Issues Summaries

Issues Summaries
Abortion Veto for Dads
ACTA = Anti-Counterfeiting Surveilance
Adoption Veto for Dads
Adopted Children Disallowed NPs
Affirmative Action
Age Of Consent
BC Vital Statistics Act Misandry
BC Legislature MUST
Big Brother, Micro-Management
Bill C-22
Best interests of the Child
Birth Registration - Paternity Fraud
Birth Registration - Paternity Denied
Breach of Trust
"Case Law" is NOT Law
CCA Wood and Playgrounds
Child Support Tables / SOW Fraud
Child Trafficking by Public Officers
Corren Agreement
Court Ordered Sexism
Custody Orders not Enforced
Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Day Care Universal
Deadbeat Dads
Disabled parents
Domestic Violence Propaganda
Division of Assets
Drugging of Children, State
Enticement Seduction
Ex Parte Orders
Fabian Socialism
False Accusations
Father Hatred Propaganda
Fatherlessness, State Imposed
Federal Reserve / Fiat Currency
Feminism = Socialism = Nazism
Fitness Test for Natural Parents in Divorce
Fitness Test for Students: "Transitions"
FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement
Forgiveness is NOT Compulsory
Freedom of Speech
Friendly Parent Rule, Max. Contact
Fundamental Justice
Globalism is Treason
Grandparents Raising Children
Habeus Corpus Abandoned
Homofacism
Homosexual Activism
Homosexual Marriage
Human Trafficking
Imputed Income
Inheritance Theft: Grey & Black Widow
Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust
Judicial Falsification of Court Transcripts
Judicial Freemasonry is Racketeering
Judicial Globalization is Treason
Judicial Interpretation
Law Societies' Self Regulation, Corruption
Lawyers Lying in Court
Letters to MP
Legislative Changes
Letters to MLA
Letters to Editor
Malicious Mother Syndrome
Malicious Prosecution
MCF = Ministry Children & Families
Misandry, Hatred of Males
Money as Debt / Money Masters
Move Aways
Narcissism
Natiional Sovreignity
Natural Parents Rights Eliminated, SSM
NAU - North American Union
Parliament MUST
Parental Alienation
Parental Kidnapping
Parenting Time Presumption
Passport & DL Removal
Pedophiles Fear Dads!!
Pedophiles Fear Dads New
Petitions
Poofy Judges
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Protestant Revolution, BBC
Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer
Shadow Government
Sole Custody is Child Abuse
Special Prosecutors for Homosexuals, Judges
Status of Women's Father Hatred
Star Chamber's Secret Overlords
Stockholm Syndrome Paradigm Shift
Supremacy of Parliament
Target Legislation
Teachers displacing Parents
Teachers Seducing Students
Tracts and Flyers
"Women's Shelters" Lesbian Gulags

Will Parliament Remedy the "No Fault" premise of Divorce Law?

The Canadian Parliament might also consider eliminating the threat to the matrimonial bond inherent in "No Fault" Divorce. Permitting one marriage partner to unilaterally end a joint relationship with impunity is very destabilizing to Canadian families, and creates too much business in Family Law . We think Canadians still get married for more reasons than just establishing a temporary monogamy within which to share spousal benefits and to establish paternity claims. We think Canadians still think of marriage as a relationship of Trust and security, in the tradition of the oft spoken vow of "For Better or Worse".

With "No Fault Divorce", there is no remedy when the Trust placed in a "Spouse" is breached. There is therefore no deterrent for matrimonial predators who by becoming a "spouse" have free license 24/7 to take children, inheritance and family assets, and hold these hostage from the distraught father. There is no fund established with the "saved" litigation costs to insure the victim of Divorce as there is in other "no-fault" schemes. Since ~1972 Canadian legislation has been gutted of such dearly held values by "No Fault Divorce" and has been devolved into a division of assets and other financial obligations. Only the lawyers gain by putting so much more within their grasp.

We think there is substantial merit in:

Reestablishing the "Fault" in Divorce legislation. If couples prefer to live under a cohabitation agreement there is nothing to prevent them. But if a couple wishes to live as a "married" couple, why should legislation preclude them from living as "married" in the historic sense?

Reestablishing the Enticement laws, providing the injured spouse with claims against third parties who entice their spouse to end their marriage. This one change will make the ubiquitous father-hatred groups unprofitable to run, and leave families to succeed or fail of their own accord. It also gives children a chance at recouping their inheritance from these professional Misandrists

Reestablishing the Seduction laws, providing the injured spouse with claims against third parties who seduce their spouse into adulterous relationships.

