionalized prejudice, and the only way to do that is to remain civilized ourselves.

Parental abduction is vigilante justice. It is anarchic, anti-social, beastly conduct. And it demands an answer that comes from the rule of law, because to answer lawlessness with further lawlessness establishes nothing but desperation and gangsterism, when the purpose of parenting is to prepare children for a place in the civilization they have been born to, not to abandon it and expect them to follow.

The road to justice is long, treacherous and full of failures. But to abandon the ultimate objective is to abandon civilization itself. For as much huffing and puffing as angry, wrongly-done people do, few are prepared to live truly outside the law and the role of legal institutions. At least, I have never seen anyone pull it off and remain both alive and free, two basic requirements for fatherhood.


BTW have you ever tried to talk to a big-city prosecutor? If you even get through the door without the staff calling security, it's probably because they're on lunch break. It is the police's job to present cases to the prosecutor. That's why I want a Uniform Code to require them to do no more than what is already their job. In the US there are Uniform Codes to enforce custody rulings interstate, and to seek to prevent parental abduction. But there isn't one mandating procedure for when one occurs. It's imminently feasible, reasonable and legally defensible. It just hasn't been done yet. Maybe because men in the situation have not yet learned to control their emotions and seek organized, sustainable and permanent solutions instead of reacting to no more than the moral outrage (guilty as charged, when it happened to me I made every mistake in the book and invented a few new ones.)

The whole purpose of police, prosecutors and criminal courts is to protect the right of citizens NOT to take the law into their own hands, and not to fall victim to those who do. Parental abduction and wrongful removal are glaring, suppurating exceptions to this expectation on all citizens to live within the law. My goal is to ask society why it allows women an unlawful privilege with children who are not their personal property, and demand an answer. That answer is (it's time I gave it a name): the Uniform Code for Parental Abduction Enforcement Action (UCPAEA).

Kidnapping and Sex Discrimination: Steps 1 and 2 to single motherhood - Blogs - antimisandry.com

[Olivier Haugh]

Dinohip51, I agree and endorse fully your war on the verb "to see" when applied to the relationship with a father. Great comment.
As for the proposed law, I don't know US law but isn't there already a Uniform Code on this? Internationally there is the Hague Convention about returning children to their place of domicile. I believe the US is also a party to it.

[Rof L Mao Esq]

You are exactly right. What is missing is not the appropriate laws but the attendant procedures to enforce them.

Criminal law is only as good as the information and mandatory actions required at the law enforcement and prosecutorial levels to see them put to use. That is how criminal law works. If someone broke into your home and stole your computer, and all the police did was to advise you to get a private attorney and sue the thief, the fact that robbery is a crime is made moot.

Police are first responders, and the difficulty abandoned fathers face is that the first response is traditionally incorrect, uninformed, unregulated and based largely on the cultural and moral reactions of individual officers at the time the complaint is made.

And if you end up in civil court, as most abandoned fathers do, trying to insist that a criminal statute be enforced, your presence there only indicates to a civil judge or magistrate that someone in another branch of the law has already decided not to pursue the removal of your children as a crime. What sometimes happens if one is lucky and wealthy enough to find a good lawyer in an emergency situation is that they will petition the court for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning the civil authority may order the abductor to produce the child and show cause, but the only criminal authority a civil judge has is to find the abductor guilty of contempt should she not obey the writ. Contempt of court is not the crime reported, abduction is. The chances that a civil judge will then remand the case to the prosecutor as a felony kidnapping are slim, as judges do not generally protect and enhance their careers by turning their cases over to other judges. And it is unlikely that a private attorney will petition the court to make a charge of kidnapping, as the case would no longer be that attorney's jurisdiction (or cash cow) but that of the State prosecutor.

My strategy is based on the notion that activism is rarely successful in creating new law on the basis of moral outrage, and much more often on the basis of procedure regarding existing law. Take for example the whole "deadbeat dads" phenomenon. This is activism at its wrongheaded best, as the feminist movement has taken the tack not of trying to create or reform child support law itself, but of making it politically risky not to enforce it. We must take a similar approach because it acknowledges how the system works, rather than presenting an insurgent and moralistic challenge to its authority. One must not forget that police stations and courthouses are workplaces with a culture and a set of suppositions about themselves, not easily persuaded to change their values. One of the core values of law enforcement and adjudication is the scrupulous following of procedure. Change the procedure and the internal culture will follow as this is reflective of its values and its self-respect rather than contemptuous of it.


