radical common sense, HOWLINWOLF's Blog

capitalism must go
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=% 22capitalism+must+go%22&fr=yfp-t- 501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
SURE, TOO MUCH FREEDOM UNDER CAPITALISM, ENSLAVE ALL OF US UNDER COMMUNISM, HILLARY, OBAMA.
Yahoo!
Explore concepts:
"capitalism must go" Socialism
"capitalism must go" "working class"
"capitalism must go" workers
"capitalism must go" "economic crisis"
"capitalism must go" struggles
"capitalism must go" planet
"capitalism must go" CPGB
"capitalism must go" racism
"capitalism must go" Hands
"capitalism must go" Amazon
"capitalism must go" "Harpal Brar"
"capitalism must go" Democrats
"capitalism must go" ideologically
"capitalism must go" "Proutist Economics"
"capitalism must go" "Global capitalism"
"capitalism must go" pie-in-the-sky
Search Assist Settings
Help 1 - 10 of 11,600 for "capitalism must go" (About) - 0.39 s | SearchScanBETA On WEB RESULTSAmazon.com: WHY CAPITALISM MUST GO! - politics Discussion Forum
WHY CAPITALISM MUST GO! to register online or for conference updates - www. ... Yes capitalism must go so Communism and Socialism or even marxism can flouriush. ...
www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum? cdThread=Tx1HCE8BCHO4EYU - 320k - Cached
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Time to face it: capitalism must go! (Leaflet, 13 October 2008) ... Time to face it: capitalism must go! Change the world; join the communists ...
www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=home - Cached
Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
To be kept informed about events and site udpates, enter your email ... Time to face it: capitalism must go! Issued by: CPGB-ML. Issued on: 13 October 2008 ...
cpgb-ml.org/index.php? secName=leaflets&subName=display&leafletId=51 - Cached
Exter-Net - Anarchopedia
1 – As a result of capitalism I suffer. 2 – As a result of capitalism you suffer. ... Capitalism must go and with it goes the state, religion, money, etc. ...
eng.anarchopedia.org/Exter-Net - Cached
Meta-Economy - Anarchopedia
Christian capitalism - Muslim capitalism - Jewish capitalism - Buddhist ... Capitalism must go; it must be destroyed before it destroys us. ...
eng.anarchopedia.org/Meta-Economy - Cached
Proutist Universal: Capitalism Archives
BENGAL IN SEARCH OF REVOLUTION - I - July 02, 2006 ... Global Capitalism Must Go - March 30, 2005. Global capitalism - August 27, 2004 ...
www.proutist-universal.org/archives/cat_capitalism.html
- Cached
beirut.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/629.txt
To end violence capitalism must go and with it all its religions and businesses, ... < br />To end violence capitalism must go and with it all its religions and ...
beirut.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/629.txt - Cached
Why Capitalism Must Go! Conference Sat-Sun Nov 15-16, NYC " Fight ...
FIST Podcast Speeches and Videos. FIST Program. Protest: Bail Out People, Not the Banks! ... WHY CAPITALISM MUST GO! SCHOOL AUDITORIUM. 127 E. 22nd ST, NYC ...
fistyouth.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/why-capitalism-must -go-conferenc... - Cached
[PDF] The Wharton Ethics Program
12k - Adobe PDF - View as html
The Wharton Ethics Program. Presents - The Joel and Lois Coleman Social Impact Lecture Series ... F55 Jon M. Huntsman Hall. Synopsis ... Global capitalism must go ...
ethics.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/coleman/Baker.pdf
[PDF] The Wharton Ethics Program Presents
130k - Adobe PDF - View as html
More than $1 trillion a year of illicit money flows across borders, half of it ... Global capitalism must go through a process of renewal (CHANGES, OBAMA) in order to ...
ethics.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/coleman/baker_flyer.
pd f
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next >
Yahoo!© 2008 Yahoo! Privacy / Legal -

ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL 15, ANTI-WHITE, GENOCIDE
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/joy.html
THE O’FARRELL COLUMN 
9th April 2006 
The Joy of Genocide
Let’s Welcome a World-Wide White-Out!   In Douglas Adams’ five-part Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy trilogy, the ethical dilemmas of meat-eating are solved by breeding an animal that actually wants to be killed and eaten. Not only that, it will happily shoot itself for the greater convenience of human beings. That’s amusing (and thought-provoking) in fiction, but might not be amusing at all in real life. And Adams’ fictional animal does have a close equivalent in real life.
It’s called the White race. We are supposed not only to welcome our own extinction but to actively collaborate with it. After decades of Jewish brainwashing, many Whites are now lifting guns to their heads and waiting with big smiles for the order to pull the trigger. So read this and feel the joy: Los Angeles witnessed the biggest public protest in its history over the weekend as hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators of all races thronged the downtown streets to demand justice and legal recognition for the country’s 12 million undocumented immigrant workers. The march was a stunning slap in the face for the country’s vocal anti-immigrant lobby and set the stage for what is likely to be an electric debate in the Senate this week. Helicopter footage of the march showed demonstrators packed into as many as two dozen city blocks around Los Angeles’s City Hall. Crowd estimates ranged from half a million to more than a million. The protesters chanted workers’ rights slogans in English and Spanish, waved flags from America, Mexico, Guatemala and elsewhere, and showed the face of a joyously multicultural America very different from the predominantly white, often anger-tinged anti-immigration movement. (“Massive protest in LA over anti-immigration proposals”, The Independent, 27th March 2006)
Is a big smile cracking your face at the thought of Whites becoming an ever-shrinking minority in the United States? Whadja mean, “No”? What are you – some kinda evil racist? Well, I very much hope that you are an evil racist, just like me. I would hate to see the United States lose its White majority even if my homeland, the British Isles, were secure – and as we all know, it isn’t. The same Jew-invented plagues are ravaging White nations on both sides of the Atlantic, as the following story demonstrates:
Judge rapped over boy’s race case
A judge who said a legal case against a 10-year-old boy over alleged racism was “political correctness gone mad” has been criticised by a teaching union. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) said Judge Jonathan Finestein was “out of date” in his attitude. The boy from Manchester [is] accused of racially abusing a fellow pupil. On adjourning the case until 20 April, [Judge Finestein] asked prosecutors to reconsider whether the case was in the public interest. However Judith Elderkin, NUT National Executive member, said the judge should have taken the allegation of racism more seriously. She added that she thought he was “out of date” with the way issues are dealt with in schools today. The boy is accused of abusing an 11-year-old pupil [with] names including “Paki, BLEEP and Bin Laden”. But Judge Finestein said he thought the decision to prosecute the youngster was “crazy” and urged the Crown Prosecution Service to reconsider its decision. The judge said when he was at school he was repeatedly called “fat”, but in those days the headmaster would have just given the children a “good clouting” and sent them on their way. “Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness?” he said in court. “Nobody is more against racist abuse than me but these are boys in a playground; this is nonsense. I think somebody should consider reversing the decision to prosecute.” A spokeswoman for Greater Manchester Police said the force took all crimes seriously and was totally opposed to any racism. (BBC News, 7th April 2006) I wonder if a White judge would have dared to question this lunacy – though we should note that Jew Judge Finestein doesn’t question the principle of “anti-racism”, just its excessive use in this particular case. As for the National Union of Teachers and Greater Manchester Police: the former has been Marxist for decades and the latter is rapidly joining it. At one time you could have looked to the British Conservative party to stand up for sanity in cases like this, but now it’s competing hard for the “center ground”. That’s the lying term for the anti-White, anti-male, anti-heterosexual policies that would once have been regarded as left-wing lunacy by everyone but communists. Mainstream political parties once had to woo the White electorate; now they have to woo the Jews and their liberal dupes in the mass media. Here’s David Cameron, the dynamic new Tory leader, going for the J-spot in conversation with a BBC journalist:
We should celebrate the fact that we live in a multi-racial country, where all the different communities make a massive contribution to our success. My area is fantastically multi-ethnic and a vibrant, wonderful part of Britain. I often do my Saturday shopping off the Golborne Road, which must be one of the most multi-ethnic streets in Britain. (The Commission for Racial Equality’s Catalyst magazine, March 2006)
It’s now impossible to separate the so-called Conservatives from New Labour on race and immigration. The following words come from a speech by Tony Blair to the Australian parliament, but could just as easily have been spoken by David Cameron:
Britain and Australia have long since gotten over the fear that different ethnic groups damage our identity or put our cohesion at risk. Today we take pride in our diversity. We know tolerance, respect for others, and a basic way of life founded on democratic freedoms are held in common by the vast majority of our people, whatever their race or creed. (Speech by Tony Blair, 27th March 2006)
Blair’s lying, of course, as his own words prove. If we’d “long since” lost our fear, why bother to say so? It’s precisely because this fear is growing all the time – with very good reason – that Blair has to pretend it isn’t there. When we ask what has happened to British politics, the answer is simple. White race-traitors like Shameron and Bliar now think, talk and act like Jews. As a race of parasites, Jews hate mono-racial, mono-cultural societies, which find it far too easy to recognize and counter their parasitism and general obnoxiousness. A fractured, racially mixed society, on the other hand, suits them just fine. They stand out less and the inevitable conflicts enable them to suck blood with less fear of disturbance.
Here’s that age-old Jewish strategy – set fear to the house and pick the pockets of both the rescuers and the victims – being gloated over by the Jewish son-of-a-’vitch David Aaronvitch, a former communist who now supports NuLiebour and writes for The Times of London: Hands Up – Who Wants British Society To Be As White As Narvik In January?