More... Issues

Canada Court Watch Home

Canada Court Watch Audio

What happens to kids, when their Dads are taken away from them?

We apologize that the following figures have not been developed for the Province of BC specifically. We hope to do this over time. We do know, however that women often move to BC from Alberta and the rest of Canada to have their divorces done here in BC where the misandry of the Family Courts will maximize their powers to destroy their husbands.

Children from fatherless homes account for:

63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
90% of all homeless and runaway children.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).
71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).

Children from fatherless homes are:

11 times more likely to exhibit violent behavior than children from intact "married" homes.
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to runaway.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape.
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in state-operated institutions.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.

"37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights." (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father's continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125) Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)

"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)

"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)

"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)

"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July 1993.)

"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

Child Support

Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all non-custodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).

Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

source: http://njlaw924.com/id39.html

What happens to Canadians when Judges Drive Dads and Boys into servitude and compliance

Judges and their elite Star Chamber entrench their power and status to rule over Canadians with impunity and unbridled narcissism.

Feminist and Homosexual Activists as Judges effect their political agenda without the consent of the Canadian demographic. They with full knowledge and intent (scripted in the sixties & seventies by their Activist writers) circumvent due democratic process and knowingly contravene the founding legal constructs of Canada in the BNA & in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Activist Judges happily and routinely breach the Trust placed in them by their employer, the Canadian Taxpayer.

Lawyers routinely Entice into self-destruction and financial rape vast numbers of families entering their doors. Because of the Statutory self-regulation of the BC Law Society, we know of no limiting factor to cap the Activism of the Judiciary other than prosecuting Judges and Lawyers who exceed the powers granted them by Statute.

The BC Law Society pimps BC women, and use them as their hookers. With others (also conspicuously funded by the Taxpayer), Law Society members instruct women to hook fathers and families into the Courts and the financial ruin a "Legal Marriage" entails. Children NEED this threat to their security to be EXTERMINATED.

Faced with the entrenched Father Hatred and Affirmative Action of the burgeoning civil service, boys and young men despair. Having no vision for a Future or a university education, they become prone to fulfill the Father Hatred prophecies of BC university's Women's Studies faculties and Feminist Activists.

Children Raised in Sole Custody in profoundly greater risk

2005-xx-xx Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect

"Children of single parents were at higher risk of physical abuse and of all types of neglect and were overrepresented among seriously injured, moderately injured, and endangered children. Compared with their counterparts living with both parents, children in single parent families had:

a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse (using the stringent Harm Standard) and a 63% greater risk of experiencing any countable physical abuse (using the Endangerment Standard);

an 87% greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect and a 165% greater risk of experiencing any countable physical neglect;

a 74% greater risk of being harmed by emotional neglect and a 64% greater risk of experiencing any countable emotional neglect;

a 220% (or more than three times) greater risk of being educationally neglected;

an approximately 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect;

an approximately 90% greater risk of receiving moderate injury or harm as a result of child maltreatment; and

a 120% (or more than two times) greater risk of being endangered by some type of child abuse or neglect."

Judicial Accountability Act Proposals

2006-11-10 Top judges rebuke Tories Federal plan would allow police to help appoint judiciary - workopolis.com;   "Beverley McLachlin, Canada's Chief Justice, along with a powerful council of the country's top judges issued an unprecedented rebuke yesterday to Justice Minister Vic Toews for hatching a plan to arbitrarily change the way judges are chosen. The Canadian Judicial Council expressed dismay that Mr. Toews is planning to introduce "significant changes to the composition and functioning of the Judicial Advisory Committees," secret groups which are set up in each region to vet candidates for the 1,100 federal judgeships across the country.   Chief Justice McLachlin, who chairs the council, urged Mr. Toews to include the judiciary and key legal bodies in any discussion of changes to the committee vetting process."

We need in the very least some kind of JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT which will look something like::

Divide the Law Society into two groups of Judges and Practicing Lawyers to protect the Lawyers who would make Cases against Judges. There would be some Law Society Members who may practice as Barristers, and some as Solicitors, but a Judge must RETIRE from the Practice of Law and become unable to affect the Law Society while they act as a Judge. On removal of a Judge for Judicial Activism, the Law Society may deny their return to Practice from Retirement for specified cause, such as the case made during an unsuccessful Criminal Charge of Breach of Trust or Treason.

