Remember, Remember the 5th of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot, I see no reason
why Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot

Guy Fawkes thumbnail

    ● EP-BC Home About  Issues Testimonials News  Reference   Fun Stuff Members


Issues Area Home

1215:  MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15TH
Issues Summaries
Abortion Veto for Dads
Adoption Veto for Dads
Adopted Children Disallowed NPs
Affirmative Action
Age Of Consent
Anti-Depressants, Drug Induced Suicide
Battered Woman Syndrome
BC Vital Statistics Act Misandry
BC Legislature MUST
Big Brother, Micro-Management
Bill C-22
Birth Rate Displacement
"Best interests of the Child" = "Blank Cheque"
Breach of Trust
Carbon Tax funds Global Government
"Case Law" is NOT Law
CCA Wood and Playgrounds
Child Support Tables / SOW Fraud
"Child's Right" or "Parents' Right"
Child & Human Trafficking righs of CBA
Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges
Compulsory Drugging of Children
Corren Agreement
Court Ordered Sexism
Credit Crisis, Currency Replacment
Custody Orders not Enforced
Debtor's Prison Reinstituted
Day Care Universal
Deadbeat Dad Propaganda
Disabled parents
DISS = Divorce Initiated Suicide Synd.
Domestic Violence Propaganda
Division of Assets
Enticement Seduction Tort Claims Precluded
Estate Taxes Thieve a Child's Inheritance
EU = European Union:  Nazi Brainchild
Euthanasia, Spousal
Ex Parte Orders
False Accusations
Father Hatred Propaganda
Fatherlessness, State Imposed
Federal Reserve / Fiat Currency
FEMA Camps, Martial Law
Femi-Narcissism
Feminism = Socialism = Nazism
Fitness Test for Natural Parents in Divorce
Fitness Test for Students: "Transitions"
FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement
Forgiveness is NOT Compulsory
Franklin Scandal, Conspiracy of Silence
Freedom of Speech
Friendly Parent Rule, Max. Contact
Fundamental Justice
Glass-Steagall Act Repealed
Globalism is Treason
Habeas Corpus Abandoned
"Hate Crime" Speech  Police
HELP = Human Early Learning Partnerships
Homofacism
Homosexual Violence
Homosexual Activism, Gay Manifesto
Homosexual Marriage
"Human Rights” Commissions in Canada
Imputed Income:  Fraudulent CS Orders
Inheritance Theft: Grey & Black Widow
Judicial Accountability, Removal of Judges
Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust
Judicial Falsification of Court Transcripts
Judicial Freemasonry is Racketeering
Judicial Globalization is Treason
Judicial Interpretation
Judicial Racketeering, Law Societies' Rackets
Kinship Families / Grandparents
Lawyers in the Legislatures
Lawyers Lying in Court, Self Regulation Fail
Legal Abuse Syndrome
Letters to MP
Letters to MLA
Letters to Editor
Lisbon Treaty (2007) is Treason
Malicious Mother Syndrome
Malicious Prosecution
Misandry = Hatred of Males
Monetary Crisis:  "Money as Debt"
Move Aways
Narcissism
Natiional Sovreignity
Natural Parents Rights Eliminated, SSM
NAU = North American Union
NDP = "No Dads Party"
Net Neutrality:  Keep Internet Free!!
No Fault Divorce
NCR = Not Criminally Responsible
Oath Keepers
Parliament MUST
Parental Alienation
Parental Authority Usurped by Teachers..
Parental Kidnapping
Parenting Time Presumption
Passport & DL Removal
Paternity Denied, Birth Registration
Paternity Fraud, Birth Registration
Pedophiles Fear Dads New
Pedophiles in Public Service
Petitions
Poofy Judges
Predatory Pregnancy
Protestant Revolution, BBC
PPP = Public Private Partnerships, Public Assets
QE = Quantitative Easing
Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer
Sex Change Surgery
Shadow Government
Sole Custody is Child Abuse
Special Prosecutors for Homo's & Judges
Star Chamber's Secret Overlords
SOW = Status of Women, KILL IT!!!!
Stockholm Syndrome Paradigm Shift
Straw Man Redemption, Free Man
Supremacy of Parliament
Target Legislation
Teachers displacing Parents
Teachers Seducing Students
Tracts and Flyers
Treasonous Public Officers not Prosecuted
Transcripts & Documents altered by Judges
UNCRC = UN Convention..Rights of the Child
Uptick Rule Repealed 2007
"Women's Shelters" = Lesbian Gulags

Notable Authorities





















Albrecht, Katherine :  RFID Spychips
Alexander,  Rachel:  Shared Parenting
Angry Harry
Annett, Kevin: Child Trafficking in BC
Asher, Jeffrey
Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken .. Custody
Beatley, Terry:  UNCRC Vs Parental Rights
Baxter, Dorian: Canada Courtwatch
Beck, Glenn Beck: World Government
Bennett, Richard: Purpose Driven Church
Blick, Edward:  Global Warming & Marxism
Blumner,Court Ordered Sexism
Briffault, Robert: Briffault's Law
Burrows, Lynette: Homo Adoption
Caradori, Gary: Franklin Cover-up Investigator
Carley, Dr. Rebecca: Vaccinations
Carr, William Guy:  Pawns in the Game
Christie, Doug:  Freedom of Speech
Chopra, Dr. Shiv: Health Canada
Clarke, Christine:  BC Conservatives
Clifford Dean:   Freeman
Coulter, Ann: Free Speech
Cools, Senator Anne:  Lying Lawyers
Coffman, Dr. Michael:  Global Warming
Coleman, John:  Global Warming Fraud
Coleman, Dr. John (MI6) Comittee of 300
Coren, Michael:  Islamophobia, Homophobia
Crane, Ian:  Codex Alimentarius Scam
Cromwell, Oliver: Supremacy / Parliament
Cuddy, Dennis L. "Power Elite"
Cumbey, Constance :  New Age Nazism
Cummins, John:  BC Conservative Party
Decamp, John: Franklin Cover-up
Delaney, Chris : "No HST in BC!"
Dioguardi, Joe:  Saving US / Debtors' Prison
Dodd, Norman:  NWO Fabian Socialists
Doomsday Preppers
Duane, James:"Don't Talk to Police"
Dutton, Don:  RADAR, "Rethinking DV"
EP-Australia
Estulin, Daniel:  Bilderberg Group
Evans, Stanton: "Blacklisted, Joe McCarthy"
Farage, Nigel:  UKIP, EU Titanic
Farrell, Warren:  Why Men Earn More
Fathers-4-Justice-UK
Federer, Bill: Endang'd Speeches, Quran
Fischer, Greg:  Family Preservation Festival
Fogal, Connie:  No NAU
Forseth, MP Paul:  FTSOTC Panelist
Fromm, Paul:  Free Speech, CAFE
Gage, Richard: Architects & Engineers 9/11
Gairdner William
Galloway, Roger:   FTSOTC Panelist
Geldof, Sir Bob:  The Love..
Gerrish, Brian:  EU's "Common Purpose"
Griffin, G. Edward:  Fed Reserve
Grignon, Paul:  "Money As Debt"
Gunderson, Ted:  FBI, Protected Pedophiles
Haeck, Lisa:  Sexual Abuse
Haines, Bruce, QC: Justice Review
Hein, Arnie:  "Cross My Heart" EP Trek 2005
Hiebert, MP Russ:  Human Rights Commission
Hill, MP Jay: EP Legislation
Hinton , Betty:  Status of Women's "Hit List"
Holland, Lary: "GET OFF THE BENCH"
Horowitz, David:  Islamofacism, Universites
Howse, Torm
Hunt, Dave:  Woman / Beast
Iserbyt, Charlotte: Dumbing Down
Jones, Alex
Kah, Gary: Obama, Vatican, Globalization
Kay, Barbara, National Post
Kennedy, John F:  Assassination 1963
Kernberg, Dr. Otto: Personality Disorder
Kerkman, Larry :  CRISPE
Keyes, Alan :
Khodeir, Lucien:  Child-Support Guidelines
Knight, Robert: Obama's "Radical Rulers"
Kruk, Edward: Child Custody
Lafantaisie, Michele:  CAS, CCA wood
Leslie, Sarah: "Pied Pipers of Purpose"
Levant, Ezra: HRT, Islam, Freedom of Speech
LInde, Carey: Statutory Ammendments
Lively, Scott:  "Pink Swastika"
Loftus, Elizabeth: Recovered Memories Myth
Luther, Martin: "Sola Scriptura"
Macdonald, Peter: "Taxcap" limits Debt
Machon, Annie:  Ex-MI5
Makow , Henry PhD: "Save the Males"
Man, Woman, & Myth
Matrisciana, Caryl:  Islam Rising, FITNA
Martin, Malachi: Globalization, Occult
McManus, John:  Stopping NAU
McKay, Dr. Marty
McLean, Candis
MacKenzie, Rob:  EP Trek 2006
Menard, Robert: "Bursting Bubbles"
McQuaid, Robert: Fix CAS
Millar, David
Mills, Dennis: MP Targetted by Homsexuals
Monckton, Lord Christopher
Monarchy, David Starkey
Monteith, Dr. Stanley:  Aides / Luciferians
Morris, Dick: G-20 Vs US Sovereignty
Murtari, John:  NCP Hunger Striker
Nash, Dave:  Cross Canada Run
Nazanin:  Persian Beauty for a Free Iran
Neufeld, Gordon: Hold - Kids
Nicholson, Robert:  BC's Protected Pedophiles
Nicolosi, Joseph:  Homosexuality
Norton, Bob:  Family Court Watcher
O'Connor, Matt: Original F4J-UK
PAFE = Planetary Alliance, Fathers in Exile
Palin, Sarah
Paul, Dr. Ron:  Sound Money
Peck, Dr. Scott: "People of the Lie"
Pedersen, Rob: EP Bike Trek US, 2007
Pellman, Adrian, LLB:  Judicial Activism
Perloff, James: Shadows of Power
Phenomenon: The Lost Archives
Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam
Plywood Man, NWT
Protestant Revolution, BBC
Quigley, Carroll: Banking, Globalization
Rhodes, Carol: Child Support
Riplinger, Gail: Luciferian Bibles
Roberts, Carey
Roberts, Elise:  False Allegation of Abuse
Roscoe, Peter:  Judicial Bigotry
Russo, Aaron: NAU, CFR, Rockefellers
Ruppert, Michael C
Saburido, Jacqueline:  Don't Drink
Sacks. Glenn
Secret Files of the Inquisition
Schlafly, Phyllis:  Global Governance
Simons, Frank: Courts From Hell
Schafer, Nancy:  Child Trafficking at CPS
Schiff, Peter:  Currency Crisis, Debt Ceiling
Shafarevich, Igor:  The Socialist Phenomenon
Short, David:  St. John's Anglican
Shrimpton, Michael , QC:  Intelligence
Shrout, Winston: Common Law
Silverman, Earl:  Domestic Abuse against Men
SJCA - FTSOTC 48 Recom's
Simpson, Kari:  Road Kill Radio
Smith, Dr. Helen,  "Men on Strike"
Smith, Ron:  DC Rally, Drugging of Children
Soever, Alar:  SOW's Child Support Fraud
Sodhi, Eeva
Somerville, Margaret:“Same-Sex Marriage”
Still, Bill:  "Money Masters", "Mystery of Oz"
Stopps, Gordon  Vs Just Ladies, BCHRT
Stormer, John:  Betrayed ..  Bench
Story, Christopher:  "Perestroika Dec.
Sutton, Anhony:  Wall Street & Hitler
Taylor, Captain Tony: "Fatherless Day"
Trociuk Darrell, BC Birth Registration
Tyndale, William, "God's Outlaw", RIP 1536
V for Vendetta / Guy Fawkes the Hero
van Gogh, Theo:  Islamic Violence, RIP 2005
Vellacott, MP Maurice
Ventura, Jesse:  Conspiracy Theory
Vieira, Dr. Edwin:  Fiat Empire
Wagener, William
Wallace, Tom:  Sharia Law in UK & US
Warren, Elizabeth: Collapse Middle Class
Watson, Paul:  EU's Nazi  Origins
Wilberforce, William: Slave Trade Act, 1807
William III & Mary II:  "Bill of Rights" 1689
Wooldridge, Nancy:  Canadian Grans
World, Gordon:  Sexualizing BC Children
Youth Protecting Youth (YPY), UVic
Zepezauer, Frank:  Feminist Crusades