To judge by the Stiklestad festival most Norwegians live very comfortably and are almost absurdly law-abiding. They are also all white. Over the four days there and in Trondheim I saw thousands and thousands of Norwegians and liked them immensely as a group. But in all that time I only saw one dark face – one little boy as he tried his hand at archery – and the only immigrant I met was a German silversmith now living in Tromso. Nothing could be more different from the Babel of London than this homogeneous society where someone from Oslo stands out, let alone someone from Cairo. Such a prospect pleases some people now. But even suppose you could turn the date back to 1950 and a British society as white as Narvik in January, and as Christian as St Olav’s tomb, is that really what we would want? The play in Stiklestad has been performed since the year that I was born. In the programme there were photographs of performances going back to 1954. In all that time the only thing that has really changed has been the position of the orchestra. Otherwise the characters look the same, the set is the same, even the tree-trunk where the blind man sits is in the same position. A country like Britain can’t be like that. I’d rather we continued to be dynamic and ever-changing. (The Times, London, 2nd August 2005) Aaronovitch asks a question that only Jews and other non-whites can sanely answer in the negative. But Britain is now so corrupt that millions of Whites would answer in the negative too. No, we don’t want British society to be as white as Narvik in January! We Whites want Jews – who like us immensely as a group – to shower us with more ever-changing dynamism and more of the blessings of diversity. We want more suicide-bombers on our trains and buses, more sixteen-year-old White girls raped, tortured and murdered by black savages, and more murder, gang-rape, mugging and ethnic cleansing of Whites in our cities as we move inevitably to the day when we’re a minority on these islands and the fun can really begin.
White traitors like Tony Blair and George Bush are collaborating with this wipe-out of Whites every Jew-directed inch of the way. Like David Cameron and his predecessor Margaret Thatcher, Bush is supposed to be a conservative but the only things he’s really interested in conserving – and increasing – are the power of Jews and big business and the size of his own bank balance. Conservatives are supposed to believe in tradition and the wisdom of past ages. Well, if there’s one thing tradition and past ages tell us over and over again, it’s that Jews are poison. Anti-Semitism is the “longest hatred” because it has appeared whenever and wherever Jews have come into contact with Gentiles. In 1290, for example, Edward I of England expelled Jews en masse from his kingdom. Their reaction to this hateful and hurtful act, as to the many other expulsions they experienced from White Christian nations, was to work ceaselessly to get back in again. It’s the reaction of a parasite deprived of its host, not that of an independent and self-supporting race. Although Christianity may have been created by Jews as a weapon against Whites, it escaped their control and then kept them safely in quarantine for many centuries. Nowadays it’s largely back under their control, but what happened once can happen again. Thanks to their arrogance and meddling, Jews have unleashed forces they can’t control and the future may be bright – and White – after all. LUKE O’FARRELL Click here for O’Farrell archive

ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL 16, ANTI-MEN, LESBIAN PARENTS
http://www.glennsacks.com/raising_boys_without_ev.htm
  Sunday, November 23, 2008   Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian
Parents Good, Dads Bad
By Glenn Sacks
AND YOU IDIOTS WATCH ELLEN AND ARE GONNA WATCH ROSIE O'DONNEL?
It’s one thing to be respectful of gays and gay parents. It’s quite another to engineer a deceptive study and use it to assert that lesbian families are a better environment in which to raise boys than heterosexual families. That’s what former Stanford University gender scholar Peggy F. Drexler, Ph.D. does in her new book Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men. Unfortunately the mainstream media is helping her promote her claims. In the book’s opening pages Drexler’s message is one of tolerance for various family forms, as she notes that lesbian and single mother families “can” effectively raise boys. But Raising Boys soon devolves into outright advocacy of lesbian parenting. In Drexler’s world, lesbian families—protected from fathers and their toxic masculinity--are the best environments in which to raise boys. Married heterosexual mothers try their best, but the positive influence these hapless moms try to impart to their children is overwhelmed by that of the malevolent family patriarch. Even when the (few) well-intentioned dads interact with their kids, they somehow always get it wrong, and lesbian moms always seem to have a better way of handling their sons’ problems than dads do. According to Drexler, dads are too critical, strict, and demanding, and she applauds as boy after boy blows off his dad.  In fact, boys without dads “often profit from not having someone who insists they tough something out.” Drexler asserts that lesbian moms are “more sophisticated about how they teach their sons right from wrong” than heterosexual couples, and there are “real advantages for a boy being raised in this new type of family.” Heterosexual mothers don’t measure up in “moral attitude,” and are less likely than lesbian moms to “create opportunities for their sons to examine moral and values issues.” This in turn slows the “moral development in their sons.” Furthermore, Drexler asserts that boys raised by lesbians “grow up emotionally stronger,” “have a wider range of interests and friendships,” and “appear more at ease in situations of conflict” than boys from “traditional” (i.e., father-present) households.  Fatherless boys “exhibit a high degree of emotional savvy…an intuitive grasp of people and situations.” Best of all, sons of lesbian couples are much more willing to discard traditional masculinity than boys trapped in heterosexual households. For example, Fiona’s son paints his nails, while both of Maria’s sons dance ballet. Ursula’s son chose sewing and cooking for his electives in 7th grade. Kathy's son has rejected playing baseball as being “too competitive”—no surprise, because in their local, father-led baseball league, “the better players get more playing time.” Drexler’s research has obvious flaws. For one, the families she studied were middle to upper class, older women who volunteered to have their lives intimately scrutinized over a multiyear period--an unrepresentative, self-selected sample. More importantly, her research suffers from confirmatory bias—Drexler saw what she wanted to see. Drexler is not an objective social scientist, but instead a passionate advocate for lesbian mothers.  She calls the “maverick mothers” raising sons without men “avatars of a new social movement,” and says her book’s “stories, voices, data, and findings will reassure, hearten, and empower” them. Her research did not measure objective indices of child well-being, such as rates of juvenile crime, drop-outs or teen pregnancy. Instead Drexler personally conducted interviews of mothers and their sons and made subjective judgments about their family lives. It is not surprising that Drexler found lesbian families to her liking. In fact, her dogged determination to see only good in lesbian couples and problems in heterosexual ones at times reaches absurd proportions. For example, though Drexler doesn’t seem to notice, her lesbian moms, particularly the “social” (i.e., nonbiological moms), cheerfully endure insults and disrespect that no parent should ever tolerate. Carol’s son calls her “stupid.” Bianca’s son calls her “lazy.” Martha’s son hops into her bed and effectively tells Martha tough luck, sucker--go sleep somewhere else. Thankfully, in each case progressive lesbian mom dealt with the problem through patience and talking. By contrast, dad would probably have had junior pull weeds in the yard for a few hours as he waves goodbye to his PlayStation. He is (sigh) sadly unenlightened. I recall at age 13 or 14 insulting my father in front of some of my friends. My dad’s reaction? As soon as we were alone he got very much in my face and informed me that it had better never happen again. It never did. My father never once struck me or ever even threatened to, but through his strength and love I always knew who was in charge. By contrast, Drexler’s moms spend an inordinate amount of time either being insulted by or apologizing to their children—and Drexler applauds. It’s not hard to see why so many fatherless boys end up as juvenile delinquents while so few boys with fathers do. For Drexler, boys raised by lesbians are a better breed than those raised by heterosexual couples. One day when Drexler was struggling to hold on to her briefcase and her bags, 11 year-old Damien saw “that I needed help and immediately offered it.” Drexler is taken aback—a boy being helpful and caring? She notes “when I thought about it later, it clicked in my head: This is a boy being raised by two moms.” Lesbian-raised Cody helps clean up the playroom. Lesbian-raised Brad offers Drexler a stool to sit on when she comes to his room to interview her. Both considerations are the product, we are assured, of their special upbringings. Yet if Drexler had been willing to look she could have found many kind, helpful, empathetic boys raised by heterosexual couples—like my 12 year-old son, who recently told his grandparents “I want you to move next door to us, even though it will mean more chores for me." Drexler’s enlightened moms have little affection for the virtues of traditional masculinity, such as self-sacrifice, courage, and the desire to protect and provide. For example, when Helen’s son Mark applies to the Air Force Academy, Helen “prayed that the fierce competition for Academy slots would knock Mark out of the running.” When Mark gets in but ends up losing his spot because of his asthma, Helen is elated. Drexler refuses to see obvious indications that the boys she interviews need fathers. When one of Brad’s two moms picks him up from the daycare center after work, every day she has to pry the six year-old off of the leg of an after-school worker named Ron to whom Brad is—pun intended—quite attached. A less determined researcher might see this as evidence of Brad’s need for a dad. Not Drexler, who instead tells us that, given Ron’s presence, Brad’s mom “knew she didn’t need to worry about Brad’s lack of an everyday father in his life.” Julia’s little boy says “I want a daddy.” Darlene’s little boy tells his mom “we could find a daddy and he could move in with us.” Three year-old Ian--fatherless by the decision of his “single mother by choice” mom Leslie--watches TV with mom, continually pointing at male figures on the screen and saying “there’s my daddy.” Leslie explains “no, we don’t have a daddy in our family,” but little Ian doesn’t get it and continues to point and ask. A problem? Not according to Drexler, who writes “Will some little boys trail after men they don’t even know, perk up at lower-decibel voices, or hang on to the pant legs of the men who cross their paths? Maybe.”  But whatever it is, she assures us, it isn’t father hunger. She enthuses that “sons of lesbians went to great efforts to define the terms of the bonds and relationships in their lives that the boys from straight families seemed to take for granted. All terms in their lives were complex.” Is this a good thing? Drexler does allow that some male figures can be positive for boys. Who? “Grandfathers, godfathers, uncles, family friends, coaches”—in short, anybody but dad.  