The Judges naturally divide into two bodies, the Provincial and Federal Judicial Societies to parallel the Provincial and Federal Courts. Membership in both Judicial Societies must be precluded. Federal Judges would be tried by Provincial Judges according to the JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, and the Provincial Judges would be tried by the Federal Judges. They could be tried both in Tort and in Criminal Court for Breach of Trust and for Treason.

Make Judicial Appointments for a FIXED TERM of no more than five years (Jimmy Pattison where are you when we need you?)

Judicial Re-Appointment must meet a Test for Judicial Re-Appointment which demonstrates the prescribed Impartiality (that is an Activism Free record.) and Non-Infamy with the Electorate.

Automatic Temporary Suspension Without Pay for a Judge who is going to Trial in Tort or in Criminal Court, pending its outcome.

Eradication of Freemasonry from the Judiciary and Law Societies. Both are granted special privileges by Parliamentary Statute which they receive In Trust.. Judicial Candidates and sitting Judges must be vetted for Occult practices resulting in Public Safety concerns such as Pedophilia. Pedophilia is an established part of Occult worship (See Malachi Martin among others) and is reported to be a tolerated practice of some high ranking Judges.

Trial by Jury of Judges before non-allied and non-associated Judges, e.g.. Federal Judges tried before Provincial Judges, visa versa..

NO SPECIAL PROSECUTORS for Judges or other Public Servants being tried.

Under the "federal" division of powers in the BNA (Constitution Act, 1867)) Education falls into the Provincial domain. A parallel Provincial Statute to amend the licensing and Suspension of Teachers would be necessary to stop the present use of our Schools for Political Indoctrination by Activists. See also Four Missions

Kinship Families, Grandparents raising Grandchildren

Natural Grandparents Rights Proposals;   Social Works & Foster Parents get funding for raising other people's children, Grandparents don't because they're a "Kinship Family". See Saskatoon G I F T (Grandparents Involved Full Time) Dorothy Bird: (306) 382-3650

We say that's WRONG, and Grans should not be jeopardizing their financial stability to raise an unexpected New Arrival. 2008-01-09_Documentary to focus on kinship families "Tammy Brockhaus, with her grandson, Alex, is one of thousands raising a grandchild in Canada. W-5 is airing a documentary on the issue of grandparents raising grandchildren on Feb. 9 .. Brockhaus is a 58-year-old widow who has been raising her six-year-old grandson, Alex, since he was 30 days old. While the last six years have proved to be a challenge for her, Brockhaus, who also has three grown children, has found fulfillment raising a child the second time around."

Removal of Judges

Do we have any such provision? Who executes the required actions in the event a Judge has to be removed? Submit new info on Removal of Judges

Removal of judges from office, Oklahoma Constitution

(a) In addition to other methods and causes prescribed by the Constitution and laws, the judges of any court, exercising judicial power under the provisions of Article VII, or under any other provision, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be subject to removal from office, or to compulsory retirement from office, for causes herein specified, by proceedings in the Court on the Judiciary.

(b) Cause for removal from office shall be: Gross neglect of duty; corruption in office; habitual drunkenness; commission while in office of any offense involving moral turpitude; gross partiality in office; oppression in office; or other grounds as may be specified hereafter by the legislature.

(c) Cause for compulsory retirement from office, with or without compensation, shall be mental or physical disability preventing the proper performance of official duty, or incompetence to perform the duties of the office"

Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville

On February 14, 2006 Both Phyllis Schlafly and Stephen Baskerville join together in a landmark interview
"War Against The Family".mp3

Phyllis
Schlafly

"The Family Courts are <generally> a bunch of second rate hangers-on   ... build each other's businesses through referrals...Family Law is a <parasitic> self-sustaining Industry"

Stephen
Baskerville

"Why isn't "Focus on the Family" working for Equal Parenting?

Stephen Baskerville's Home; American Coal. for Fathers and Children

Terminology

Habeas Corpus : "literally, "you may have the body". A Habeas Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid, the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely and without charge."      .....

More, Glossary of terms

2006-03-10 The right to abandon your child by Mona Charen;
"This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels and demand, "Well, what did you expect?" ... A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v. Wade for Men."   ...   More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy."