Your Articles

Let Ex Husbands Be Fathers
Perception vs Reality
Some Facts...
Both Parents Vital
Broken Homes, Bleak Future
Justice Review
Fatherneed
Rights of fathers Ignored?

Petitions, Class Action

Support one of over 50 class-actions against unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights Council

thetruthandjusticefoundation.org

Support one of over 50 class-actions against unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights Council

BC Statutory Amendments

Your Letters to an MP

Your Letters to an MP:  HOME

Letters to MP: I have $104.58 left over after paying child support

Post New Letters to a Member of BC Legislative Assembly (MLA) here

Your Letters to an MLA

Your Letters to MLA: HOME

Post New Letters to a Member of a Legislative Assembly (MLA) here

Your Letters to an Editor

Your Letters to an Editor: HOME

Post your New Letters to an Editor here 

Senator Anne Cools, FTSOTC Chair on False Accusations & Lying Lawyers

Senator Anne Cools, formerly Liberal, now Conservative, on False Accusations &
Law Societies' permitting Lawyers to Lie in Court

"'..  mothers and fathers should have equal rights in the raising of their children, regardless of marital break down"

Anne Cools - Google Search
Anne Cools - Google Video

Canadian Bill s-12, senator cools - Google Search

"Honorable senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the use of FALSE ACCUSATIONS in civil justice.

"This is the mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers, suddenly within the context of divorce and within child custody proceedings falsely accusing the other party, usually fathers, of the sexual abuse of their own children.    ,,,    

"These FALSE ACCUSATIONS are often made with the overt or covert complicity of their lawyers. They are a lethal weapon in the business of parental alienation. They are a tool for achieving sole custody of children and creating fatherlessness."




2004-06-08  SENATOR ANNE COOLS LEAVES LIBERAL FOLD TO JOIN CONSERVATIVES  

Senator Anne Cools Runs Away With The Suns's 10 Top Women Poll, Kevin Connor, TO Sun

2004-06-08  Liberal senator < Anne Cools >  goes Conservative

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

Erin PizzeyMore:  Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne
Issues: False Accusations;
Isues Women's Shelters' Scam
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
News:  Cross, Pamela:Feminist Law:  Female Accusers must not be required to face those they accuse of Violence;
Issues:  Domestic Violence Scam & "Women's Studies" Propaganda
Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction Camps
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lying Lawyers;
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
Issuess:  False Accusations;
Issues:  Child Trafficking by Public Officers & Judges

Liberal Irwin Cotler:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Irwin Cotler - Google Search;
Irwin Cotler - Google Video


"Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS....  ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....

"Natural Parents' Rights now  gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"

16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"


FYI, the ideas that the State assigns Rights & Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi Germany.   Under the British system rights are not State-given, but God Given.

Buying into the Court's position that what rights remain are Children's Rights, is buying into the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.

More:  News:  Cotler, Irwin:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS...;
News:  European Union;
Issues:  Paul Watson:  Nazi Origins of European Union;;;
Issues: G. Edward  Griffin ;
Issues: Fabian Socialism;

Liberal Anne McLellan says "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"


Former Liberal Justice Minister, Deputy Prime Minister

Anne McLellan , MP - Google Search

In "Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform" McLellan warns that <Horrors!> "Provincial Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint Custody... and perpetuate the domination of men over women"  

The Liberal Party and Child Sexual Abuse


More:  News:  McLellan , Liberal Anne "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy

Chapter VII. The English Common Law. Section 57. The Norman Conquest

A beautiy of British  Common Law is that it is STATIC, and NOT DYNAMIC as these Activist Judges would have you think.

Ask a lawyer what "Common Law" is and they will likely tell you it is "Judge Made Law", and expand up this to say "Common Law is whatever the Judges are commonly saying these days"

This is completely FALSE.  The Judges are Agents of the Crown and they BY DEFINITION Judges are WITHOUT CAPACITY to make any law whatsoever.  Since 1649, only PARLIAMENT has the Capacity to make Law.

British Common law was NOT created by Judges, it was only observed and documented by individuals sent out by the newly Norman Crown after the Norman Conquest of 1066  to observe and codify the laws and customs of the various peoples of Britain..  This was done with a view to aggregate existing customs which may vary across the land,  into a unified body of Laws.  The Authority quoted by the Commoners in their administration of Common Law were frequently direct quotations from the Bible and principles of Danelaw

The process of documentation took only a couple of hundred years, and the product was a STATIC body of Law which was historical, popular, and has served in the intervening centuries as a Benchmark against which Statutory Law may be measured for "Fairness".  It does NOT change.

More:   Issues:  Common Law Perverted by Activist Judges and Legal Oligarchy;
Issues:  "Judicial Interpretation" to pervert Statutes of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization is Treason

McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs",
Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...

Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Search;
Robb MacKenzie Equal Parenting Bike Trek - Google Video

Rob Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Search;
Robert Pederson, Equal Parenting - Google Video

Cycling4Children.com Equal Parenting Bike Trek's photostream

More:  Issues:  McKenzie & Pedersen, the "Two Robs", Equal Parenting Bike Trek US 2006, 2007...;
Issues:  Smith, Ron:  DC Family Preservation Rally, Compulsory Drugging of Children;
Issues:  Compulsory Drugging of Children, Thymerisol;

Beware of the "Parental Rights" IMPOSTER!!!!

"Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights"

Be on the lookout for the "Parent's Rights" IMPOSTER.  Insist on "Natural Parents Only", please!

It comes as a big surprise to us that many groups that present themselves as "Parents Rights" groups  REFUSE to defend the  NATURAL PARENT, and  and to demand RESTORATION of Natural Parents Rights taken from Canadians in the Homosexual Marriage legislation.

Instead their position to promote the "rights" of  a "Parent" in the widest sense of the word, making NO distinction  between NATURAL PARENTS and wannaabe Legal Parents.  They have bowed to University of Victoria's  assertion that  the SCC's Trociuk Decision "endorses a Heterosexual View of the Family and must be ignored", legitimizing the ongoing Child Trafficking by the State which views Canadian children as State Property and merchandise for  sale in the lucrative Child Adoption Market  They refuse to be hampered by prior obligations to that pesky Natural Parent who thinks they can Veto an Adoption.


It appears that many "Fathers Rights" groups commonly fall in with the United Nations and Liberal Irwin Cotler's assertion that the Child's Right is to be protected, but the Natural Parent has "NO RIGHTS", making the State, not the Natural Parents the Protector of the Child..

Without Cause or Consent, no Child shall be removed from a Natural Parent!!!

More:  About:  Beware of the IMPOSTER!!!!  "Natural Parent's Rights" Vs "Parent's Rights";
News:  Lessard, Hester - Heterosexual view of Parenthood must be ignored
News:  Smith, Judge Daphne, BCSC, for Child Trafficking;
Issues:  Trociuk, Darrell;
Issues:  Child Trafficking, Canadian;
Testimonials:  Rick Fredrickson of Saskatoon

Bill Graham, Liberal <Pedophile> Leader & Defense Minister




Bill Graham, mp - Google Search;
Bill Graham, mp - Google Video

Lawrence Metherel - Google Search

2007-06-19  Liberal MP Bill Graham announces resignation

"In spite of credible revelations dating back to April 2002 about Bill Graham, a sex addicted bi-sexual sodomizing a 15 year old male prostitute named Lawrence Metherel, Paul Martin allowed Graham to remain Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - and eventually named him to the portfolio of Minister of Defense.

"On Sept. 28/2005 a vote was held in Parliament to raise the age of consent from 14 (one of the lowest age of consents in the world) to 16 (an age which many still consider too low).

"Bill Graham, Paul Martin, and Anne McLellan, on Sept. 28th, voted against raising the age of consent to 16

More:  News:  Graham, Bill:  Pedophile Parliamentarian, Defense Minister

















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

Skeletons in the Closet, 2001

Skeletons in the Closet

Skeletons in the Closet, a film drawn from the dramatized lives of families living with a protected Pedophile and the mental illness it may create when a loving, faithful, Victim keeps the Secret.  This is shockingly common.  The Secret is their Power - BREAK IT!  (You would be well advised to stay away from the Public Servant.)

Trial By Jury displaced by Activist Judges

Of course Judges and other "Friends of the Court" won't receive capital punishment for Capital Crimes like Treason.

Trial By Jury, Canada - Google Search

Violence and Murder of Men by  Women sanctioned by Courts

FYI, most of what you  hear about Family Violence is a huge fraud because World Health Organization obligates members to:

a)  NOT report results of studies which do not show "expected results", and

b) if "unexpected results do eventually get reported, they may only be reported with "expert" commentary to explain away the deviation from the expected result that "Men are violent" and "Women are their Victims".

The World Health has as a primary Sponsor, the Rockefeller Foundations,  a Fabian Socialist group which has as it's aim the conversion of the West to a Soviet style block which can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.  See Norman Dodd.

What Is Gendercide?