In fact, boys being raised without fathers benefit because they enjoy “more male figures in their lives than boys from traditional families.” But more does not mean better, and a group of men with little stake in a boy’s life are a poor substitute for a father’s love and devotion to his children.  Nor can they provide the modeling that boys need--the best way for a boy to learn how to become a good husband and father is to watch his father do it. Drexler believes that boys in heterosexual families are worse off because they are “stuck with a single male role model”--dad--whereas in lesbian families boys are free to choose their own. Yet a child does not have the judgment to properly select his own role models, even with a parent’s input. The fact that fatherless boys usually choose older, rebellious, thuggish boys as their role models—and are often led by them to their perdition—eludes Drexler. Drexler informs us that the best role model for a boy is sometimes a sports figure he’s never even met. Of an interaction with Quentin, one of the lesbian-raised boys she’s studying, she tells us she gave him “a present, a videotape called Yankee Sluggers…a gift I gave to all the boys I had come to know.”  After Quentin says “I’m going to know more about Babe Ruth [than my friends] and I’m going to teach them about Babe Ruth,” Drexler enthuses “This is a boy finding his own role model.” In other words, a sports figure who’s been dead for over 50 years can provide a good role model and male influence, but having a dad wouldn’t help. What would our opinion be of a father who abandoned his boy as a baby, leaving in his stead Yankee Sluggers? In case a family consisting of two lesbian moms and a long-dead, drinking and womanizing sports figure is somehow insufficient, Drexler holds up a variety of other family forms and “nonofficial parenting figures” as solutions, including Hillary Clinton’s village, “communal living,” and “seed daddies.”  She approvingly quotes a columnist who writes “with so many single mothers around, and double mothers becoming less of a novelty, it is the children of traditional couples who are going to be asked ‘who is that man in your house?’” Drexler’s anti-father, anti-heterosexual bias manifests itself in several other ways. For one, Drexler, like many feminists, has a double standard about divorce. When men divorce women, they’re rats and deserters. When women divorce men, they’re independent and liberated. Raising Boys makes numerous critical references to fathers who’ve divorced their wives: Martha’s husband “left her high and dry”; Beverly’s husband abandoned her “abruptly” when their children were small; and Pam’s marriage ended because of her ex-husband’s alleged “lack of family commitment.” In fact, the only father who departed from his family against the mother’s wishes and isn’t vilified for it is a guy who died. Yet not one of the many divorced mothers and divorced-turned-lesbian mothers in Raising Boys is ever criticized or even chided for breaking up her family by divorcing her children’s father. The vast majority of divorces involving children are initiated by women, and research shows that the primary reason is not abuse or adultery, but instead emotional reasons such as a perceived lack of closeness or of not feeling loved and appreciated. Legitimate concerns, but were they proffered by a man who had broken up his family they would engender little sympathy. The devastation these unnecessary divorces visit upon children—formerly used to having a father and now having only a “visitor” in their lives a few days a month—draws no comment from Drexler. Nor does she once mention the enormous emotional pain some of these mothers have caused these loving dads. Also ignored is the fact that the newly fatherless homes she extols are often subsidized—sometimes at great expense—by the fathers who are no longer allowed to regularly parent their own children.  Like most feminists, Drexler believes that heterosexual family life is a raw deal for women. Drexler claims that fathers do almost no parenting, and laments “mothers who expected a partnership” and “wound up carrying most of the load.” One married mother admires the lesbian couple raising one of her son’s friends, saying “In some ways I’m jealous of your relationship because you tackle this thing [raising children] 50-50.” Yet according to the Families and Work Institute in New York City, fathers now provide three-fourths of the child care mothers do, up from one-half 30 years ago. Only 40% of married mothers with children work full-time, and over a quarter do not hold a job outside the home. By contrast, according to the International Labor Organization, the average American father works a 51 hour work week. Given this burden, the fact that fathers still manage to still do 75% as much child care as mothers do is quite an accomplishment. According to a 2002 survey conducted by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR), the world's largest academic survey and research organization, men are doing at least as much overall household work as women. Women do an average of 27 hours of housework a week, compared to 16 hours a week for men. Balanced against this, however, is the study's less-publicized finding that the average man spends 14 hours a week more on the job than the average woman.  Thus men's overall contribution to the household is actually slightly higher than women's.  But for Drexler it’s not enough. Drexler warns us about male influence, writing “fathers can be destructive and a boy may be better off without his father. Sometimes a father can be an aggressor who berates the mother, is hypercritical of his children or—in less dire circumstances—is simply not a good role model.” Apparently moms never berate dads or over-criticize their children, and are always good role models.  Yet according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, the vast majority of child abuse, parental murder of children, child neglect, and child endangerment are committed by mothers, not fathers. It is certainly true that the old, tough dad had his drawbacks, just as all parents—including mothers--do. The best parent is one who mixes affection and discipline, who loves and is lovable but at the same time is respected and, when necessary, feared. But not all parents can do all these things, and while we might have wished that the old dad were more sensitive, he was very important, and his virtues much underappreciated. As a former high school teacher I can assure you that what we need is more, not less, of the old dad—particularly in the inner cities. The dad who’s not afraid to be the bad guy. The dad who’s not afraid to take strong measures to help and protect his children. The dad who tells his son “if you shoplift you’d better hope the police get you before I do.” A father like my friend's dad, an African-American South Central Los Angeles cop who kept a tight curfew and a belt on the wall and who, before he died at an early age, claimed as his greatest achievement the fact that all four of his daughters got through college without having a baby. Many times in the classroom I would tell fatherless boys (who aren’t hard to recognize) “I wish I was your dad—I would kick your ass.” The boys would invariably give me a “you can’t catch me” laugh—they knew they were getting away with things at home that most dads wouldn’t tolerate, and they knew there was nothing anybody could do about it. According to Drexler, the boys she studied don’t need their dads, but instead benefit because their absence helps create what one might call the “maternal dictatorship.” For Ursula, the single mother of two boys, Drexler enthuses that there’s “no discussion about parenting methodologies. No crossed signals…no compromising…the decisions, the choices, the priorities were all hers.”  Better yet, “Lesbian co-parents ‘achieve a particularly high level of parenting skills…[and] a greater level of agreement than heterosexual couples. A higher degree of consensus cut down on conflict in the home, enabling a clear message of love and support to be heard by the kids.” Drexler has it exactly wrong—conflict over parenting methods and strategies is not a negative but a positive, for two competing and different viewpoints weed out bad ideas and help preserve good ones. This is particularly true in heterosexual couples, where both male and female perspectives are considered in decision-making. By contrast, in single parent homes ideas and parenting strategies are implemented without consultation, and the effect can be harmful. In lesbian homes, parenting strategies are used on boys without input from anyone who actually knows what it’s like to be a boy. While Raising Boys is being promoted as a harmless, feel-good affirmation for “maverick moms,” it is in fact an attack on the institution that research shows is the best-suited to raising children—the family. Drexler encourages women thinking of having fatherless children to make that “leap of faith.” But the rates of all major youth pathologies, including juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse, and school dropouts, are tightly correlated with fatherlessness. Drexler waxes poetic about the nebulous benefits of fatherless parenting, but makes little attempt to explain why fatherless families produce so many troubled and pathological children. The boys raised by the well-heeled, educated San Francisco lesbian couples Drexler studied will probably do better than most fatherless boys because their socioeconomic status is higher. But nothing in Drexler’s research indicates that an extra mom can replace the strength, tough love and modeling a father gives his son.
This is an expanded version of a column which first appeared in World Net Daily (9/10/05). To read the World Net Daily version, click here. Glenn Sacks taught elementary school and high school in Los Angeles Unified School District and others, and was named to "Who's Who Among America's Teachers" three times. His columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennSacks.com.   Other Columns...
 Not the Era of the Deadbeat Dad but the Era of the Hero Father
 Are Boys Really Better off Without Fathers?
 
Why I Launched the Campaign Against Verizon's Anti-Father Ad
National Fatherhood Initiative's Ad Campaign Insults African-American Fathers
more columns >>
 
Copyright © 2001 - 2006.  Sacks Media Group, LLC
All Rights Reserved.email: glenn@glennsacks.com
Copyright © 2001 - 2008.  Sacks Media Group, LLC
All Rights Reserved.

ANTI-HETEROSEXUAL 17, Virginia Law, FATHERS MUST REGISTER
big brother wuvs ya
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1101
New Column: New Virginia Law Says If You Have Sex You Must Register with the State or Forfeit All Rights to Your Child
August 28th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks
My new co-authored column, Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry Violates Fathers’ Right to Raise Their Own Children (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star & others, 8/16/07) criticizes an outrageous new anti-father Virginia law. The law has been debated in the press, but commentators have missed its central purpose--to remove fathers' rights to prevent their children from being put up for adoption against their will. The law asks any Virginia man who has had non-marital sex to register with the State. Men who fail to register waive all parental rights to children they may have fathered. The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, appears below. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star regarding Fatherhood rights being stripped away (8/16/07), write to letters@freelancestar.com.
Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry Violates Fathers’ Right to Raise Their Own Children By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks Virginia’s controversial new Putative Father Registry law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex in Virginia to register with the State. Supporters say the law will help connect fathers with their children before the children are put up for adoption. Critics see it as another example of the erosion of citizens’ privacy. Both sides miss the real point of the Registry--to remove a father's right to prevent his child's mother from giving their child up for adoption without his consent. Incredibly, under the new law, putative fathers who fail to register waive their right to be notified that their parental rights are being terminated. They also forfeit the right to be notified of the adoption proceedings and to consent to the adoption. Rather than being required to make a legitimate effort to find and notify the father, the state can now simply check the Registry and, if the man has not registered, give his child away. Such violations of fathers’ rights are common. For example, in the widely-reported Huddleston adoption case, Mark Huddleston’s baby boy was adopted out when he was three days old, but Huddleston didn't know the baby existed until two months after his birth. As a New Mexico court later found, the private adoption agency did not notify Huddleston of the pending adoption, thus denying him the chance to raise his son. In an adoption case, the burden of identifying the father should be on the mother. It is the mother, not the father, who is certain to be aware of the child’s birth, and it is the mother who knows (or should know) the baby’s parentage. However, when states have tried to craft measures requiring a mother who seeks to put her baby up for adoption to find and notify the baby’s father, there has been opposition from the National Organization for Women and other women’s groups. Defenders of the Registry justify disregarding fathers with numerous unfair assumptions about men and their intentions. For example, Kerry Dougherty, a prominent Virginia newspaper columnist, asserts: “I think we're being too kind to these men. Guys who don't stick around long enough to find out whether they've caused a pregnancy have terminated their paternal rights. If they know a baby's on the way and then disappear, they aren't fathers…the General Assembly ought to look for ways to strip these irresponsible Romeos of their rights, not invite them to record their random copulations.” One wonders if Dougherty knows anyone who has dated within the last 40 years. It is absurd to think that in modern relationships, when there’s an out-of-wedlock birth it must be because the father ran off. In reality, most unwed biological fathers do care about their children, but often do not know of their existence or are unsure that the children really are biologically theirs. There have been countless adoption cases where these fathers have struggled desperately for the right to raise their own children. One also wonders why a woman who wants to avoid the responsibility of raising a child (and of paying child support) is viewed sympathetically, while a man in exactly the same position is a villain. There are numerous other problems with the Registry. A registrant must provide his social security number, driver's license number, home address, and employer, as well as details about the sexual affair and his sexual partner. This sensitive, personal information will be available to the baby’s mother, the lawyers involved in the adoption, court employees, and anyone able to hack in to the computer system. The law should instead require that an honest, exhaustive search for the father be conducted before an adoption can proceed. This search should include use of the Federal Parent Locator Service, which contains a vast array of information, including the National Directory of New Hires. The FPLS is used to enforce child support, find children involved in parental kidnappings, and to enforce child custody and visitation. State systems are tied into the FPLS, and they are often remarkably effective at finding parents. Fathers have the right to raise their own children. Virginia’s Registry is a shameful attempt to circumvent that right. This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 28th, 2007 at 12:04 am and is filed under Family Law, Fatherhood, Fathers' Rights/Noncustodial parents' rights, Children's Rights, Men and the Media, Sexism, Adoption, Misandry, Gender Issues (Misc.), Bills/Initiatives, Elections, Politics, Court Cases, Single Fathers, American Coalition for Fathers & Children (ACFC). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Related Posts His Side with Glenn Sacks Radio Commentary: New Virginia Law Says If You Have Sex, You Must Register with the State
I Discuss the 'Elian Gonzalez II' Case on the Charles Goyette Show in Phoenix (Audio Available)
New Column: Biden’s Misguided S1515 Will Exacerbate Domestic Violence System’s Problems
Bert Riddick Finally Freed!
An Exception to the Rule--Reporter Does Fair, Honest Job Reporting on 'Deadbeat Dads'
Dad learns about putative father registries the hard way--by losing his son (Part II)
Dad learns about putative father registries the hard way--by losing his son (Part I)
We take rape seriously but refuse to take false accusations of rape seriously
A Feminist's Opinion of This Blog
Shared Parenting Bill 'Exemplifies American values, is held up in Legislature for all the wrong reasons'
Senator Biden Wants to Give Your Ex-Wife a Free Attorney...
Michigan Shared Parenting Activists Ask for Your Help
New Column: Shared Parenting Bill Will Help Michigan’s Kids, Overburdened Court System
Syndicated Columnist Kathleen Parker: Fox's 'Bad Dads' Is a Bad Idea
Bill 'Slaps criminal charges on those who falsely report child abuse in order to influence a custody case'
California Lawyer Magazine: NOW Leader Calls Fathers' Movement 'Dishonest and Dangerous'
Blowback over Our Hillary Clinton/Child Support Reform Article (Part II)
Blowback over Our Hillary Clinton/Child Support Reform Article (Part I)
New Column: Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads
Newspaper Wrings Hands Over Abused Pets While Ignoring Lack of Services for Abused Men
Norwegian Gov. Minister Attacks Shared Parenting, Pushes Feminist Family Law Policy
From 1903: Another Example of How Our Society Never Valued Women or Saw Them as Fully Human
Massachusetts Joins CA., CT. in Passing Legislation to Protect Hamsters Caught in Abusive Relationships
California NOW Launches 'I Love Consensual Sex' Campaign
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part VIII/Conclusion)
Some Thoughts on the New California TV Gay Marriage Ad
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part VII)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part VI)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part V)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part IV)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims These Ads Are 'Offensive to Women'--Are They? (Part III)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims These Ads Are 'Offensive to Women'--Are They? (Part II)
You Be the Judge--NOW Claims This Ad Is 'Offensive to Women'--Is It? (Part I)
NOW Leader Slams Glenn over Column on False Rape Accusations
Schwarzenegger Acts to Protect Goldfish, Hamsters Caught in Abusive Relationships
'Even in divorces where a mother has been the family breadwinner and the father has stayed home, a lot of women insist on fighting for sole custody'
The Marriage Movement Is 'Very Dismissive of Non-Custodial Fathers'
An Announcement Regarding Fathers & Families
Feminist Susan Estrich Has a Point About Katie Couric/Middle East Controversy
NOW Sues to Stop Fatherhood Programs
ACFC/NDSPI Removes Key Flaw from North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative
More Eyewitness Accounts of this Weekend's Rally in Washington DC
Speeches from the 'Bringing Children and Families Back Together' DC Rally (Video)
Robert Pedersen's Eyewitness Account of this Weekend's Rally in Washington DC
Activist Jennifer Kuhn's Eyewitness Account of this Weekend's Rally in Washington DC
DC Rally Update: Mike McManus of Marriage Savers Speaks Today
Fundamental Rights Supporters Gain Momentum as Thousands Plan to Rally on Lincoln Memorial
Women & the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative
ACFC Brings Back North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative
Warren Farrell on the Pay Gap: 'If It's About Discrimination, Why Are Young Urban Women Earning More?'
NOW's National Conference July 13-15--'Women Victimized in Family Courts'
Annie's Mailbox: 'My mother is still mad at my father...Mom makes me feel like I can't love them both'
NOW's National Conference July 13-15--'Fast Forward: Women Take Charge'
In Defense of Stephen Baskerville
More Thoughts on Cadillac's Anti-Male TV Ad 'Khakis'
New Column: Fighting NOW's Assault on Parents Targeted by Parental Alienation
Help for Everybody but Us
NOW Portrays Immigrant Men as Wife-Beaters
My Column on the 'Women's Equality Amendment' in Philadelphia Daily News
New Column: Equal Rights Amendment Yes, 'Women’s Equality Amendment' No
'Women are finally figuring out how weak-kneed men really are and are putting them in their place'
New Column: CA Legislators Vote to Protect Pets from Domestic Violence but Deny Services to Male DV Victims
Kim Basinger is Happy with Today's Custody Hearing, and That Probably Means...
NOW Scolds Media for Allowing Alec Baldwin to Talk About Parental Alienation
CANOW Blasts Baldwin, Says Fathers' Groups Support the Patriarchy & Want to Take Away Women's Right to Vote
Warren Farrell on the ’Wage Gap’
Authors of 'Legalizing Misandry' to Speak on 'Coming of Age as a Villain' at Men's Equality Congress
Do You Have a Post-Divorce Parenting Question? Ask Shared Parenting Expert Warren Farrell
I Enjoy Watching Birkhead Gloat a Little--Here's the Video
The Link Between Abortion and Domestic Violence
Boys and the Boy Crisis--Third National Men’s Equality Congress, July 13-14 in Washington D.C.
Helen Ubiñas Gives NOW a Dose of Reality over Its Opposition to Fatherhood Initiatives
Fatherhood Activists to Protest Pizza Box/Deadbeat Dad Campaign
Do Men’s Corporate Bathrooms Constitute Sexual Harassment?
Feminist Domestic Violence Group Equates Child Support Debtors with Batterers
Fathers, the Left and Spitting in the Wind
Warren Farrell's Case for Shared Parenting (Video)
'Fathers' Rights' Used Almost Exclusively by Batterers to Gain Custody of Their Child Victims'
NOW Leader Tells Women to Divorce Their Husbands for Valentine's Day, Take Their Money, 'Hit Them Where It Hurt$'
In Defense of NOW President Kim Gandy
Father Stops Mother from Putting His Son up for Adoption, then Bails
Washington Shared Parenting Bill to Be Heard in Committee This Friday
A Slightly Different 'Blog for Choice'
What Legislators Can Learn from the Movie "Pursuit of Happyness"
False Sexual Abuse Accusations in Divorce: Heads Mom Wins, Tails Dad Loses
New Column: Shockome Syndrome
When Boys Fall Behind in School, Is It 'Breaking Male Dominance'?
Does NOW Believe Mothers Should ALWAYS Win Custody?