COMMENT: Roe V. Wade was a "Femi-Narcissistic" decision, looking after the interests of the Mother only. The principal established there established was extrapolated into a Mother's "murder rights" expressed in minimal sentences when murdering their children. Equal Parenting eliminates much of this.

Father dealt difficult hand by the system

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD

Latest Columns

Father dealt difficult hand by the system "Even last week, when the family court file of Elaine and Leo Campione was released to the press -- in significant measure because Mr. Campione didn't oppose the media's bid to see it .. There is, to be frank, an underlying perspective of feminist oppression from which all else springs. .. Women are seen first as victims -- generally of male power and particularly of husband power -- and presumed to be truth-tellers and good mothers until proven otherwise. The starting point for men is that they are abusers and deadbeat dads in the making unless they can prove the contrary, and if it takes years for them to demonstrate that, oh well."

Issues Summaries

Issues Summary, by Rob R

The following is a compilation of failures of the BC Family "Justice" system.

Law is unclear as to what are the “best interests of child”. The Divorce Act and FRA - maximum contact with both parents, as supported by SCC are routinely ignored by lower courts and mother gets custody, primary residency and child just gets to see Dad at alternate weekends.
The law should clearly state that children shall be entitled to the joint custody and joint residency with their parents after divorce. This is the overwhelming requirement. It will save the government millions in costs, it will reduce the emotional damage to the child from divorce, it will reduce the cost to society which already arises from divorce (addiction, crime) and will enable resources to be focused on the genuine problem areas where there is abuse, neglect etc.
Children are prevented from maximum contact with the father when Mother (who has custody) is allowed to take child across country or to another country. This is equivalent to forcible deportation which is expressly forbidden by United Nations in Rights of Child unless it is necessary - which is defined as when there is a physical threat to child. It does not mean when mother wishes to relocate.
Fathers are treated as second class citizens in courts. Fathers have to disprove false allegations and statements of mother as well as prove their own case.
Children are treated as second class citizens especially as they are denied the right to legal counsel which means it is always the father having to bring actions for access and not being enforced by the court. The Government takes away the rights of the father/child but does not take on the responsibility of enforcing the rights.
The AG enforces payment of support but does not enforce access. This is clearly a gross abuse of the child and, by definition, is sex discrimination since the majority of payers are fathers. Alberta has enforcement of access. Why does BC not adopt this.
There are no guidelines for spousal maintenance
Spousal/child support is made without any reference to living expenses of payor (mostly father). There are no guidelines provided by the Government was to what constitutes acceptable living expenses and what will not be taken into consideration. As a result awards are made which slowly bankrupt the father - who is then subject to the FMEP - drivers license withheld, garnishees, passport withheld etc. The latter are usually done by FMEP without any due process. Fundamental rights of Canadians - as set out in Charter of Rights and Freedoms are routinely taken away without due process.
Maintenance awards can only be changed by court order: violates right of parents to contract. SCC has changed this but FMEP ignores it.
There are no procedures for reduced payments in times of unemployment. Courts won't make reduction in orders for a small time, man gets behind and can never recover and so goes bankrupt.
Courts are guilty of gross professional conduct:
Judges don't read files
Judges are not appointed to a case - so it's a different judge every time
Judges rarely read the motions before hand
Judges will allow abuse of process for a mother but not a man
Judges allow proven perjured testimony to go as fact
Judges don't enforce the production of documents by women
Judges threaten jail if payments are not made - but not if access denied
Judges assume that child can live without father but not mother contrary to every psychologist report written which clearly state that fathers are more important as the child gets older.
Judges are very inconsistent: they only follow higher rulings when it suits them
Judges don't explain their decisions
judges introduce new evidence/facts into reasons for judgments
Judges are not specialized so they don't know the law.
Judges don't take a father seriously if they represent themselves.
judges routinely don't apply the law according to the charter
Neither the AG or police will prosecute for fraud or perjury in domestic cases which violates the Charter
There are no laws which protect the family - contrary to the requirements of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
The Divorce Act as currently applied causes massive deprivation of family to some 30,000 children a year contrary to their rights as well as their fathers. The First Nations are currently suing the Federal Government for $12 billion on behalf of about 140,000 natives sent to residential schools for, among other things, deprivation of family.
The Divorce process creates that number of people in about 3 years. think of the cost to the country that is going to arise.
The divorce acts routinely abuse the rights of the father to the same rights of family as enjoyed before divorce per the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
There are no support services for men - many for women but all funded by the tax payer
The Ministry of Families routinely will not investigate complaints by fathers but will always do so when made by women. If the child's right to representation was enforced in divorce, little of this would happen.
ABOVE ALL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BC, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF CANADA, IS FULLY AWARE OF THE DISCRIMINATION THAT IS PRACTICED BY THE COURTS AGAINST CHILDREN AND FATHERS AND DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT IT.