Another point is that law is created either by politicians or appellate judges, but enforced by journeymen, and the cop on the beat is often not in agreement with the political precepts of laws they are paid to enforce. When procedural mandates are lacking, police are empowered by default simply not to enforce the law at all. When there is clear, uniform and widely known procedure, officials will do what they do best as members of the public sector: Cover Your Ass (CYA), the most powerful motivator in existence to those on public payroll.

That is why I want to address the response procedures, exactly because so many laws as you suggest already exist.

[Rof L Mao Esq]

Nuts and bolts, for all those in the US who actually wish to DO something:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...DxF2e0boQklpUw

This is a link to procedural guidelines for drafting legislation at the US House of Representatives.

My knowledge of the technical side of this process is extremely limited (I can barely navigate this website, much less take on a project like writing law on my own), and I implore all those concerned with this issue, and possessing the technical skill to move forward by this means, to get involved and stay connected.

Let's get started, shall we?

[Andy]

An understanding of the guidelines for drafting legislation does not inform an understanding of the context in which proposed legislation does or does not become law. The conclusion that a new parental abduction law would be adequate if only it addressed nationwide procedural shortcomings is only useful if we can demonstrate that the only shortcomings of current laws have to do with procedure or enforcement.

In instances of parental abduction, the shortcomings of current laws have not been demonstrated - at least not by any citation to be found so far in this thread. On the contrary, although Congress' Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act prescribes procedures for handling of interstate parental abduction cases, it does not address differences in laws between states. There are significant differences. Before we can draft legislation describing procedures for enforcing the various laws of 50 states, we need to inventory and compare those various laws.

Parental abduction is indeed a crime in all 50 states. But, "In some States, parental abduction constitutes a crime only in cases in which a custody order has been violated. On others, no custody order is required for parental abduction to be considered a criminal case." (USDOJ Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention December, 2001)

Which states require violation of a custody order as an element of parental abduction? What benefit would a procedural mandate serve in those states in cases where a parent denies a child access to the other parent?

Are the procedural hurdles the same in cases where there is a custody order and cases where there is not a custody order? Are the procedural deficiencies the same in states that don't require a custody order as they are in states that do require a custody order?

It's a relatively easy matter to draft legislation. To bend a popular axiom, you can draft legislation to indict a stale ham sandwich. Getting anyone to consider -- much less sponsor -- legislation is a much different matter. An appreciation of the formatting requirements (XML) of draft legislation is woefully insufficient to inform an understanding of the legal, legislative and political context that determines whether proposed laws are ever debated in even a friendly partisan sub-committee, much less adopted and signed into law.

Another consideration is what procedures might be proposed. It's not correct that "

very case of alleged parental abduction (could) be immediately sent to the local prosecutor the same as any other criminal complaint processed by police." Why? Because police don't immediately send every alleged case of any crime to the prosecutor. They only refer those cases in which allegations are supported by probable cause to believe elements of that state's statutes have been violated. In states that require a violation of a custody order as an element of parental kidnapping, no federal procedural mandate could require prosecution absent a custody order.

Presuming, however, that procedural mandates alone may not be sufficient to address inconsistent state laws, that children are disadvantaged by the inconsistencies and that a federal legislative remedy may be appropriate, how could a new federal law address that? And what would be involved, pragmatically, in getting such a law onto the floor of Congress?

The Violence Against Women Act established standard nationwide procedures for police response to domestic violence. It did not require arrest or referral to prosecutors whenever allegations of domestic violence were made. Instead, it required arrest of the at least the primary aggressor when physical evidence is discovered supporting allegations of violence. (Without some research, I can't immediately say whether it specifically requires referral of those cases for prosecution.)

The Act did more than establish standard procedures, though. It provided grants to states to support enforcement. (Politically, a new federal law without a grant of federal money to enforce it can be a non-starter) As I understand VAWA -- and other federal mandates like seatbelt laws -- the way Congress gets states to adopt procedural laws that in turn govern behavior of state law enforcement officers is by providing or withholding federal program money. It was my understanding VAWA leverage was the impetus behind the various states "Domestic battery" laws, though I couldn't verify that in a cursory review of various iterations (1994, 2000, 2005) of the Act.

That's already a boatload of homework for anyone who hopes to engage even one member of Congress in considering federal reforms of parental abduction laws: survey and compare the parental abduction laws of 50 states in the context of existing federal laws.

An effective campaign would require other prongs as well. One would involve demonstrating the harm caused by parental abduction. Several threads in this forum about parental alienation point to the basis for that prong. Another prong would involve demonstrating the scope of the problem. I would guess members of Congress would be more interested if they heard of both fathers and mothers who got away with kidnapping because the law let them.