Detroit News Readers Discuss CAPA, My Debate With Michigan Right-to-Life
Glenn Discusses CAPA on Radio (Audio Available)
Tags: adoption agency, American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Federal Parent Locator Service, Kerry Dougherty, mark huddleston, National Directory of New Hires, national organization for women, out of wedlock births, Putative Father Registry, Virginia’s New Putative Father Registry
Related Tags: Alex Penelas Arte Moreno Bill Clinton Cuban American National Foundation Elian Gonzalez Fidel Castro his side His Side with Glenn Sacks Janet Reno Jeri B. Cohen Joe Cubas Juan Miguel Gonzalez KLAA Lazaro Gonzalez Maria Perez Marisleysis Gonzalez Rafael Izquierdo
    Email this page Sign-up for Glenn's weekly E-Newsletter   
 
   
 
142 Responses to “New Column: New Virginia Law Says If You Have Sex You Must Register with the State or Forfeit All Rights to Your Child”
Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters' views are those of the posters alone--Glenn's views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.   While blog commenters are given great freedom on this blog, there are some rules of moderation. To read those, click here. AnonymousPampleteer Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Seems to me that the mother should be burdened with the legal responsibility of identifying all possible fathers to "her" child. Then the state could contact each and offer him DNA testing to determine paternity. If the mother fails to identify the father accurately (and honestly), then she should be compelled to pay child support to the state to defray the costs of caring for the child and/or pay child support to the adoptive parents. By the way, does the following seem fair: -When a "mother" decides she doesn't want her child, she simply puts the child up for adoption and walks away, no strings attached. -When a "father" says he didn't want to be a father, they attach his paycheck for 20 years, and throw him in jail if he doesn't deliver cash continuously for 20 years. What is wrong with this picture? ze german Says: August 28th, 2007 at 4:11 am
"waive all parental rights to children they may have fathered." Does this include child support? Will he be eligible for child support even if he is said to have forfeited his rights to be a father? Ken Brewer Says: August 28th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Just how far out of balance will we allow the scale of justice to become? Robert Says: August 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Men have responsibilities, woman have choices in the best interest of the children. Bring on the next "Strenghtening Families" program that will encourage "responsible" fatherhood and prevent fathers from "abandoning" their children. Michael McCanles Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:27 am
This law is only nominally concerned with identifying paternity. Inst ead it follows a well-worn track used by feminist groups and feminist lawyers: triangulation. You get from angle A to angle C by way of angle B. The point of this out-in-the-open dishonest maneuver is to get what you really are after while diguising the move behind something else. Here, the point is to discourage heterosexual relations between unmarried men and women. There is no question that feminists since the 1960s have been doing their best to separate heterosexual males from heterosexual females. They've been doing this by propagandizing in colleges--now in highschools--for the hatemongering notion that heterosexual males are all rapists, wife-beaters, and murderers (which is why men fight wars). Hostile environment sexual harassment regulations, which are universal from the federal level on down, treats sexual approaches by males to females as presumptively guity of the crime of sex discrimination. That's right: you show your anti-female sex discriminatory intentions by asking a woman out for a date. What this law requires is that males "fess up" to screwiing a female who isn' t his wife by registering with the state. Okay guys, every time you drop your pants, you have to inform a bureaucrat. I'm sure this regulation is challengeable on discriminatory grounds itself--because it doesn't require the same response from females, as well as violating applicable federal and state privacy laws. My point is that too many of the "fathers' rights" advocates keep butting their heads against the issue of legal attacks on the subject of child possession. This misses the point that this is simply another triangulation tactic invented by feminists to support their (pretended) "concern" about mothers. It isn't. These people are anti-male hatemongers and they use and will use any tactic they can find--and they're very cunning in discovering how to do this (they're mainly lawyers after all) to exploit the coercive power of the law in order to do males damage. I suggest a redeployment of mens' groups away from the arguably "sucker" diversion of rights to children to the real enemy, which is organized feminist anti-male hatemongering. Don't be deceived: these women hate you and they've been at war with you since the 1950s and publication of the first feminist tracts in this country. Duy Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Is this registering to be a potential father or registering to be a potential Child Support payer? Savagebongos Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Laws like this one are a cancer that is spreading. And it starts somewhere and in this case, the state of Virginia.
If equal protection under the law cannot / will not be enforced in ANY state....then by all means, let the Feds come in & "help" those misguided states "correct themselves"...is what I would think should be done.
Unfortunately, I think the Feds would ( given their propensity to boil the frog whenever the opportunity presents itself ) side with this constitutional violation. This kind of stuff is big business.....follow the money trail !! george Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:41 am
AP, The problem, as we've seen, is that biological proof or disproof of fatherhood is not useful in family courts. More than once a man has lost rights to children who are biologically his or has been forced to pay for those who are most certainly not his. Why? The case I recall reading about here was that the man hadn't filed an objection or protest early enough. Interesting that 'criminal' cases seem to have little or no limits on when/what can be appealed. But when it comes to 'civil' cases, there are all sorts of rules that must be adhered to. (But only if you are a man. A quick perusal of my divorce/custody situation will show that at least two states are willing to ignore their own procedural rules if it helps my soon to be ex wife.) Now a lawyer will tell you that civil and criminal proceedings are two different things. Which would be a fine argument if it were not for the fact that men (and statistically speaking ONLY men) face jail time and other criminal penalties for a violation of civil decisions. Judi Cochran Says: August 28th, 2007 at 11:01 am
First a caveat : I haven't read the new VA law. However, I can comment that for the most part "putative father registries" are a large benefit to fathers. They do NOT require that a man register just because he had extra-marital sex but rather that he register at the time of the birth of the child if he wants to establish his parental rights from the beginning. When the dad fills in the paperwork for registration at the hospital the child can legally have his last name on the birth certificate, does not have to go through establishing paternity beyond this acknowledgement, and it curtails the ability of the mother to later say "father unknown" and insures that IF the mother decides to place the child for adoption the father will be immediately notified. I hear, on a regular basis, men angry because they've been served with paternity papers or child support notices, men who were never told that they even have to establish custody rights (many think the establishment of child support automatically means they have immediate custodial rights), anger that their name isn't on the birth certificate..............all avoidable for those dads who know there's a baby on the way, those who accept the responsibility of becoming a father, those who are truly interested in raising their child even if the mom can't or doesn't want to, etc. Dads who step up to the plate from the birth of the child, register to protect their rights, want the child to bear their name, ......... in other words, ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, should have no problem and indeed be grateful that their interests are being looked after. The registries DON'T require that a man register just because he had sex. Actually, it is voluntary and dads complete the registry because they want to be fathers in the full sense of the word. Bluntly put, if a man doesn't want to produce a child, doesn't want the responsibility of parenting and support, then the responsibility needs to start long before the birth of a child............perhaps by buying a box of condoms. If a child is conceived through irresponsible sexual behavior, the pregnancy is not known to the father because the sex was so casual (hey guys....if you actually have a "relationship" with a woman you actually notice she's pregnant) or the dad simply doesn't want to acknowledge the child then what is the problem with having a registry that allows him to say "This is MY child and I want all the rights afforded to me as his father!". If a man suspects he may have impregnated the woman he has the right ... and the responsibility ... to establish himself as the father. Of course the registry, just like any birth registry, requires BOTH parents to fill in the blanks including all the identifiers as they will appear on a birth cetificate and they BOTH sign the paperwork TOGETHER. Neither has to provide intimate details of the sexual contact. I don't quite see the complaint here that it is somehow evil that a father who WANTS his rights, wants the child to bear his name is being "forced" to identify himself. My birth certificate and my children's birth certificates.......and probably all of yours.......identify both parents: SSN, DOB, job titile, address, mother's maiden name. Registries, establishment of rights, acknowledgement of paternity; all these REPLACE birth certificates that say "illegitimate, bastard, father unknown" etc. Don't you think this will all be known if a putative father is served with a paternity action? If you want to conceal your identity from the woman you're having sex with, then perhaps the condom purchase is wise. If you perhaps had irresponsible sex but would choose to parent a child, then the Registry protects that right. If you're a man holding his breath that maybe you'll have to pay support for a child you didn't want the word is still condom. If you're concealing your identity and involvement then exactly how does anyone do an "honest, exhaustive search" to find you? If you know your sexual partner is pregnant you still have the right to acknowledge the child, you still have the right to challenge paternity, and you still have the ability to accept responsibility for the child. This is 2007, there is no reason for "unwanted pregnancy" except the irresponsibility of the two adults. Somehow the reasoning for this column escapes me: Either you want to acknowledge your child and have rights or there is extreme anger that the easiest path to that is offered. If dad is registered (just like he would be if the child were conceived in a marriage) then cases like Huddleston wouldn't happen. What's sad is that it IS 2007 and we're still seeing large numbers of "accidental" pregnancies. If a woman lists "father unknown" on the birth certificate, perhaps she's telling the truth........the responsibility is on both people to at least know who you're having sex with, but today that responsibility isn't there. You're addressing the narrow issue of adoption placement which is an extremely small percentage of all out of wedlock births. Most women keep their babies, and of course they may seek out the father for his share of the responsiblity. If that occurs, then dad has two choices: acknowledge his child, accept responsibility and elect to be a father to the child, or opt out of the father role and complain for 18 years that he's helping support a child he "didn't want". There's no middle ground once a child is born. If a "dad" doesn't want to legally establish himself at the time of birth, then he doesn't have to register, doesn't have to acknowledge the child and doesn't have to give his name to the child. Of course if you think that conception is SOLELY the mother's "fault", then perhaps Sex Ed 101 wasn't offered in your school. I just came back from holding my new granddaughter in the hospital and can't imagine how I'd feel if her father was "unknown", if her father wanted no part of her, if she didn't bear her father's name, if my daughter were very young and faced with raising a baby on her own or if her husband denied being the father or was angry at the responsibility I'm lucky.....I raised responsible chldren. There will never be a question of who my grandchildren's parents are. kjhm Says: August 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
If you register, please take note of who will have access to your registration. (from the GAQ section of the Virginia Putative Father Registry) If I register with The Virginia Putative Father Registry will this prove that I am the biological father of the
child?