Court-ordered sexism

BLUMNER

E-mail:
Click here

By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, Times Perspective Columnist
Published May 16, 2004

Except for the battlefield, family court has to be the last bastion of legally enforced sexism in our society. State statutes that determine child custody arrangements and child support may be written in gender-neutral language, but they are not applied that way. Traditional concepts of the family - where the father is breadwinner and the mother controls the domestic sphere - permeate the process, often disadvantaging men who want an equal opportunity to rear their children.

David Blankenhorn, who wrote Fatherless America, says absent fathers are "the most destructive trend of our generation." But our institutions are adding to this crisis by overwhelmingly preferring the mother as the primary parent. Mothers make up five of every six custodial parents, with the system essentially telling fathers that their worth is that of check-writer.

Why is a father who gets up and goes to work every day in order to provide his children with a decent standard of living seen by the courts as less nurturing than the parent who stays home, enjoying the fruits of that labor?

I see both acts as at least equally caretaking. Yet due to a series of unwritten and unspoken gender-related assumptions, family judges tend to give mothers both decisional control over the children and financial support after a family breakup. This gives women an incentive to dissolve their relationships, as demonstrated by the fact that women initiate divorce in about 70 percent of cases.

I can imagine what dads must feel in receiving "visitation" with their children. The very notion that fathers are just "visiting" is deeply disturbing, suggesting that a father's company is like a trip to grandma's.

In a 1998 Florida State Law Review article on gender bias in family court, editor in chief Cynthia McNeely wrote: "If the treatment fathers receive in family court occurred in the workplace, an affirmative action plan would likely be implemented to rectify the pervasive discrimination and barriers fathers encounter as they seek meaningful access to their children."

Interestingly, this is one form of sex discrimination that is not only accepted but jealously guarded by feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women. In a memorandum written by NOW's government relations director in 2000, the organization denounced "men's custody groups" such as the nonprofit Children's Rights Council, because they aid "noncustodial dads in reducing their child support obligations and (in) taking away custody from moms." (According to its Web site, the mission of the Children's Rights Council is "to assure a child the frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with two parents," a dangerous notion to those feminist groups that want fathers to pay up and shut up.)

When men gain reasonable access to their children, women's groups cry foul. Last month, the California Supreme Court ruled that a divorced mother who had been awarded primary physical custody of two young sons could not move them to Ohio with her and her new husband.

In an eminently fair and reasonable decision, the high court upheld a lower court determination that moving the children so far from their father would preclude them from having an ongoing relationship with him. The Contra Costa County Superior Court had said the mother could move but she would have to relinquish custody to the father.

The California Women's Law Center called the Supreme Court's ruling "a huge step backwards" and said that a "legislative fix" is needed that would return to custodial parents a presumptive right to move away and take the kids.

Talk to Dan Montagna and the real costs of a policy like that become clear. A Pinellas County charter fishing boat owner, Montagna has been battling his ex-wife for years to prevent her from moving to California and taking their 7-year-old daughter. He says he is deeply involved in his daughter's life, accompanying her to school and gymnastics training. "She's everything," he says of his little girl.

Montagna's lucky. Since 1997 the law in Florida has been changed to end the courts' prior practice of favoring relocation for the custodial parents. So far, with help from attorney Peter Meros, Montagna has been able to keep his daughter here. But not every state has progressed to recognize that children need their fathers as well as their mothers to be part of their day-to-day lives.

Part of the problem is the legal standard used to resolve custody issues, where judges apply a "best interest of the child" analysis and thereby allow their inherent biases toward maternal nurturing to seep in. To ward against that, I suggest the adoption of a new standard recognizing that the children's interests are no more important than the constitutional rights of both parents to actively rear them.

Fathers are becoming an endangered species in part because the family courts don't fully appreciate their equal claim to their children. Sexist notions of gender roles inform too much decision-making, transforming too many men from engaged parent to alienated visitor.