Wages Gleaned at Source

BC ALS victim Art Brown finds FMEP garnishing his disability pension of Child Support for adult Child not living with Mother

Threats of Court  Costs &  Assessments lead Natural Fathers to abandon Custody Rights under Duress

Opponents of Equal Parenting like to tell you that seventy something percent of Custody Cases don't go to Trial, and are awarded as Sole Custody to Mom BY CONSENT. 

What they don't tell you is that in ninety something percent of Custody Cases that do go to Trial Mom gets Sole Custody anyway, and Dad has to pay on top of his Lawyer fees, the Court Costs for having lost his Application.  Faced with these abysmal odds, Dads are commonly told to "Just give her what she wants so you can have a good relationship with her".  Under such Duress many Dads foolishly acquiesce  ....  for a time at least......

We prefer that Natural Parents NOT sign a Consent Order that is not completely Equal with respect to Gender, as the relationship of the divorced couple is greatly destabilized with each injury to the equality of parental powers .

Pedophile Activists: Sexual Enticement of Children

Teacher-Student sex rules being relaxed by BCSC

Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer

Pedophile Activists obviously don't go around telling you what they're up to.  Instead they  call themselves "Mentors", "Social Workers", "Feminists" or "Homosexual Rights Activists".  In Canada, Pedophile Activists  have been successful in getting greater access to children by reducing the Age of Consent to FOURTEEN, and in eliminating a parents "right to know" when the child reaches the age of TWELVE, replacing them with school counselors and Social Workers, and by, of course, eradicating fathers from their children's lives entirely from birth on request by the mother. 

With the recent changes to accommodate homosexual marriage, the right of natural parents to "parent" their natural children will soon be removed entirely.  Through these statutory changes, the term "LEGAL PARENT" is replacing the historic term "NATURAL PARENT" in Canadian statutes.  As a result Natural Parents can no longer automatically claim to be the Legal Parents of their own natural children at birth.  Instead, to accommodate the Homosexual Activists' plan to push Natural Parents aside when it comes to parenting children, the Courts alone now decide who will be the "parents' of all children born in Canada.

Pedophile Activists are often lawyers, school counselors, teachers, Social Workers, Sex Ed teachers, YWCA leaders, pastors, Judges, etc. etc.  They seek positions with access and power over Children & Families, and positions to create social and political change.  The publicly undisclosed prevalence of Pedophile & Homosexual Activists in our civil service has been attributed to their determined politicism in the many groups like ACT UP! , the secrecy of the alliances made in various "secret societies" and sex clubs, and to Sexual Nepotism in the workplace.

Stephen Baskerville, PhD "Taken Into Custody"


Phyllis Schlaffly & Stephen Baskerville:  "War Against the Family"


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  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?

News:  Dobson, James:  "Focus on the Family":  Feminarcissists & Counter-Reformers:

  

More:  Issues:  Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken into Custody;
Issues;  Rhodes, Carol:  Friend of the Court = Enemy of the Family;
Issues:  Schlafly, Phyllis:  Judicial Globalism, Supremacy of Parliament, Global Government;
Issues:  Norton, Bob:  Family Court Watcher;
Issues:  Griffin, G. Edward;
Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Congressional Investigator & former Banker

Stephen Baskerville Discusses Deadbeat Dad Pizza Box Issue

Stephen Baskerville Discusses Deadbeat Dad Pizza Box Issue;

Cynthia Brown, Pizza, Child Enforcement Worker - Google Search


More:  Issues:  Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken into Custody;
Issues;  Rhodes, Carol:  Friend of the Court = Enemy of the Family;
Issues:  Schlafly, Phyllis:  Judicial Globalism, Supremacy of Parliament, Global Government;
Issues:  Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken into Custody
Issues:  Norton, Bob:  Family Court Watcher;
Issues:  Griffin, G. Edward;
Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Congressional Investigator & former Banker

Stephen Baskerville interview, Milt Rosenburg

Stephen Baskerville interview with Milt Rosenburg.rm, 2006-10-11

Fathers' rights activist Stephen Baskerville,   president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children--describes why a child needs its father’s presence and discusses how our society is working against the maintenance of the core family structure and how that can be changed. (10/11/06);   Stephen Baskerville.ram Audio (81:07)

  • Nearly all divorces are initiated by the woman.  By complying with the temptations provided by the State, the State effectively becomes her Husband.

  • Feminism has been the driving force in the destruction of Families, and has  effectively abolished Marriage as a legal Contract

  • Morality is principally learned from the Father, and is not well learned in a single mother home.

  • overwhelmingly, the most likely perpetrator of physical abuse of children is the single mother

  • overwhelmingly the most likely perpetrator of sexual abuse of children is the unrelated male in the household (whom we affectingly call "Number Two")

  • Government apparatus created to collect Child Support from lower class fathers who have abandoned the Children has been expanded to hound middle class fathers who have not abandoned their children into poverty.

  • In the nineteenth century when fathers got automatic custody of children, Divorce was very rare.

  • Courts must not continue to operated in Secret but must be investigated and exposed

  • Under the Clinton administration children came to be used as Weapons

Divorced from Reality, Stephen Baskerville, June 2009

“We’re from the Government, and We’re Here to End Your Marriage.”   

by Stephen Baskerville

2009-06-15  Divorced from Reality, Stephen Baskerville

More:  Issues:  Baskerville, Stephen

Themis Ltd."  Mercenary Bounty Hunters for FMEP, Chris Beresford, Director 

Oh No You Didn't! (Full Song) - GTA4 style

Lawyers for Themis Ltd claims their policy is not created internally but is given them directly from their Director Chris Beresford.  See:  2010-08-11_ANGUS-Beresford-CV.pdf

They say it is their "Policy" to NEVER return OVERPAYMENTS on Child Support.  They  say it is their "Policy" or to NOT acknowledge Payments to the Payee directly without going through their Office, saying such payments are "Gifts" only, and will NOT be considered by them to be payments of Child Support.  They say their "Policy" of removing Passports and Drivers' Licenses, and spreading around your SINs to strangers NOT involved in taxation is justified by the "Greater Good" of defending a Child's Right to receive Support Payments. They claim Themis is a "Creation of Statute", exercising only the powers given it by Parliament.  See  Issues:  Breach of Trust of a Public Officer, Criminal

Until August of 2010, Themis has claimed they are NOT subject to Judicial Review, but now they have been called to a Section 18A Summary Trial, they have reversed that position, saying they ARE subject to Judicial Review..  See EPT: ANGUS, Bob: Passport Removal & SIN Publishing by FMEP, 2010

Themis operates as Chris Beresford's mercenary Bounty Hunter.  We have known of Moms who, having seen what Themis has done to Dad, have waived payment of Child Support to stop Themis' attacks,  but Themis has refused to stop.

More:  Testimonials:  Angus, Bob:  Passport Removal & SIN dissemination by Themis/ FMEP''
Meetup: EPT: ANGUS, Bob: Passport Removal & SIN Publishing by FMEP
;
News:  Themis Ltd. & Themis Inc.;
News:  Maximus Inc;
Issues:  FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement Program;
Issues:  Imputed Income;
Issues:  Poofy Judges;
Issues:  Homosexual Activism;
Issues:  Judicial Activism;
Issues:  Judicial Globalization;
Issues:  Judicial Interpretation

Hardfire FATHERS' RIGHTS - STEPHEN BASKERVILLE - JOSEPH DOBRIAN

Hardfire FATHERS' RIGHTS - STEPHEN BASKERVILLE - JOSEPH DOBRIAN

TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, Nevada Freedom Alliance w Stephen Baskerville

TAKEN INTO CUSTODY

Nevada Freedom Alliance - Google Search

"Taken Into Custody", Stephen Baskerville

stephen baskerville - Google Video Equal Parenting Trek / Convention Weekend Dates SUGGESTED WEEKEND FORMAT for Joint Meetings during the Equal Parenting Trek

More...  Baskerville, Stephen

War on Fatherhood, Stephen Baskerville

"When the Government wants to destroy their main obstacle to the expansion of it's power, the Father is it's first target." 

War on Fatherhood Ch 1 of 5 (givemeliberty.org)
War on Fatherhood Ch 2 of 5 (givemeliberty.org)
War on Fatherhood Ch 3 of 5 (givemeliberty.org)
War on Fatherhood Ch 4 of 5 (givemeliberty.org)
War on Fatherhood Ch 5 of 5 (givemeliberty.org)

More....  Issues:  Baskerville, Stephen

Promise Keepers Rally, Washington DC, 1997:  Speaker, BILL McCARTNEY, Promise Keeper’s Founder, and Chief Executive Officer

Promise Keepers 1997, Part 1, McCartney Bill

Promise Keepers 1997, Part 2, McCartney Bill

More: News:  Bill McCartney Promise Keepers Cult;
News:  James Dobson:  Counter-Reformer;
News:  Rick Warren: Globalist Counter-Reformer, "Purpose Driven Cult";
News:  Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus;
News:  Helena Blavatsky (1831–1891), Lesbian Founder of Theosophical (Luciferian) Society
Issues:  Riplinger, Gail:  Westcott & Hort's New Age Bibles;
Funstuff:  Life of Christ, ESV 

William Still on Infiltration of Freemasonry

William Still on Infiltration of Freemasonry

More: Issues:  Still, Bill:  "Money Masters", "Secret of Oz";
Issues:  Grignon, Paul: "Money As Debt"
Issues: Griffin, G. Edward, Jeckle Island;
Issues:  North American Union, NAU

Steven Baskerville Presents to R-KIDS of MN,  2004-02-xx

Steven Baskerville Presents to R-KIDS of MN on Feb 2004

Baskerville, Stephen


"War Against The Family".mp3

2006-10-11  Stephen Baskerville interview with Milt Rosenburg.rm

Really a Fatherhood Crisis?

2003-10-xx  The Politics of Child Support, Stephen Baskerville, Howard University 

2004-09-03  The Failure of Fatherhood Policy, Stephen Baskerville

2004-xx-xx  The Politics of Fatherhood, Stephen Baskerville, Howard University

2004-05-xx  Strengthening Marriage Through Divorce and Custody Reform, By Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

Divorced from Reality, Stephen Baskerville, June 2009

“We’re from the Government, and We’re Here to End Your Marriage.”   

2009-06-15  Divorced from Reality, Stephen Baskerville

by Stephen Baskerville

The decline of the family has now reached critical and truly dangerous proportions. Family breakdown touches virtually every family and every American. It is not only the major source of social instability in the Western world today but also seriously threatens civic freedom and constitutional government.

G. K. Chesterton once observed that the family serves as the principal check on government power, and he suggested that someday the family and the state would confront one another. That day has arrived.