Registering with The Virginia Putative Father Registry does not prove that you are the biological father of the child
that you registered for. You must establish paternity to prove that you are the biological father of the child. Who has access to my registration? The Virginia Putative Father Registry is a confidential database, only the following entities can have access to obtain
information from The Virginia Putative Father Registry: the mother of the child; an attorney representing a party in a
termination of parental rights or an adoption proceeding; a party to an adoption; a child-placing agency; court or
person designated by the court; other states putative father registries; support enforcement; and any agency
authorized by law. Duy Says: August 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am
"Who has access to my registration?" Just about anyone I guess lol Mark Says: August 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I'm sorry, but the notion that unwanted pregnancy automatically stims from having "unprotected" sex is the stupidest thing that anyone could possibly say. Unwanted pregnancy is largely the result of people, like you, that promote the myth that condoms are armor for your penis. The reality is, as consumer reports demonstrate, failure rates on condoms (even name brand top of the line) over regular usage is 100 percent. Meaning if you regularly use condoms it is certain you will experience condom failures and that certainly could lead to unwanted pregnancy. No form of birth control can offer 100 percent assurance that it will work. As such unwanted pregnancy is still very much an issue in 2007. Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Dear Ms Cochran: Your arguments are disingenuous, and blithely ignore the fact that the law will obligate a man to register to protect rights that should not be questioned or come with an expiration date in the first place. Remember that this registry is only useful in circumstances where the parentage is either in doubt or hidden to begin with; in the cases where a birth is planned by both parties and hidden by neither, this law does nothing. In cases where the paternity is in dispute or hidden, the failure to register could cause harm in more cases than adoption. When a mother separates from the father before he learns of the pregnancy, she could marry another man and the true father would never have rights to his child; a court could expediently reference this law to deny his involvement (right to time with the child) after the child's existence is known, ensuring the mother has maximum time which equates to maximum economic benefit for such a mother; a mother who moves away and chooses to hide the pregnancy, with the father learning only when the child is two months old, then the mother dies in an unrelated accident, and the father legally has no rights (then Anna Nicole's lawyer would have won his gambit, and the real father would have been shut out); adoption is just one more case. Your argument is not helped by saying that adoption is too small a percentage for us to be concerned about the injustice. Like it or not, many pregnancies are not planned. Also, whether you agree or not, potential mothers can and do deceive men to become pregnant; they can and do deceive men regarding the parentage of a child. Women who deceive in this fashion should not be given legal cover after a nine-month window, essentially a nine-month statue of limitations for paternity fraud. Unless a man registers, which, especially in these circumstances, is unlikely. In non-parenting law, it would be equivalent to electing a president for twenty years, just because he or she managed to keep a convincing fraud for nine months. Evil deceptive people exist in both sexes; none should be given a pass just because they are skilled at not getting caught for a year. Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Glenn- A link to the law would be useful here. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
It seem's that most of you against this Law have been Ill informed and should be greatful such a law is passing in another state. What you see as a harmful law is actually a step towards family law reform. My situation is one that amounts to the tallest roller coaster in the world I went through the highest of high's and the lowest of low's with my ex. I was lucky enough to be on one of the upward streches at the time my son was born and she allowed me to sign the birth certificate and the Paternity affidiavit and be a part of the birth of my son. However this putative fathers registry would have saved me in ohio from having to climb an even taller mountain in my custody case. It would have been very simple for my ex to not allow me at the hospital for the birth of my son however because of the putative father registry should could never have prevented my son from carrying my name or from my name and signature being on his birth certificate. This system does not force any unwilling father to sign up but instead it helps those of us who want to be part of our childs life, be part of our childs life. It eliminates the costly expenses of DNA testing for a child you know is your's prior to being able to start and fight for child custody. It eliminates the ability for a mother to put a child up for adoption with out your knowledge. No one should stand against this passing, in fact if you have children or every want to be an active parent you should stand behind this law because someday it might just help you, a family member or perhaps even one of your children. Andy your argueing against your own point. I agree that we should not have to register for something that should be our right with out registering. But the fact is we dont have those rights, and if the first step of progress is to set up a register to protect and provide rights to fathers who normally would have had no rights under current law, then stand behind it. Its taken a long time to get to this point so lets let progress occur instead of harming something helping the progress we want. What you dont understand is this registry has no negative points for fathers if you do not register you are in the same boat you were in prior to this law passing. Meaning you have to go request DNA prove you are the father and then procede. How is it a bad thing that someone says father's should have the right to sign there birth certifiate and let it be know legally that they are the father of a child even when the mother wants you to have no part? Mark, I have a child that came from an unintended pregnancy and the fault lies on my self and my ex. We could have taken measures but we did'nt. If she says she was on the pill I should have used a condom, the list goes on, but I do believe that using both probably makes the odd's 100,000 to 1 that you end up with a child, in any event its possible to still end up with a child using condoms and the pill, and thats were responsability falls into our laps, we still chose to have premarital sex. kjhm Says: August 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Andy this may help: Who Created The Virginia Putative Father Registry?
The 2006 General Assembly passed into law Section 63.2-1249, which established the Putative Father Registry with
the Virginia Department of Social Services. The purpose of the registry is to protect the rights of a putative father who
wants to be notified in the event of a proceeding for adoption of, or the termination of parental rights regarding a child
he may have fathered. Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Thanks, kjhm. Kris- The biggest problem with this is the obligation to register, and forfeiture of rights if the registration is not done. If you truly are in the same boat, without registering, as before, then my difference is quibbling. (As a libertarian, though, I don't like new governmental obligations to register, though--- in your own case, if the register did not exist but you knew the pregnancy existed, you could challenge the birth certificate or petition a family case prior to the birth, something which I bet you would have to do even if you had registered and had been kept away from the hospital.) But some mothers actually work to hide their pregnancy, go to live in another city or state, or deceive men (and themselves) into believing the child is from another man. The deceived men, some of whom may suspect the deception but some of whom may have no idea, should not forfeit any rights because they fail to sign up--- in advance of the ability to detect the fraud, mind you --- on a government list. If it is optional, and does not waive rights by failing to register, then I agree with the usefulness. But Glenn's article here (and all others that have seen) mention the waiver of rights if it is not done, which just seems an invitation for those who want to abuse the legal system--- if they cover their tracks for nine months, the other side loses. That's bad. And if you had been deceived, or if you were not informed of the state registry, you would have had zero rights ten days after birth. Do you still think it's a good idea? Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Here are some other spooky problems with the registry--- which I copied and pasted straight from a blog that I got 3 or 4 clicks away from here. I'll stop posting for a while, that's enough of my voice and postings for a while... Re: Favorite new Virginia law (Coming in July 2007)
Posted by: the weatherman (IP Logged)
Date: April 04, 2007 09:51AM cool ill register myself against several child-baring age women and if they have a kid ill says its mine and theyll have to pay me to go away Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message
Re: Favorite new Virginia law (Coming in July 2007)
Posted by: Lurker. (IP Logged)
Date: April 04, 2007 10:47AM How do I prove that I had sex with her? Do I have to bring pictures\videos? LOL I should of registered the last time Anna Nicole Smith was in town. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2007 10:49AM by Lurker.. Lane Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I can't see how this registry connects fathers to children. If you really want a registry then require women to do so. After all, they are obviouslly aware of their own pregnancy. Is it possible the state has come to relize that they can't trust a women to be honest or that expecting her to know who she slept with is to much to ask. Why wouldn't a woman know the mans name if he knows hers? penumbrook Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I've sent my letter off to the Free Lance Star. I used to be a Virginia resident. I left because Virginia failed to protect my rights as a Father when my ex abducted our children. It seems as if the Nut-Wing political party has only solidified their hold on the Commonwealth that once was home to the Founding Fathers of this country. Lane Says: August 28th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
To the person who thinks we should be greatful for this law. As Glenn has stated, many men have fought adoption agencies. They have ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY (Cochran) and it didn't mean a thing. If you think this registry changes that you are ill-informed. They could jump on a trampoline waving their arms as they pass the window yelling I'm the Dad. If begging to raise your child isn't an acknowledgement then what is? Andrew Day Says: August 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I don't see how legislation like this leaves the desk of the feminist out basket without the next stop being the trashcan when presented to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense. There are already very good points made as to how this negatively affects Fathers. Using their own logic against them though; wouldn't it be fair to say that women need to register all of their sexual encounters as well, and if they fail to do so, they will not be eligible to collect child support? I'm not advocating the flip-side here, because in both cases; the children lose. Aren't there any legislators left who remember that these laws were meant to better the lives of our kids? Al Says: August 28th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Judi Cochran said: "Bluntly put, if a man doesn't want to produce a child, doesn't want the responsibility of parenting and support, then the responsibility needs to start long before the birth of a child............perhaps by buying a box of condoms. If a child is conceived through irresponsible sexual behavior, the pregnancy is not known to the father because the sex was so casual (hey guys....if you actually have a "relationship" with a woman you actually notice she's pregnant) or the dad simply doesn't want to acknowledge the child" From this statement that you listed above in your comment, I am to assume that you think that just because a man had casual sex and didn't think that he would be a father, then if he finds out later on in time that he produced a child, and he wants to have paternal rights to that child, that he should be denied that because: a.) he had casual sex and didn't think that he produced a child, and or b.) He didn't have a relationship with the woman to notice she was pregnant. Basically, you are saying that because a man didn't have a relationship outside of a sexual one with the mother, that he would be a bad father for a child and therefore should not have any parental rights to a child. WTF?!?