Chesterton was writing about divorce, and despite extensive public attention to almost every other threat to the family, divorce remains the most direct and serious. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.”

Most Americans would be deeply shocked if they knew what goes on today under the name of divorce. Indeed, many are devastated to discover that they can be forced into divorce by procedures entirely beyond their control. Divorce licenses unprecedented government intrusion into family life, including the power to sunder families, seize children, loot family wealth, and incarcerate parents without trial. Comprised of family courts and vast, federally funded social services bureaucracies that wield what amount to police powers, the divorce machinery has become the most predatory and repressive sector of government ever created in the United States and is today’s greatest threat to constitutional freedom.

Unilateral Divorce

Some four decades ago, while few were paying attention, the Western world embarked on the boldest social experiment in its history. With no public discussion of the possible consequences, laws were enacted in virtually every jurisdiction that effectively ended marriage as a legal contract. Today it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family. The government can now, at the request of one spouse, simply dissolve a marriage over the objection of the other. Maggie Gallagher aptly titled her 1996 book The Abolition of Marriage.

This startling fact has been ignored by politicians, journalists, academics, and even family advocates. “Opposing gay marriage or gays in the military is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue,” wrote Gallagher. “The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda.” No American politician of national stature has ever challenged involuntary divorce. “Democrats did not want to anger their large constituency among women who saw easy divorce as a hard-won freedom and prerogative,” observes Barbara Whitehead in The Divorce Culture. “Republicans did not want to alienate their upscale constituents or their libertarian wing, both of whom tended to favor easy divorce, nor did they want to call attention to the divorces among their own leadership.”

In his famous denunciation of single parenthood, Vice President Dan Quayle was careful to make clear, “I am not talking about a situation where there is a divorce.” The exception proves the rule. When Pope John Paul II criticized divorce in 2002, he was roundly attacked from the right as well as the left.

The full implications of the “no-fault” revolution have never been publicly debated. “The divorce laws . . . were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion,” writes Melanie Phillips in The Sex-Change Society. “Public attitudes were gradually dragged along behind laws that were generally understood at the time to mean something very different from what they subsequently came to represent.”

Today’s disputes over marriage in fact have their origin in this one. Demands to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples are inconceivable apart from the redefinition of marriage already effected by heterosexuals through divorce. Though gays cite the very desire to marry as evidence that their lifestyle is not inherently promiscuous, activist Andrew Sullivan acknowledges that that desire has arisen only because of the promiscuity permitted in modern marriage. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” he points out. “All homosexuals are saying . . . is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is . . . a denial of basic civil equality” (emphasis added). Gays do not want traditional monogamous marriage, only the version debased by divorce.

Contrary to common assumptions, divorce today seldom involves two people mutually deciding to part ways. According to Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin in Divided Families, 80 percent of divorces are unilateral, that is, over the objection of one spouse. Patricia Morgan of London’s Civitas think tank reports that in over half of divorces, there was no recollection of major conflict before the separation.

Under “no-fault,” or what some call “unilateral,” divorce—a legal regime that expunged all considerations of justice from the procedure—divorce becomes a sudden power grab by one spouse, assisted by an army of judicial hangers-on who reward belligerence and profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, counselors, mediators, custody evaluators, social workers, and more.

If marriage is not wholly a private affair, as today’s marriage advocates insist, involuntary divorce by its nature requires constant government supervision over family life. Far more than marriage, divorce mobilizes and expands government power. Marriage creates a private household, which may or may not necessitate signing some legal documents. Divorce dissolves a private household, usually against the wishes of one spouse. It inevitably involves state functionaries—including police and jails—to enforce the divorce and the post-marriage order.

Almost invariably, the involuntarily divorced spouse will want and expect to continue enjoying the protections and prerogatives of private life: the right to live in the common home, to possess the common property, or—most vexing of all—to parent the common children. These claims must be terminated, using the penal system if necessary.

Onerous Implications

Few stopped to consider the implications of laws that shifted the breakup of private households from a voluntary to an involuntary process. Unilateral divorce inescapably involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life.

By far the most serious consequences involve children, who have become the principal weapons of the divorce machinery. Invariably the first action of a divorce court, once a divorce is filed, is to separate the children from one of their parents, usually the father. Until this happens, no one in the machinery acquires any power or earnings. The first principle and first action of divorce court therefore: Remove the father.

This happens even if the father is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and is simply sitting in his own home minding his own business. The state seizes control of his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) falls on the father to demonstrate why they should be returned.

Though obfuscated with legal jargon (losing “custody”), what this means is that a legally unimpeachable parent can suddenly be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. Following from this, he can be arrested for failure or inability to conform to a variety of additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even if no evidence is presented that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even if the amount exceeds his means (and which may amount to most of his salary). He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or a psychotherapist he has not hired.

The New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell.” Take the case of Marvin Singer, who was jailed without trial for not paying an attorney he never hired $100,000—only half of what the court claimed he “owes.” In Virginia, one father was ordered to pay two years’ worth of his salary to a lawyer he also did not hire for a divorce he did not request. Once arrested, the father is summarily jailed. There is no formal charge, no jury, and no trial.

Family court judges’ contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell: “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating,” he told his colleagues at a judges’ training seminar in 1994. “Throw him out on the street. . . . We don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Generated Hysteria

Why do we hear almost nothing about this? Aside from media that sympathize with the divorce revolution, the multi-billion-dollar divorce industry also commands a huge government-funded propaganda machine that has distorted our view of what is happening.

The growth of the divorce machinery during the 1970s and 1980s did not follow but preceded (in other words, it generated) a series of hysterias against parents—especially fathers—so hideous and inflammatory that no one, left or right, dared question them or defend those accused: child abuse and molestation, wife-beating, and nonpayment of “child support.” Each of these hysterias has been propagated largely by feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies, whose federal funding is generously shared with state and local law-enforcement officials.

The parent on the receiving end of such accusations—even in the absence of any formal charge, evidence, or conviction—not only loses his children summarily and often permanently; he also finds himself abandoned by friends and family members, parishioners and pastors, co-workers and employers (and he may well lose his job)—all terrified to be associated with an accused “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.”

It is not clear that these nefarious figures are other than bogeymen created by divorce interests, well aware that not only the public generally but conservatives and family advocates in particular are a soft touch when it comes to anything concerning irresponsible behavior or sexual perversion.

Christians are especially vulnerable to credulity about such accusations, because they are disposed to see moral breakdown behind social ills. Moral breakdown certainly does lie behind the divorce epidemic (of which more shortly), but it is far deeper than anything addressed by cheap witch-hunts against government-designated malefactors.

It is also largely credulity and fear that leads Congress by overwhelming majorities to appropriate billions for anti-family programs in response to these hysterias. The massive federal funds devoted to domestic violence, child abuse, and child-support enforcement are little more than what Phyllis Schlafly calls “feminist pork,” taxpayer subsidies on family dissolution that also trample due process protections. Family law may technically be the purview of states, but it is driven by federal policies and funded by a Congress fearful of accusations that it is not doing enough against pedophiles, batterers, and deadbeats.

In fact, each of these figures is largely a hoax, a creation of feminist ideology disseminated at taxpayers’ expense and unchallenged by journalists, academics, civil libertarians, and family advocates who are either unaware of the reality or cowed into silence. Indeed, so diabolical are these hysterias that some family advocates simply accept them as additional evidence of the family crisis.

But while sensational examples can be found of anything, there is simply no evidence that the family and fatherhood crisis is caused primarily or even significantly by fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. Irrefutable evidence indicates that it is driven almost entirely by divorce courts forcibly separating parents from their children and using these false accusations as a rationalization.

Divorce Gamesmanship

During the 1980s and 1990s, waves of child abuse hysteria swept America and other countries. Sensational cases in Washington state, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ontario, Saskatchewan, the north of England, and more recently France resulted in torn-apart families, blatantly unjust prison sentences, and ruined lives, while the media and civil libertarians looked the other way.

Today it is not clear that we have learned anything from these miscarriages of justice. If anything, the hysteria has been institutionalized in the divorce courts, where false allegations have become routine.

What is ironic about these witch-hunts is the fact that it is easily demonstrable that the child abuse epidemic—which is very real—is almost entirely the creation of feminism and the welfare bureaucracies themselves. It is well established by scholars that an intact family is the safest place for women and children and that very little abuse takes place in married families. Child abuse overwhelmingly occurs in single-parent homes, homes from which the father has been removed. Domestic violence, too, is far more likely during or after the breakup of a marriage than among married couples.

Yet patently false accusations of both child abuse and domestic violence are rampant in divorce courts, almost always for purposes of breaking up families, securing child custody, and eliminating fathers. “With child abuse and spouse abuse you don’t have to prove anything,” the leader of a legal seminar tells divorcing mothers, according to the Chicago Tribune. “You just have to accuse.”

Among scholars and legal practitioners it is common knowledge that patently trumped-up accusations are routinely used, and virtually never punished, in divorce and custody proceedings. Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, writes that “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in custody cases. The Illinois Bar Journal describes how abuse accusations readily “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” The UMKC Law Review reports on a survey of judges and attorneys revealing that disregard for due process and allegations of domestic violence are used as a “litigation strategy.” In the Yale Law Review, Jeannie Suk calls domestic violence accusations a system of “state-imposed de facto divorce” and documents how courts use unsupported accusations to justify evicting Americans from their homes and children.

The multi-billion dollar abuse industry has become “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice” writes David Heleniak in the Rutgers Law Review. Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in the scholarly journal Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.”

Feminists confess as much in their vociferous opposition to divorce reform. A special issue of the feminist magazine Mother Jones in 2005 ostensibly devoted to domestic violence focuses largely on securing child custody.

Both child abuse and domestic violence have no precise definitions. Legally they are not adjudicated as violent assault, and accused parents do not enjoy the constitutional protections of criminal defendants. Allegations are “confirmed” not by jury trials but by judges or social workers. Domestic violence is any conflict within an “intimate relationship” and need not be actually violent or even physical. Official definitions include “extreme jealousy and possessiveness,” “name calling and constant criticizing,” and “ignoring, dismissing, or ridiculing the victim’s needs.”

For such “crimes” fathers lose their children and can be jailed. “Protective orders” separating parents from their children are readily issued during divorce proceedings, usually without any evidence of wrongdoing. “Restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply,” and “the facts have become irrelevant,” writes Epstein. “In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.”

Cycle of Abuse

Trumped-up accusations are thus used to create precisely the single-parent homes in which actual abuse is most likely to occur. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “Children of single parents had a 77% greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse, an 87% greater risk of being harmed by physical neglect, and an 80% greater risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents.” Britain’s Family Education Trust reports that children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused in a single-parent home than in an intact family.

The principal impediment to child abuse is thus precisely the figure whom the welfare and divorce bureaucracies are intent on removing: the father. “The presence of the father . . . placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse,” concludes a 2000 study published in Adolescent and Family Health. “The protective effect from the father’s presence in most households was sufficiently strong to offset the risk incurred by the few paternal perpetrators.” In fact, the risk of “paternal perpetrators” is miniscule, since a tiny proportion of sexual abuse (which is far less common than physical abuse) is committed by natural fathers, though government statistics lump them in with boyfriends and stepfathers to make it appear that incest is widespread.

Despite the innuendos of child abuse advocates, it is not married fathers but single mothers who are most likely to injure or kill their children. “Contrary to public perception,” write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, “research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household.” Mothers accounted for 55 percent of all child murders according to a Justice Department report. HHS itself found that women aged 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of child maltreatment: “almost two-thirds were females.” Given that “male” perpetrators are not usually fathers but boyfriends or stepfathers, fathers emerge as by far the least likely child abusers.

Yet government logic is marvelously self-justifying and self-perpetuating, since by eliminating the father, officials can present themselves as the solution to the problem they have created. The more child abuse there is—whether by single mothers, boyfriends, or even (as is often the case) by social workers and bureaucrats themselves—the more the proffered solution is to further expand the child abuse bureaucracy.

Waxing indignant about a string of child deaths at the hands of social workers in the District of Columbia, federal judges and the Washington Post found solace in the D.C. government’s solution: to hire more social workers (and lawyers too, for some unspecified reason). “Olivia Golden, the Child and Family Services’ latest director . . . will use her increased budget to recruit more social workers and double the number of lawyers.” Children die at the hands of social workers, so we must hire more social workers.

Likewise, it is difficult to believe that judges are not aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-parent homes they themselves create when they remove fathers in custody proceedings. Yet they have no hesitation in removing them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that may come to the children. On the contrary, if they do not remove the fathers, they may be punished by the bar associations and social work bureaucracies whose funding depends on a constant supply of abused children.

A commonplace of political science is that bureaucracies relentlessly expand, often by creating the very problem they exist to address. Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion is inescapable that we have created a massive army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse.

Trafficking in Children

The child abuse industry also demonstrates how one threat to the family creates another. Just as the divorce revolution eventually led to the demand for same-sex “marriage,” the child abuse deception has led to demands for parenting by same-sex couples.

Most discussion of homosexual parenting has centered on questions of children’s welfare versus the rights of homosexuals. Few have questioned the politics whereby prospective homosexual parents obtain the children they wish to parent. Granting same-sex couples the right to raise children means, by definition, giving at least one of the partners the right to raise someone else’s children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them or did something to warrant losing them.

Current laws governing divorce, domestic violence, and child abuse render this question open. The explosion in foster care based on the assumed but unexamined need to find permanent homes for allegedly abused children has provided perhaps the strongest argument in favor of same-sex “marriage” and homosexual parenting. Yet the politics of child abuse and divorce indicate that this assumption is not necessarily valid.

The government-generated child abuse epidemic and the mushrooming foster care business that it feeds have allowed government agencies to operate what amounts to trafficking in children. A San Diego grand jury reports “a widely held perception within the community and even within some areas of the Department [of Social Services] that the Department is in the ‘baby brokering’ business.”

Introducing same-sex “marriage” and adoption into this political dynamic could dramatically increase the demand for children to adopt, thus intensifying pressure on social service agencies and biological parents to supply such children. While sperm donors and surrogate mothers supply some children for homosexual parents, most have been taken from their natural parents because of divorce, unwed parenting, child abuse accusations, or connected reasons.

Massachusetts Senator Therese Murray, claiming that 40 percent of the state’s adoptions have gone to gay and lesbian couples, rationalizes the practice by invoking “children who have been neglected, abandoned, abused by their own families.” But it is far from evident that these children are in fact victims of their own parents. What seems inescapable is that homosexual parenting has arisen as the direct and perhaps inevitable consequence of government officials getting into the business—which began largely with divorce—of distributing other people’s children.

Child-Support Racket

The “deadbeat dad” is another figure largely manufactured by the divorce machinery. He is far less likely to have deliberately abandoned offspring he callously sired than to be an involuntarily divorced father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, “forced to finance the filching of his own children.”

Child support is plagued by the same contradictions as child custody. Like custody, it is awarded ostensibly without reference to “fault,” and yet nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. Contrary to popular belief, child support today has nothing to do with fathers abandoning their children, reneging on their marital vows, or even agreeing to divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those divorced against their will who lose their children through no legal fault or agreement of their own. It is an entitlement for all single mothers, in other words, regardless of their behavior.

Originally justified as a method of recovering welfare costs, child support has been transformed into a massive federal subsidy on middle-class divorce. No-fault divorce allowed a mother to divorce her husband for any reason or no reason and to take the children with her. Child support took the process a step further by allowing the divorcing mother to use the now-fatherless children to claim her husband’s income—also regardless of any fault on her part (or lack of fault on his) in abrogating the marriage agreement.

By glancing at a child-support schedule, a mother can determine exactly how large a tax-free windfall she can force her husband to pay her simply by divorcing, money she may spend however she wishes with no accounting requirement. It is collected at gunpoint if necessary, and nonpayment means incarceration without trial.

Like the welfare it was supposed to replace, child support finances family dissolution by paying mothers to divorce. Economist Robert Willis calculates that child-support levels vastly exceeding the cost of raising children create “an incentive for divorce by the custodial mother.” His analysis indicates that only one-fifth to one-third of child-support payments are actually used for the children; the rest is profit for the custodial parent. Kimberly Folse and Hugo Varela-Alvarez write in the Journal of Socio-Economics that child support serves as an “economic incentive for middle-class women to seek divorce.”

Mothers are not the only ones who can profit by creating fatherless children. Governments also generate revenue from child support. State governments receive federal funds for every child-support dollar collected—money they can add to their general funds and use for any purpose they choose. This gives states a financial incentive to create as many single-parent households as possible by encouraging middle-class divorce. While very little child support—or government revenue—is generated from the impecunious young unmarried fathers for whom the program was ostensibly created, involuntarily divorced middle-class fathers have deeper pockets to loot.

This is why state governments set child support at onerous levels. Not only does it immediately maximize their own revenues; by encouraging middle-class women to divorce, governments increase the number of fathers sending dollars through their systems, thus generating more revenue. Federal taxpayers (who were supposed to save money) subsidize this family destruction scheme with about $3 billion annually. “Child support guidelines currently in use typically generate awards that are much higher than would be the case if based on economically sound cost concepts,” writes Mark Rogers, an economist who served on the Georgia Commission on Child Support. Rogers charges that guidelines result in “excessive burdens” based on a “flawed economic foundation.” The Urban Institute reports that arrearages accrue because “orders are set too high relative to ability to pay.” Federal officials have admitted that the more than $90 billion in arrearages they claimed as of 2004 were based on awards that were beyond the parents’ ability to pay.

All this marks a new stage in the evolution of the welfare state: from distributing largesse to raising revenue and, from there, to law enforcement. The result is a self-financing machine, generating profits and expanding the size and scope of government—all by generating single-parent homes and fatherless children. Government has created a perpetual growth machine for destroying families, seizing children from legally blameless parents, and incarcerating parents without trial.

Responsibility of Churches

While many factors have contributed to this truly diabolical, bureaucratic onslaught against the family, we might begin by looking within. The churches’ failure or refusal to intervene in the marriages they consecrated and to exert moral pressure on misbehaving spouses (perhaps out of fear of appearing “judgmental”) left a vacuum that has been filled by the state. Clergy, parishioners, and extended families have been replaced by lawyers, judges, forensic psychotherapists, social workers, and plainclothes police.

Family integrity will be restored only when families are de-politicized and protected from government invasion. This will demand morally vigorous congregations that are willing to take marriage out of the hands of the state by intervening in the marriages they are called upon to witness and consecrate and by resisting the power of the state to move in. This is the logic behind the group Marriage Savers, and it can restore the churches’ authority even among those who previously viewed a church’s role in their marriage as largely ceremonial.

No greater challenge confronts the churches—nor any greater opportunity to reverse the mass exodus—than to defend their own marriage ordinance against this attack from the government. Churches readily and rightly mobilize politically against moral evils like abortion and same-sex “marriage,” in which they are not required to participate. Even more are they primary stakeholders in involuntary divorce, which allows the state to desecrate and nullify their own ministry.

As an Anglican, I am acutely aware of how far modernity was ushered in not only through divorce, but through divorce processes that served the all-encompassing claims of the emerging state leviathan. Politically, this might be seen as the “original sin” of modern man. We all need to atone.

Stephen Baskerville is Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College and the author of Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House, 2007).

2009-06-15  Divorced from Reality, Stephen Baskerville

WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, Dr. Stephen Baskerville

By Professor Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.; 

May 18, 2004;  NewsWithViews.com  Web Site: www.stephenbaskerville.net;  E-Mail: sbaskerville@cox.net


"The advent of “no-fault” divorce in the US has given rise to a system that strips fathers of their rights, accelerates the breakdown of families, and makes a mockery of the marital contract".

The worldwide crisis of the family is now inspiring urgent attempts to strengthen marriage and promote responsible fatherhood. With a divorce rate upwards of 50 percent, and with some 40 percent of children now living in homes without their fathers—and with a growing realization of the destructive social and personal pathologies this trend engenders—groups like Marriage Savers and the National Fatherhood Initiative have arisen in the United States to restore these institutions through public awareness and education.

While such efforts are laudable, their effectiveness is likely to be limited until we come to grips with the realities underlying the family crisis. If we face some bitter truths about why families are breaking up, the study will take us beyond the safe confines of vague moral exhortation into realms of law and politics that many of us would rather avoid.

To begin, we must realize the image many people have —of marriages simply and mutually “breaking down”—is not accurate. As permitted under “no-fault” divorce laws, some 80 percent of American divorces are unilateral, according to Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin, authors of Divided Families. In other words, most divorces take place over the objection of one spouse, who is generally committed to keeping the family together.

Contrary to another persistent myth, when minor children are involved, the divorcing parent is overwhelmingly likely to be the mother. In Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver has shown that at least two-thirds of American divorces are initiated by women. Moreover, few of these divorces involve grounds such as desertion, adultery, or violence. The reasons most often given are “growing apart” or “not feeling loved or appreciated.”