Nobody says that a woman who just has casual sex with a man and gets pregnant (even if she had no intention of having a child) should lose custody of that child when it is born because she didn't think that she would become pregnant and ..."the sex was so casual". The problem here is that, while a woman WILL know that she is pregnant and can make a conscious decision about what she wishes to do in regards to her parental responsibility (i.e. abortion, adoption, motherhood), a man can easily be unaware that he is a soon-to-be father. A man shouldn't be denied paternal rights and responsibilities just because he didn't know that he helped make a child and thus didn't register for this potential result. If he was not informed about the pregnancy, then he may very well be unaware of it. And if he is unaware about it, that fact does NOT make him less deserving of his rights as a father. One could say that a woman should be responsible for informing all her lovers of their potential "fatherhood" when she finds out that she is pregnant. After all, one would think that she knows all the men that she slept with during the time of conception. Basically, it all boils down to this. You think that every man should have to register as a potential father when he has sex with a woman, and if he does not do this, then he forfeits his rights as a father if that said woman becomes pregnant and gives birth. Well, I think that if a man is not informed of the pregnancy and birth, then he has had no consent as to his paternal rights or the forfeit thereof. Dismayed Says: August 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
What idiot proposed and/or sponsored this choice piece of legislation? We should start a nationwide movement to impeach these imbeciles. Every elected official swears an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. If they don't, they're eligible for impeachment. The dolt who drafted this bill probably has never even READ the constitution. I say, let's get rid of the bums. Sometimes, when I read Glenn's column these days, I feel like I'm ready a treatment for a way-out, wacky hollywood screenplay that no one will ever produce because it's just to stupid and far-fetched. What's this nation of ours coming to? Michael McCanles Says: August 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Judi Cochran says: "First a caveat : I haven't read the new VA law. However, I can comment that for the most part "putative father registries" are a large benefit to fathers. They do NOT require that a man register just because he had extra-marital sex but rather that he register at the time of the birth of the child if he wants to establish his parental rights from the beginning. " However the Sacks article clearly states the following: "Virginia’s controversial new Putative Father Registry law asks any man who has had heterosexual non-marital sex in Virginia to register with the State. Supporters say the law will help connect fathers with their children before the children are put up for adoption. Critics see it as another example of the erosion of citizens’ privacy. Both sides miss the real point of the Registry--to remove a father's right to prevent his child's mother from giving their child up for adoption without his consent." In short, the situation is precisely what I described in my comment above: the law requires that the state be informed every time a male has extra-marital sex. The issue of fathers, child access, etc. is at best secondary , and is arguably what I said it was: the attempt of the state to place a barrier between males and females having sex. It doesn't require that a female so register, so of course we have a possible 14th amendment violation as well as a violation of the First Amendment protection against bills of attainder--two things I add to my description above. I repeat my adjuration: forget the child access issue for the purposes of reading such laws: they're not about child support, etc. Whatever use moms may have for such laws for their own purposes, their purposes are not the purposes of the anti-male hatemongering feminist lawyers, activists, and politicos who put such laws in place. I've spent 11 years researching how "dominance" feminists think and operate--having prevoiusly spent 25 years living with them in academe close up and personal (both as faculty and as feminist students in my classes: a very ugly experience with some very ugly people), and am preparing a list of articles once my "sting operation" against the Office of Civil Rights of the Dept. of Education re: hostile environment sexual harassment regulations is launched, demonstrating from some of the incredible mass of academic feminist publications that they hate heterosexual males' guts and that they act accordingly. A number of them are lesbians, with their own particular brand of sexual politics to pursue. When I see how fathers on the various Glenn Sacks sites react to the things done by the state in the name of "protecting" the rightrs of females, my heart bleeds for them. But they have not got the right snake by the tail. Feminist legal theory and feminist lawyers are by this point in time a major force in lobbying anti-male hate regulations into being, and likewise staffing the federal and local regulatory agencies that administer them. I recognized the Virginia law the moment II caught a whiff of it. Make males more responsible? Yeah, sure. Make males think twice before having sex with a female--that's where the smell truly emanates from. Lorraine Says: August 28th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Virginia isn't the only state with bizarre laws-Kentucky is the worst. They condone parental kidnapping and whoever has the child-loses ALL their rights. The problem of custody, child support & parental rights are NOT exclusive to men. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Its sad to see and its harder to accept that the reason we have made such small steps in family law reform has to do with the fact that we fight for progress and then fight the progress because its not the area we want. First of all if you are not married and your long time girl friend, new girl friend or one night stand gets pregnant, as a father you have absolutly no rights. She can choose to have the child and raise him/her, choose to abbort the child and choose to put the child up for adoption, she can choose to let you be part of the birth, she can choose to keep you informed and allow you to participate in the childs life. As a man you can choose to hide from the situation and let the courts eventually get child support from your monthly income, you can choose to actively seek legal custody, but aside from either running and hiding from responsabilities or facing them through court you cant choose to do anything else with the child that the mother will not allow... If the registry offends you that much then simply dont register. If you are a soon to be father and the women won't let you have anything to do with the child against your wishes then its in your best interest to register. While I did not have to use the registry to get my name on my son's birth certificate the fact that I signed the birth certificate and the paternity affidavit associated with the registry saved me allot of head ache. My ex first tried to have the court dismiss the custody case saying that I had never established paternity. If the registry did not exist in ohio its true I never would have established paternity because with out the registry its the expensive DNA test. Why would any of us when things are going well pay for a DNA test of a child we knew was our's? But because the registry exists in OH, all I had to do was submit my paternity affidavit number to the court to show her sworn affidavit was bogus and the case is still pending. Other wise the case would have been dismissed I would have had to request a DNA test and instead of being a good deal into my custody case I would probably still be waiting on the first hearing Bobby Says: August 28th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I am not a father and will probably never be at the rate things are going. However, I have very strong feelings about issues like this. A very close friend has been deeply affected by the unfair, discriminatory, and anti-male family law regulations in Washington State. That said, I wish to only remind folks of a situation that arose here in California many years ago that had nothing to do with family law. When California outlawed assault rifles they "accommodated" those who already owned them legally by requiring them to "register" their guns with the state. A concern was raised that the registration records would be used in a later confiscatory effort. Supporters of the registration program promised that no such thing would ever happen and that the records were strictly confidential. Now let's fast-forward to about eighteen months after the registration deadline. A state legislator proposed a law that would use the aforementioned registration records to identify everybody in the state with an assault rifle and demand that they surrender their guns to law enforcement. In other words, the records were now going to be used to confiscate the guns. State legislators were in favor of this law and it was gaining support. Then law enforcement agencies across the state started asking who would go out and confiscate the guns that had not been surrendered. The new law required those same local police to be the ones who would be saddled with that task. When law enforcement heard this they gave a resounding "NO!" and, eventually, the law was rejected and hasn't come back to my knowledge. To get to the point of the above story, today the gathering of these data are "said" to be for noble purposes (yeah, right), but what such personal and private data could be used for in the future by both government and non-government groups is, perhaps, what scares me most. Extra-marital relations are among the questions asked about during an investigation for a security clearance. If an applicant has been playing around and people tell an investigator about it, then an applicant will almost certainly be denied a "Secret," "Top Secret," "Q," or "QQ" level clearance. And the agency investigating never has to tell the applicant why they were denied. It is also a topic of investigation for people applying for various state and federal licenses (like real estate licenses here in California). A database such as described would be an ideal place for investigators to look and it would only apply to men (read that as discriminatory against men). Such laws are the tools of POLICE STATE governments all over the world. Be scared, be angry, exercise your responsibilities as a citizen of this nation and tell legislators that voting for laws like this one will assure that you will vote and campaign against them. They do respond to those kinds of threats (promises). Sorry if this dragged on, but I consider the parallel issue of government data gathering to be of critical importance. Right up there with FATHER'S RIGHTS. Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
AL Simply put, you missed the point! if you you were an unmarried father you have no rights.... Your rights begin when YOU petition the court for custody. The paternity affidavit gives you rights that you did not have prior to the paternity affidavit like being able to sign the birth certificate.... If you choose not to register you are in the same boat you would have been in prior to the law passing.... All this does is put you one step higher in the family law system then you were prior to the registry, if you choose not to your start at the bottom and its a long climb so I will take the free stair and be happy for now. I still want more progress but this is atleast a step in the right direction Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Bobby the gun registration and this one are not even on the same page..... A gun owner who wants to be legal followed the registry and it possibly screwed them, the criminal who already has an illegal fire arm did not register and when he is caught he faces felony charges. the registry, is for father's who want to be father's and want to have rights from day one, its for fathers who want to be part of there childrens life and are either going to live out there days with the woman as a family or are going to end up in family court battling it out... The registry DOES NOT require every father on the planet to register so for those of you who want nothing to do with a child you created simply dont register... On the child's birth certificate fathers name will be blank and if the mother goes for child support or welfare she will simply list you and you can be upset when they garnish your wages Andy S Says: August 28th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Yes, but Kris, it eliminates your rights if you do not register. Registry is a real issue for people who care about a free society, but it isn't the biggest problem with this. The biggest problem is that your rights are stripped by inaction. All it takes is a person who is unaware of the law, or a computer glitch one day, or a person who is sincerely fooled, for him to lose standing as a parent. The law ELIMINATE the rights if a father does not register within 10 days of birth. It is good that it helped you. But someone in your exact situation with less knowledge of the government process would have been screwed. The option to be proactive can have its uses. The stripping of rights by not registering is diabolical. Bobby Says: August 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Kris, Perhaps the gun thing seemed a bit off-topic, but, in fact, I believe it illustrates a very important point and that is why I presented it. The point being made was absolutely not about guns (as should have been obvious from the next paragraph) but about the fact that the government data gathering represented by this new law is just one more example of how some law that is claimed to be helpful to a group is, in reality, an opportunity for future government and legal system abuses. If only males are being "registered" then what is to prevent, in the future, some government agency or lawyer from obtaining these data and using them against some guy who registered in good faith but had the fact that he registered used as evidence against him in some future litigation? No matter how one tries to color such laws, they still stink and smack of totalitarianism. Wearing blinders to this issue will only lead to the further erosion of privacy and our rights. In other words, this is a Constitutional issue. "A people who would trade their liberties for security shall have neither." - Ben Franklin DanH Says: August 28th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
To Kris Di Francesca:
It’s clear you feel your situation went the best it possibly could. I and many others do not agree your advice is all that sound. First, stop with the carping on the cost of a DNA test. It’s less than all but one month’s most meager child support payment. It is the cheapest money you can spend. Second, with a DNA test, you are assured you are the biological father, which is the cornerstone of this whole deal, is it not? Third, Lord help you if a year from now in an argument she says you are not the father and you go down the path of trying to force a DNA test at that point. Fourth, laws exist that allow a man to determine, by DNA testing, if the baby is his or not.