Other studies have reached similar conclusions. The proportion of divorces initiated by women climbed to more than 70 percent when no-fault divorce was introduced, according to Margaret Brinig of the University of Iowa and Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University. Mothers “are more likely to instigate separation, despite a deep attachment to their children and the evidence that many divorces harm children.” And the “bottom line” is indeed the children. After analyzing 21 different variables, Brinig and Allen concluded that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce.” Author Robert Seidenberg goes further, reporting that “all the domestic relations lawyers I spoke with concurred that in disputes involving child custody, women initiate divorce almost all the time.” [original emphasis]

Nightmare scenario

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this finding. A very different picture of the situation is clearly assumed by political leaders who call for repeated crackdowns on supposedly dissolute fathers. “I believe children should not have to suffer twice for the decisions of their parents to divorce,” Senator Mike DeWine said on the Senate floor in June 1998; “once when they decide to divorce, and again when one of the parents evades the financial responsibility to care for them.” But most fathers (and some mothers) have made no such decisions. They are expelled by a divorce to which they have not consented.

Family law today allows mothers to walk away from marriages whenever they feel like it and take the children with them. Not only is this behavior permitted; it is encouraged and rewarded with financial incentives. Even more disturbing, in some cases it appears that mothers are actually being pressured into filing for a divorce they do not necessarily want by social-service agencies.

The problem runs much deeper than the bias against fathers in court custody decisions. Such bias certainly exists, but it goes well beyond the supposition that “all else being equal,” children should stay with their mothers. “Washing their hands of judgments about conduct… the courts assume that all children should normally live with their mothers, regardless of how the women have behaved,” observes Sunday Times columnist Melanie Phillips. “Yet if a mother has gone off to live with another man, does that not indicate a measure of irresponsibility or instability, not least because by breaking up the family… she is acting against their best interests?”

Mothers who take and keep children from their fathers are routinely given immediate “temporary” custody. In fact this custody is seldom temporary. Once a mother has custody, the situation cannot be changed without a lengthy (and costly— or, for the lawyers, lucrative) court battle. The sooner and the longer the mother can establish herself as the children’s sole caretaker, the more difficult and costly it is to dislodge her. Further, the more she cuts the children off from the father, poisons them against him, levels false charges, delays the proceedings, and obstructs his efforts to see his children, the more likely she is to retain sole custody.

As for the father, any restraint he shows is likely to cost him dearly, as most fathers discover too late. On the other hand, reciprocal belligerence and aggressive litigation on his part may carry enough hope of reward to keep him interested. It is significant and revealing that the latest tactical wisdom suggests to nervous fathers that the game is so rigged that their best chance may be not to wait for their day in court but to snatch the children right away, before the litigation begins. Then the fathers—who are now the ones with custody—are advised to conceal, obstruct, delay, and so forth. “If you do not take action,” writes Robert Seidenberg in The Father’s Emergency Guide to Divorce-Custody Battle, “your wife will.” Thus we seem to have a nightmare scenario, reminiscent of the strategies for nuclear warfare, complete with the threat of a pre-emptive strike. There is a race to pull the trigger; whoever strikes first, survives.

The Dickens principle

Far from merely exploiting family breakdown after the fact, then, American domestic-relations law has turned family problems into games of “prisoners’ dilemma,” in which only the most trusting marriage can survive, and the emergence of marital discord renders the decision not to abscond with the children as perilous and even irrational. Willingly or not, all parents are now prisoners in this game.

How did all this come about? The advent of “no-fault” divorce, often blamed for leaving wives vulnerable to abandonment, has left fathers with no protection against the confiscation of their children. “No-fault” is a misnomer, for the new laws did not stop at removing grounds for divorce, so as to allow divorce by mutual consent (as their sponsors promised that they would); they also created what Maggie Gallagher, in The Abolition of Marriage, calls “unilateral” divorce, allowing either spouse to end the marriage at any time without any agreement or fault by the other.

What is striking about these new divorce laws is that they were passed “while no one was looking,” largely at the prompting of lawyers and judges. There had been no popular clamor to dispense with restrictions on divorce prior to their passage; no public debate was ever held in the national media. “The divorce laws . . . were reformed by unrepresentative groups with very particular agendas of their own and which were not in step with public opinion,” writes Phillips in The Sex-Change Society. “All the evidence suggests that public attitudes were gradually dragged along behind laws that were generally understood at the time to mean something very different from what they subsequently came to represent.” Attorney Ed Truncellito agrees. In August 2000 he filed suit with the Texas Supreme Court against the state bar. Truncellito contends the legislative history of no-fault divorce law in Texas makes it clear that the law was meant to be applied only in uncontested cases. He insists that “the state bar knew all along that the no-fault law was being misapplied, but they covered it up for financial gain.” Truncellito claims that for practical purposes, under Texas law today, “no one is married,” because the laws created “unilateral divorce on demand.” Although feminist groups were involved in the drive for no-fault divorce, they were not usually the most important proponents; the changes were passed largely by and for the legal industry.

Dickens’ observation “the one great principle of the… law is to make business for itself” could hardly be more starkly validated. Nothing in the law requires a judge to grant the divorcing parent’s initial request to strip the other parent of his children. A judge could simply rule that, prima facie, neither the father nor the children had committed any infraction that would justify their being forcibly separated, and that neither the mother nor the court had any grounds on which to separate them. Yet such rulings are virtually unheard of. One need not be overly cynical to notice that judges who made such judgments would be rendering themselves largely redundant—and denying earnings to a massive entourage of lawyers, custody evaluators, psychologists and psychiatrists, guardians ad litem, mediators, counselors, child-support enforcement agents, social workers, and other hangers-on of the court, all of whom profit from the custody battle and have a strong say in the appointment and promotion of judges

The power of family courts

For all the concern that has been voiced in recent years about both family destruction and judicial power, it is surprising that so little attention has been focused on family courts. Without doubt they are the arm of the state that routinely reaches furthest into the private lives of individuals and families. Though lowest in the ranking of the judicial hierarchy, the family courts have the greatest discretionary power. “The family court is the most powerful branch of the judiciary,” according to Robert W. Page, Presiding Judge of the Family Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey. By their own assessment, according to Judge Page, “the power of family court judges is almost unlimited.” Others have commented on their vast power rather less respectfully. Former US Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas once used the term “kangaroo court” in reference to the family courts. Contrary to basic principles of open government, these courts generally operate behind closed doors, excluding even family members, and most leave no record of their proceedings.

These courts emerged in the 1960s and 1970s alongside the revolution in divorce laws. Their existence, and virtually every problem they address-–divorce, custody, child abuse, child-support enforcement, even juvenile crime—revolve around one overriding principle: removing the father from the family. If fathers remained with their families, family courts would have little reason to exist, since the problems that they handle seldom appear in intact families. While mothers also fall afoul of family court judges, it is fathers against whom their enmity is largely directed, because fathers are their principal rivals.

The judges’ contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell. Speaking to his colleagues during a training seminar in 1994, he said:

Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, “See ya around.” . . .We don’t have to worry about their rights.

Family court judges are generally appointed and promoted by commissions that are dominated by bar associations and other professional groups which have an interest in maximizing the volume of litigation. The politics of court appointments operate according to principles of patronage that Richard A. Watson and Rondal G. Downing, authors of The Politics of the Bench and the Bar, have described as “cronyistic.” Political scientist Herbert Jacob describes how “the judge occupies a vital position not only because of his role in the judicial process but also because of his control over lucrative patronage positions.” Jacob cites probate courts, where positions as estate appraisers “are generally passed out to the judge’s political cronies or to persons who can help his private practice.” The principles are similar in family courts (with which probate courts are sometimes united), only there what is passed out is control over children.

Like all courts, family courts complain of being overburdened. Yet it is clearly in their interest to be overburdened, since judicial powers and salaries are determined by the level of demand for their services. “Judges and staff… should be given every consideration for salary and the other ‘perks’ or other emoluments of their high office,” suggests Judge Page, adding that divorce court judges aim, and should aim, to increase their volume of business. “As the court does a better job, more persons will be attracted to it,” he observes. “The better the family court system functions the higher… the volume of the persons served.” A court “does a better job” by attracting more divorcing mothers with more windfall settlements.

Fathers with no rights

Once the father “loses custody,” in the jargon of the court, he becomes in many ways a virtual outlaw and subject to plunder by a variety of officials. His contact with his own children becomes criminalized, in that he can be arrested if he tries to see them outside of court-approved times and places. Unlike anyone else, he can be (and fathers have been) arrested for running into his children in a public place such as the zoo, a sporting event, or a parish church. He can also be arrested for telephoning his children when he has not been authorized to do so, or for sending them birthday cards.

Fathers are routinely summoned to court and subjected to questioning about their private lives and how they raise their children. Whether or not they have been accused of any wrongdoing, they are subject to questioning that attorney Jed Abraham has characterized as “interrogation.” Their personal papers, bank accounts, and homes must be opened and surrendered on request to government officials, who are not required to produce warrants. Their children are taught to suspect them, with the backing of government officials, and given directions to inform on them.

Anything a father has said to his spouse or children can be used against him in court. His personal habits, movements, conversations, purchases, and even his relationship with his own children are all subject to inquiry and control by the court. A Virginia father had his visitation time reduced when a judge decided that soccer was a more important Sunday-morning activity than attending church services. Another father in Tennessee may face a jail term for giving his son an unauthorized haircut. Jed Abraham describes how fathers against whom no evidence of wrongdoing is presented are ordered to submit to “plethysmographs,” in which an electronic sheath is placed over the penis while the father is forced to watch pornographic films involving children.

Despite the constitutional prohibition on incarceration for debt, a father can be jailed without trial for failure to pay not only child support but also the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists he has not hired. A father forcibly separated from his son for three years now faces jail in Virginia if he cannot pay the equivalent of two years’ salary to a lawyer he never hired, for a divorce he never requested. The judge has summoned a legally unimpeachable citizen and ordered him to write a check or go to jail. And the weapon he is using is a child.

Litigants have long claimed that family courts tamper with transcripts and other evidence, but were unable to document their claims until Zed McLarnon, a forensic audio-visual expert, showed photographic evidence that hearing records in his case were being doctored. For his complaint, later aired in the Massachusetts News, McLarnon was assessed $20,000 in fees for attorneys he had not hired, and jailed without trial by the same judges who were responsible for the doctored tapes. The court is currently moving to seize his house and car. His attorney claims the court also “removed documents from his case file, falsified the case docket, refused to enter motions and hearings in the public record, and withheld the public case file for nine months.”

The child-support conundrum

The criminalization of fathers is further consolidated through child-support burdens, which constitute the principal financial fuel of the divorce machinery, underwriting divorce and giving both mothers and the state further incentive to remove children from their fathers.

We often hear the imprecations of politicians and enforcement officials against fathers who fail to pay child support. What we do not hear is that child-support obligations are determined not by the needs of children but by the politics of interest groups involved in collection. Guidelines are generally set by the same agencies and courts that enforce and adjudicate them. Such de facto legislation by courts and enforcement agents raises serious questions about the separation of powers and the constitutionality of the process. Where government officials develop an interest in hunting “delinquents,” it is predictable that they will find delinquents to hunt. The more onerous the child-support levels, and the more defaults and arrearages that accumulate, the more demand there will be for coercive enforcement and for the personnel and powers required.

A presumption of guilt pervades courts and prosecutions, where “the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” according to a legal analysis by the National Council of State Legislatures. In clear violation of the US Constitution, courts have held that “not all child-support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,” and “even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer.” Thus impoverished parents who lose their children through literally “no fault” of their own are the only citizens who—when they are fortunate enough to be formally charged and tried at all before being incarcerated—must prove their innocence without the help of an attorney and without the opportunity to present their case before a jury of their peers.

Federal policies (which provide incentive payments attached to each dollar of child support collected by state governments) give another reason for the states to channel all child-support questions through the machinery of the criminal justice system, so that they will show up on the relevant federal ledgers. This policy aggravates the criminalization of fathers, and encourages agencies to squeeze every possible dollar out of every available parent. The result is systematic bullying by courts and enforcement agents: a pattern of activity that is now too common to ignore.

In Milwaukee a father is hauled into court and threatened with jail when a 40-cent arrearage is compounded by penalties and late fees until it reaches to hundreds of dollars. Another father is arrested for not paying child support while he was a hostage for five months in Iraq. In Texas a father is exonerated of a serious crime after ten years on death row, to be presented with a bill for child support not paid during his imprisonment. A decorated hero of the Oklahoma City bombing is driven to suicide by hounding from child support agencies. In Nebraska and elsewhere men must pay support for the children who are produced by their former wives’ adulterous affairs. In Los Angeles, 350 child-support orders are established each month based on mistaken paternity claims, but the district attorney insists that men must pay—even if the children are not their own. (Also in Los Angeles, two assistant district attorneys resign because of ethical scruples connected with child-support enforcement policies.) In Virginia child support is sought for 45-year-old “children,” while in Kansas and California teenage boys are ordered to pay child support to grown women convicted of criminally raping them. In Indiana a father must pay to be shackled with an electric ankle bracelet and turn over three-fourths of his salary, ostensibly for a 21-year-old “child,” while his 12-year-old goes without medical treatment. The list of such abuses is virtually endless. Are these merely anecdotes or occasional excesses of the system? That is possible, but if the abandonment of children by their fathers is really such a widespread problem, why are government agencies concentrating scarce resources on these absurd cases, rather than devoting themselves assiduously to the most flagrant abuses?

Driven to despair

In March 2000 a Canadian man named Darrin White was denied all contact with his three children, evicted from his home, and ordered to pay more than twice his annual income as child and spousal support, plus court costs for a divorce to which he had never agreed. Shortly after that judgment, White hanged himself from a tree. No evidence of any wrongdoing had ever been presented against him.

The fate of Darrin White is increasingly common. “There is nothing unusual about this judgment,” former British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Lloyd McKenzie told the Vancouver Sun when he was questioned about White’s case. McKenzie pointed out that the judge in White’s case applied standard guidelines for spousal and child support—the same sort of guidelines that are regularly used in the US and other western countries.

In fact there are those who would argue that the phenomenon of fathers who are driven to suicide by family courts now threatens to become an epidemic. In Britain the National Association for Child Support Action has published a “Book of the Dead,” chronicling 55 cases in which they report that the official Court Coroner concluded fathers were driven to suicide because of judgments from divorce courts and/or harassment by child-support agencies. The suicide rate among divorced fathers has increased dramatically, according to Augustine Kposowa of the University of California, who reported his findings in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Kposowa attributes his finding directly to family court judgments. Yet reports on his study by several major media outlets studiously avoided that conclusion of his study, instead accentuating therapeutic explanations that emphasized the fathers’ lack of “support networks.” One reporter bluntly told Kposowa that his findings were not “politically correct.”

Family law is now denying rights as basic as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and even the right to hold private conversations. An Arizona father has been ordered not to criticize judges in his conversations with members of his own family. British and Australian family courts have closed Internet sites and prosecuted fathers for criticizing judges. In many American jurisdictions it is a crime to criticize family court judges. On Fathers’ Day 1998, a California father who had been planning to protest the fact that he had not seen his son in more than two years was taken into custody for a “psychiatric evaluation.” The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was recently arrested for talking to reporters about his divorce. Following his Congressional testimony critical of the family courts, Jim Wagner of the Georgia Council for Children’s Rights was stripped of custody of his two children and jailed. “We believe . . . the court is attempting to punish Wagner for exposing the court’s misconduct to a congressional committee,” said Sonny Burmeister, president of the Georgia Council.

As the logic of involuntary divorce plays itself out, we now find instances in which divorce is forced on not only one parent but both. Mothers are not only being enticed into filing for divorce by financial and emotional incentives; they are being pressured toward divorce by threats against their children. These pressures arise when government agencies, for reasons of their own, determine that a married couple is not providing a suitable environment for their children; the agencies then tell the mother that she will lose her children unless she ends the marriage. On February 20, 2001, the Massachusetts News reported that Heidi Howard was ordered by the state’s Department of Social Services to divorce her husband Neil or lose her children, although the Department acknowledged he had not been violent. When she refused to accept their advice, the social workers seized her children, including a newborn, and attempted to terminate the Howards’ parental rights. Massachusetts News reporter Nev Moore says she has seen hundreds of similar cases. In short, the state can now tear apart families by imposing divorce on married parents.

What can be done?

The divorce industry has rendered marriage, in effect, a fraudulent contract. Until marriage is made an enforceable contract, there is little point in exhorting young people to put their trust in the legal institution. Young men in particular who are lured into marriage and family today can lose their children, their homes, their freedom, and even their lives. It is not surprising that ever fewer men are ready to make the marital commitment.

More than anyone else, the ones who must stand up and demand that marriage be made an enforceable contract are fathers. This does not necessarily require “turning back the clock” to fault-based divorce—a move that many observers now believe is not politically feasible. What it does require is the recognition that marriage confers legal rights on parents and their children, including the right not to be separated without compelling legal grounds. Except in extreme circumstances, that right should prevail over what government officials deem to be in the children’s “best interest.”

The others who must speak out in defense of marriage are the clergy. The destruction of marriage and families by the state directly concerns the churches, not simply because all matters of morality and justice concern the churches, but also because this particular controversy touches upon the integrity of their pastoral ministry. As long as marital and parental bonds can simply be legally dissolved by the state at the request of one spouse—with no grounds, wrongdoing, legal action, or agreement by the other—our pastors must consider how far they may be, however inadvertently, deceiving their flock and dishonoring their calling by encouraging young people to enter into a legal contract that has been stripped of its practical meaning.

The words “divorce” and “custody” now sound deceptively innocuous. We should remind ourselves that they involve bringing the law-enforcement and penal system into the home, for use against family members who have not necessarily done anything legally wrong. Fathers are not without sin, of course, and marital difficulties are seldom the fault of one party alone. But our justice system is supposed to be based on a distinction between legal wrongdoing (criminal or civil) and human imperfection or sin. Ironically, that distinction has been obliterated—not by churches or ecclesiastical courts, but by secular ones.

© 2004 Stephen Baskerville Ph.D. - All Rights Reserved

Stephen Baskerville holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and teaches political science at Howard University in Washington, DC. In January 2004 he became President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

He has appeared on national radio and television programs, including The O’Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Court TV with Fred Graham and Katherine Crier, Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, Endangered Liberties with Paul Weyrich, Legal Notebook with Tom Jipping, the Armstrong Williams Show, Take Action America, and others. He is a regular radio commentator for the Free Congress Foundation.

 

Stephen Baskerville, PhD London School of Economics

Stephen Baskerville, PhD London School of Economics

Stephen Baskerville, Ph D - Google Search;
Stephen Baskerville, Ph D - Google Videos



(Firefox may not play this correctly)


More:  Issues:  Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken into Custody;
Issues;  Rhodes, Carol:  Friend of the Court = Enemy of the Family;
Issues:  Schlafly, Phyllis:  Judicial Globalism, Supremacy of Parliament, Global Government;
Issues:  Norton, Bob:  Family Court Watcher;
Issues:  Griffin, G. Edward;
Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Congressional Investigator & former Banker

Phyllis Schlafly:  Judicial Globalism, Supremacy of Parliament, Global Government

phyllis schlafly - Google Search;
phyllis schlafly - Google Video



(
Firefox may not play this correctly)

2005-01-31  Fatherhood faces stacked deck in family court, Phyllis Schlafly

More:  Issues:  Schlafly, Phyllis:  Judicial Globalism, Supremacy of Parliament, Global Government;
 Issues:  Cromwell, Oliver:  Lord Protector of Parliamentary Supremacy:
News: Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge;:
Issues: Supremacy of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Interpretation;
Issues: Judicial Globalization is Treason

James Dobson's "Focus on the Family"


Feminarcissists &
Counter-Reformers

Promise Keepers - Google Search
Cult characteristics - Google Search

"Biblical Forgiveness requires Victims Forgive unrepentant Perpetrators" <a LIE!!>

"If a man will not submit the the Spiritual Authority God has placed over him - thePastor -, his wife should leave him to break his heart and hold his feet to the fire until he becomes Teachable and Accountable to the Pastor."

William Still on Infiltration of Freemasonry


More:  News:  James Dobson:  Counter-Reformer;
Bill McCartney:  Globalist Counter-Reformer, Promise Keepers Cult;
Bill McCartney:  Globalist Counter-Reformer;
News:  Rick Warren: Globalist Counter-Reformer, "Purpose Driven Cult"

Cynthia Brown, Child Support Enforcement "Most Wanted"

 Criminalizing Victims of Judicial Kleptomania with "Deadbeat Parent" Pizza Boxes

Cynthia Brown, Pizza, Child Enforcement Worker - Google Search

More:  News:  Brown, Cynthia: Child Support Enforcement Officer Criminalizing Victims of Judicial Kleptomania with "Deadbeat Parent" Pizza Box;
  Issues:  Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken into Custody;
Issues;  Rhodes, Carol:  Friend of the Court = Enemy of the Family;
Issues:  Schlafly, Phyllis:  Judicial Globalism, Supremacy of Parliament, Global Government;
Issues:  Griffin, G. Edward;
Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Congressional Investigator & former Banker
 

Hedy Fry, "Queen of False Accusers" & SOW


Hedy Fry, "Queen of False Accusers", insists Women remain able to Lie in Court with Impunity..  enters Liberal leadership race

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established


Hedy Fry, BC - Google Search;
hedy fry - Google Video


Hedy Fry is the Liberal MP who fought strenuously to have removed from For the Sake of the Children the legislative changes to make FALSE ACCUSATIONS to gain sole custody an offence under Canadian Law.