(However, this only applies to those men who put in the time to retain skilled representation willing to stand up to a family court judge, such as Jerilyn L. Borack, sister to California State Senator Sheila Kuehl, who is also a real piece of work, and force her to follow Section 7630 (c) as it is written and do the DAN test per Section 7551. The Uniform Parentage Act of 2000 allow this but Judge Borack rules in favor of the mother no matter which way it is then issues an unrequested injunction preventing DNA testing in the future. Judge Borack then tells you to get counseling before again coming before her court.) DanH Mike Says: August 28th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I think men should CONSIDER providing their DNA only after he has seen that the mother has. DanH Says: August 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Mike,
A DNA paternity test to legal standards is $350 and is routinely done between only man and child. The mother’s participation is purely optional and not worth any hassle trying to secure when the results are to the fourth decimal place between just the two participants. If you are planning on any action to include yourself in the child’s life, this is the document to start with, not some ratty piece of paper from an idiot state agency. The next piece of paper is the child's birth certificate with the biological father's name on it, which the court can order, not some ratty piece of paper from an idiot state agency. Courts Rule. DanH Robert Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
This law, like "the best interest of the children" law that the "family" court uses every day is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The rights of parents to the car, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247: U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985). Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982). The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538. D.C. Conn. (1981). Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NF. 2d 858; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977). Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984). Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973). The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952). No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976). A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S. 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983). A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983). Kris Di Francesca Says: August 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
If you do not register what rights do you have? None Before the registry if you do not register what rights do you have? None Its simple it only helps a father in a situation were he wants to be a parent and the mother is unreasonable and will not allow him even the simplest involvement of signing the birth certificate.... The cost of the DNA test could be 1$ its the fact that prior to a registry a father who wanted to gain any form of custody over his child had to petition the court for a DNA test. Once that was approved he could move on.... With most contested custody cases taking well over a year why would a father who wants to be involved and is willing to go through the court process to assure his involvement not be thankful that any new law can remove atleast 1 road block from his path? Again its simple if you dont want to be involved or aknowledge paternity or that you are the father of the child you simple do not sign up... DanH Says: August 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
To Kris Di Francesca
You are totally full of bull BLEEP.
Registering is an attempt at an end-around of men's rights.
Try to pull it off with the wrong man and it will be thrown out of court.
It's simple: Ignore this piece of crap and the people who are trying to shove it down your throat. DanH Mark Says: August 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am
The issue is really very simple. Family law, espeically as it relates to parental rights, was designed to deal with the break up of an existing marriage. As we all know it has failed to even do that correctly. Much less does it deal with issues related to modern soceity like wide spread casual sex and the bastard children resulting from the occassional birth control failure. Laws like this registry are merely half assed attempts by law makers to try and "catch up" with the times. The reality is instead of further incursion into family life the state merely needs to remove itself from family life completely. Judi Cochran Says: August 29th, 2007 at 2:00 am
OK. I have read the VA statute and the case commentary. (Article 7 - 63.2-1222 and 1249 ) and I have looked at the form. "Men who have been sexually active with someone who they are not married to are required to register........IF....they want to know if the potential child is being put up for adoption or if the mother is looking to terminate the father's parental rights." "A possible father has 10 days from the child's BIRTH to register, though there are other circumstances in which that timeframe differs." NOTE: Within 10 days of BIRTH, not 10 days of having sex. If he is certain of his role in a pregnancy and wants to protect his rights to the child at birth, in VA he can register in advance of the birth and INSURE against the mom placing the child for adoption or in any way obstructing his rights if he has chosen to invoke them. To register, men are asked to fill out a one-page form or register online. The form asks for information such as SSN, thnicity and information on where and when they think they conceived the child. (NOTE: They are asking that they be acknowledged as the father within 10 days of the birth.) The form asks the father to state the city and state and approximate date of conception of the child. This is merely to further establish that he has reasonable belief that he is the child's father. It does not establish paternity, only DNA does that, but it does establish that he may have parental rights to the child. (However, a dad can sign an affidavit of paternity at the time of birth, agreeing to forego DNA testing.) The form also asks for all the same information on the mother and further asks for identifying information on the child. This moves dad further up the ladder if mom is saying he couldn't be the father. Sen. Jay O'Brien, the patron of the VA legislation, states that while the registry shifts responsibility to the fathers, it also protects their rights. It protects the paternity interests of the father. It means that NO adoption attorney can proceed without checking the registry and a birth mother can't go anywhere in VA to gat an adoption if the putative father has registered. You all jumped on Kris about the fact that the Ohio Registry saved him a from a long legal climb regarding his parental rights. Without it, he would have had to first establish paternity, even though there was no question he is the father, then be immediately hit with a child support order and THEN and ONLY THEN he would have had to file for custody. Because of the Registry, instead of a year into the process and possibly getting some temporary visitation with his son, he instead was able to counter the claim that he "had established no rights" and proceed very quickly to temporary orders, extended summer visitation and is moving through the courts toward a solid custody order no matter what games the mom has tried to play. He may or may not be ordered to pay child support in the future but that will depend on the outcome of the custody case. Is it fast enough for any dad who wants to be part of his child's life. No, it's never fast enough. But that long climb without the Registry would mean that he could have lost a year or more in his baby's life and a longer period of time attempting to have his son bear his last name. Some of you pulled bits out of context with what I wrote earlier. If you read it you should note that I put equal blame on both parents. Of course I am aware that birth control fails, that casual sex isn't the only cause of "accidental" pregnancy, that relationships fail, etc. However, before the mom held ALL the cards, and the Registries are finally dealing a hand to dads. Some might lose their rights if they know nothing of the pregnancy and there will be those dads who learn of a child years after an adoption. The Registry is free. A DNA test is not terribly expensive and is the definitive answer for dads who wish to deny the paternity or who may be uncertain. They can still have a DNA test and register within the allotted time if they choose to parent the child. At least their rights are protected. I don't know of any jurisdiction that tests ONLY the putative father and the child........DNA testing is done on all 3 parties.....mom, dad and child.....in all 50 states. It is definitive (unless one parent happens to be a Chimera). As Kris said, if you don't want to be a father, don't believe you could be a father and/or don't think your rights need to be protected, then by all means don't register. I've skimmed large number of documents and opinions regarding the Virginia and other states registries. There appears to be a running thought in many of the articles that says, "The problem with the registries is that most people don't know they exist." I'm rather confused: There is, on one prong, the desire to empower un-wed fathers and protect their rights. On prong 2, there is anger that legislation is actually being written to address this issue. Prong 3, dads lose children to adoption because they had no ability to make themselves known. Prong 4, there is anger that legislation is actually being written to address this issue. Prong 5, a dad comes forth and says the Registry protected his rights. Prong 6, there is anger that the legislation helped him and how dare he try to explain the value. My confusion: Do you want your rights protected or is it more productive (?) to rail at any progress that appears to be attempting to balance the scale. That's a rhetoric question. DanH: I do believe you have to have access or rights to a child BEFORE you can have a DNA test without the mother's involvement. Keep in mind that your "ratty piece of paper" just might enable you to have the right and the ability to accomplish your goal of being a part of your child's life no matter how obstreporous the mom is. Robert Says: August 29th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Virgina or any other state, according to the Constitution, can't "grant" or take away custody or parental rights without due process! deborah Says: August 29th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Here is a blog posted on MySpace - From: Father fighting to stop adoption of his baby girl
Date: Aug 26, 2007 3:32 PM My friends site - who was looking for the identity of the people who have his son - has been taken down due to the request of Larry from Wood Crapo Law firm. Me thinks this is "Larry Jenkins" from Wood Crapo. Larry Jenkins is the lawyer representing the Adoption Center of Choice. The Adoption center of Choice has Cody O'Deas child. This makes three. Cody, Bryn, and now Joshua. The pattern with this agency is starting to come out into the open in my opinion. To me, it looks like this agency is not interested in a child being with a father who wants to raise them - but rather the "adoption" sale of the baby. (these are only my opinions and in this country we have the right to have opinions and free speech) These are only THREE men that I personally know about and are in contact with. There are many more that have already been to court and have lost - and possibly more going through the process right now. Some of you may not know about Bryn. He contacted the ODea family about a week ago and is also trying to get his daughter back from this particular agency. Please find it in your heart to write to uag@utah.gov on behalf of all three of these men and repost this to spread the word. Their links are below. Bryn is in the process of creating a website for himself. He will temporarily be on the babyselling site as well. The text posted was a letter written by him to his state government. Cody http://www.myspace.com/babyselling
Cody http://www.babyselling.com/
Bryn http://www.babyselling.com/
Joshua http://www.myspace.com/CanYouNameThesePeople deborah Says: August 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Joshua http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.vi
ewprofile&friendid=171124679&MyToken=57ebcb8a-ed1e-4d24
-9211-cbb4faf6e9ce george Says: August 29th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Robert, Quite wrong, or have you never sought nor been on the receiving end of an ex parte motion? Robert Says: August 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Yes George, I have.
But, because the laws are in place dosen't make them Constitutional.
The domestic violence laws allows the family courts to circumvent the Constitution by lowering the standards for arrest and prosicution. It's now up to the accused to prove that the accusation isn't true.
The fact that our government has abandon the Constitution as a guide is the REAL issue that we should ALL be concerned with. george Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Sorry, I missed the phrase "according to the Constitution" in your original. I agree 100% with you that family courts are a travesty, and the judges would have been first in the stocks (or gallows) following the American Revolution. Michael McCanles Says: August 29th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Judi Cochran says: (Quoting Virginia statute under discussion here) "Men who have been sexually active with someone who they are not married to are required to register........IF....they want to know if the potential child is being put up for adoption or if the mother is looking to terminate the father's parental rights." "A possible father has 10 days from the child's BIRTH to register, though there are