Fry's Doctrine of False Accusations with Impunity is a critical element upon which the Divorce Industry has built it's Empire.   





More:  News:  Fry, Hedy "Queen of False Accusers" & SOW:  insists Women may Lie in Court with Immunity;
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lawyers lying in Court with Impunity

Domestic Violence Scam & Women's Studies' Hate Propaganda

".... The Steering Committee of the WHO Study agreed that interviews with men should not be included ..."

"In situations where very low levels of violence are documented or there are results that are otherwise not expected, the findings should be discussed with key informants and different community groups before being widely disseminated." 

Rockefeller Foundation is a Sponsor of the World Health Organization

More:  Issues:  Domestic Violence Scam & "Women's Studies" Propaganda
Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction Camps
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lying Lawyers;
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
Issues:  Pedophiles Fear Dads;
Issuess:  False Accusations;
Issues:  Domestic Violence Fraud
Issues:  Child Trafficking by Public Officers & Judges

Liberal Irwin Cotler:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS"

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal "Justice" Minister robbed Canadians of their NATURAL PARENTS' Rights

Irwin Cotler - Google Search;
Irwin Cotler - Google Video

"Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS....  ONLY RESPONSIBILITIES....

"Natural Parents' Rights now  gone with my Homosexual Marriage bill"

16.10 Maximum Contact & Friendly Parent Rule has to go to conform to Judicial Practice, or Judges may be held in criminal BREACH OF TRUST"

FYI, the ideas that the State assigns Rights & Responsibilities to it's Citizen is straight from pre-war Nazi Germany.   Under the British system rights are not State-given, but God Given.

Buying into the Court's position that what rights remain are Children's Rights, is buying into the same position that "<Natural> Parents have no rights", and Canadian Children are at birth the property of the Courts.

More:  News:  Cotler, Irwin:  "Natural Parents have NO RIGHTS...;
News:  European Union;
Issues:  Paul Watson:  Nazi Origins of European Union;;;
Issues: G. Edward  Griffin ;
Issues: Fabian Socialism;

Equal Parenting Trek, an annual "Progressive Convention" of Equal Parenting Roundups







More:  About:  EPT =  Equal Parenting Trek;
About:  EPR = Equal Parenting Roundups;
Meetings:  EP Trek Generic Calendar

Equal Parenting Roundups for Natural Parents' Rights

An "Equal Parenting Roundup" is a gathering of all the disparate parental rights groups that are within driving distance of one another.  Whereas any group can call an "Ad Hoc" Roundup with their neihbors, we hope you will have at least one annual EP Roundup an incorporate it into the Equal Parenting Trek

An Equal Parenting Roundup is an exercise in your Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, following some of the traditions that established our Supremacy of Parliament.  Ideally, you will want be evangelical about your Roundup, you can add to it's end a Free Man's March

More:  About:  EPR = Equal Parenting Roundups;
About: EPT =  Equal Parenting Trek;
EP Trek Generic Calendar

Paul Forseth, former MP for New Westminster - Coquitlam, 
FTSOTC Panelist

Paul Forseth, MP - Google Search

"Conservatives are committed to Shared Parenting. The national party “Policy Declaration” that was passed by delegates at our March 2005 Montreal convention says clearly that: Shared Parenting: is an objective of the Conservative Party of Canada.

A Conservative Government will make the necessary changes to the Divorce Act to ensure that in the event of a marital breakdown, the Divorce Act will allow both parents and all grandparents to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children and grandchildren, unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the best interests of the children".

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

More:  Issues:  Forseth, MP Paul: FTSOTC Panelist;
Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake";
Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  Galloway, Roger MP: FTSOTC Panelist
Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent;

 Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction

Carol Rhodes:  Friend of the Court = Enemy of the Family

Carol Rhodes: Friend of the Court - Google Search;
Carol Rhodes: Friend of the Court - Google Video

More.... Issues;  Rhodes, Carol:  Friend of the Court = Enemy of the Family;
Issues:  Schlafly, Phyllis:  Judicial Globalism, Supremacy of Parliament, Global Government;
Issues:  Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken into Custody
Issues:  Norton, Bob:  Family Court Watcher;
Issues:  Griffin, G. Edward;
Issues:  Dodd, Norman:  Congressional Investigator & former Banker

Robert Knight: Obama's "Radical Rulers"

Robert Knight, Radical Rulers - Google Search;
Robert Knight, Radical Rulers - Google Video

More:  Issues:  Knight, Robert: Obama's "Radical Rulers"
Issues: Bill Federer:  Endangered Speeches; Need to Know Quran;
News:  Obama's Muslim Faith;
Issues:  Russo, Aaron:  "America, Freedom to Fascism"



Edward Kruk:  Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility

edward kruk, ubc - Google Search edward kruk, ubc - Google Videos

2008-12-xx_Kruk-Child-Custody(full).pdf

More:  Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake"

Maurice Vellacott, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422

Maurice Vellacott - Google Search;
Maurice Vellacott - Google Video

Bill C-422 - Google Search;
Bill C-422 - Google Video 

More:  Issues: Vellacott, Maurice, MP:  Equal Parenting Advocate, Bill C-422;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos, "Three Layer Cake";

Issues:  Kruk, Edward:  "Child Custody, Access & Parental Responsibility";
Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent;

 Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction

Senator Anne Cools, FTSOTC Chair on False Accusations &
Law Societies' permitting Lawyers to Lie in Court

Senator Anne Cools, FTSOTC Chair

Anne Cools - Google Search;
Anne Cools - Google Video

"Honourable senators know that I have studied a terrible and pernicious heart of darkness that has developed in our court system, being the use of FALSE ACCUSATIONS in civil justice.

This is the mischief of litigating parties, usually mothers, suddenly within the context of divorce and within child custody proceedings falsely accusing the other party, usually fathers, of the sexual abuse of their own children.    ,,,    

These FALSE ALLEGATIONS are often made with the overt or covert complicity of their lawyers. They are a lethal weapon in the business of parental alienation. They are a tool for achieving sole custody of children and creating fatherlessness."

Identified Issue: Canadian Law Societies' General Failure to Self Regulate, Members permitted to Lie in Court, Anne Cools' Bill 2-12 provides an answer

More:  Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne
Issues: False Accusations;
Isues Womens Shelters' Scam
Issues:Senator Anne Cools
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
Issues:  Pedophiles Fear Dads

Roger Galloway, MP: FTSOTC Panelist

Roger Galloway, MP, Ontario - Google Search

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

More:  Issues:  Galloway, Roger MP: FTSOTC Panelist

Jay Hill, MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245

Jay Hill, MP (Prince George – Peace River)

Jay Hill, mp - Google Search

Bill C-245, Divorce Act - Shared Parenting

“I’m pushing for equality —both parents should have equal rights and equal access to their child,” Hill said. “The courts seem to start from the premise that somehow fathers aren’t responsible parents. But both parents are deemed good parents as long as the marriage lasts; why are they not when the marriage ends?”   

Jay has introduced Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (shared parenting)   This bill would ensure that courts grant custody of a child to both divorcing spouses unless there exists evidence that it would not be in the best interests of the child.  The bill includes the recommendations of the Joint House of Commons-Senate Subcommittee on Custody and Access which the Liberals have essentially shelved.

More:   Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  MP Maurice Vellacott;
Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos.: 

Vic Toews:  Age of Consent

.

Vic Toews MP - Google Search;
Vic Toews MP - Google Video

More:  Issues:  Toews, Vic:  Age of Consent;
Issues:  Hill, Jay MP for presumptive joint custody on divorce, Bill C-245;
Issues:  MP Maurice Vellacott;
About:  Equal Parenting How-Tos.

Erin Pizzey, Founder of the Women's Shelter Movement: 

Erin Pizzey

"Why I loathe feminism... and believe it will ultimately destroy the family",
"Feminism began with Marxist Lesbian University Professors and their students"

Erin Pizzey - Google Search
Erin Pizzey - Google Videos

2008-02-14  Erin Pizzey on KFBK talk radio (Sacramento, California)

Erin Pizzey is  the founder of the women's shelter movement and of the first modern women's refuge (1971, Chiswick, London, England)

More:  Issues:  Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam;
Issues:  "Women's Shelter" Gulags:  Lesbian Brainwashing & Seduction Camps
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lying Lawyers;
News:  Liberal Hedy Fry / Status of Women (SOW):
Issues:  Pedophiles Fear Dads;
Issuess:  False Accusations;
Issues:  Domestic Violence Fraud
Issues:  Child Trafficking by Public Officers & Judges

Hedy Fry, "Queen of False Accusers" & SOW:  insists Women may Lie in Court with Impunity

Hedy Fry, BC - Google Search

Hedy Fry, "Queen of False Accusers", insists Women remain able to Lie in Court with Impunity..  enters Liberal leadership race

Hedy Fry is the Liberal MP who fought strenuously to have removed from For the Sake of the Children the legislative changes to make FALSE ACCUSATIONS to gain sole custody an offence under Canadian Law.

Presently, the burden of proof is on the Accused to prove themselves innocent (unless you are in a Criminal Court), Rare is the Judge who  enforces Perjury laws against a woman. 

Fry's Doctrine of False Accusations with Impunity is a critical element upon which the Divorce Industry has built it's Empire.   See Anne Cools on  False Accusations  

1997-10-28 Child Custody and Access Reform, Special Joint Committee Established

More:  News:  Fry, Hedy "Queen of False Accusers" & SOW:  insists Women may Lie in Court with Immunity;
Issues:  Cools, Senator Anne: Lawyers lying in Court with Impunity

Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge for Judicial Globalization & Judicial Displacement of Parliament

More:  News:  Beverly McLachlin:  Canada's Treasonous Chief Judge;
Issues:  Cromwell, Oliver: Parliamentary Supremacy;
Issues: Supremacy of Parliament;
Issues:  Judicial Interpretation;
Issues: Judicial Globalization is Treason

Liberal Anne McLellan says "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

Anne McLellan , MP - Google Search

In "Women and the Process of Constitutional Reform" McLellan warns that <Horrors!> "Provincial Legislatures may impose a presumption of Joint Custody... and perpetuate the domination of men over women"  

More:  News:  McLellan , Liberal Anne "Joint Custody Perpetuates the domination of men over women"

 


     
Copyright 2002  equalparenting-bc.ca 

 

        Disclaimer: EqualParenting-BC.Ca encourages  exercising democratic rights such as the freedom of expression, but does not by association or reference to other materials condone or sanction violence or hatred.