The father's rights movement in the United States is a group that provides fathers with education, support and advocacy on family law matters concerning child custody, access, child support, domestic violence, and child abuse. Members protest what they see as evidence of gender bias against fathers in branches and departments of various governments, including family courts.
This movement was rooted in divorce and alimony benefits in the 1960s. Today, the modern father's rights movement generally focuses on issues of shared care while providing public support and awareness for father and children after divorce or separation.
Different paternal rights organizations may also advocate for the rights of unmarried fathers through lobbying efforts or news media outlets. Other advocacy topics include gender bias, both culturally and within the legal system, visits, adoptions, maternal gatekeepers and parental seclusion.
Video Fathers' rights movement in the United States
Histori
The movement of the rights of modern dads in the United States emerged with the founding of the Pirate Racket Competition in California in 1960 to protest California's divorce laws, which they claim discriminated against by men in benefits, child support settlements and in the presumption of maternal care. The group developed into other countries, changing its name to Divorce Reform in 1961. With the increasing divorce rate in the 1960s and 1970s, more and more local grassroots men were raised for divorce reform, and in the year 1980s, there are a total of more than 200 active dad rights groups in almost every state. These groups focus their actions on what they perceive as gender discrimination in family law by engaging in political activities such as lobbying state legislatures, filing class-action suits, checking court buildings, and monitoring judge decisions through "courts". The 1990s saw the emergence of new and larger organizations such as the National Leadership Initiative and the Fathers Coalition of America. Some unsuccessful attempts were made to find a national organization that can be owned by a local organization. As a result, the movement remained primarily a loose coalition of local groups.
Maps Fathers' rights movement in the United States
Topic
Sex Bias
Ã, See also: Sexism
Culture
Legal
Ã, See also: Shared parenting
Visits
Ã, See also: Contact (legal)
Maternal Dental Care
Ã, See also: Parent Gatekeeper
Parental isolation
Ã, See also: Alien parent
Adoption
 Lihat juga: Undang-undang Safe Haven & amp; Putative Father Registry
Penipuan & amp; Penipuan
- Alimony Racket
- Permainan Badger
- Heart Balm Racket
- Penipuan Ayah
Undang-undang Federal
AS. Mahkamah Agung
Some states abolish divorce, child custody and child support decisions from Common Law courts and assign them to equity court. Michael Newdow argues that the best interests of childhood standards, such as those currently applied by family courts, violate the same protection articles of the US Constitution.
Bradley Amendment
Ã, See also: Bradley Amendment
Since the amount of federal funds for the state depends on the amount of child support collected by the state, members of the father's rights movement allege that federal law (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) undermines laws that create an irrefutable presumption to share. become a parent.
Parental rights activists claim that the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) employees are removing children from their parents for no reason. They added that these employees were unworthy of receiving immunity from the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, threatening mothers with the loss of their children to force them to divorce and attend support groups. They claim that these support groups serve a dual purpose that allows DSS employees to receive government funds to run support groups, and allows DSS employees to obtain information used to remove children.
Women's opponents at the legislature accused the abuse and threat of physical violence by supporters, while members declared that the National Organization for Women and others might have fabricated claims for attention as part of a plan to paint unjustified parents as extremists.
State law
South Dakota
In South Dakota, Senate Bill 74 was signed into law on March 11, 2014 http://legis.sd.gov/docs/legsession/2014/Bills/SB74P.htm
Illinois
In Illinois, the following law written jointly by Jeffery M. Leving was signed into law in 2009:
SB 1628, sponsored by Senator Iris Martinez and in the House of Representatives by Deborah Mell, accomplishes two things: Improving the Paternity Act and other Acts to ensure that both parties are informed of their right to DNA testing before paternity can be decided upon either through voluntary recognition, litigation or by administrative judges. It also changed the interference portion of the Criminal Code visit and made it a criminal offense to deny other parental rights for their parenting or custody rights. Before, only the disruption of visits was a crime. (Signed into law: August 11, 2009)
SB 1590, sponsored by Senator Pamela Althoff and in the House by Rep. Sandra Pihos, and who passed unanimously, allowed non-custodial children and parents to use electronic visit technologies such as email, phone, internet and video conferencing. Illinois became the sixth country to pass the Virtual Visitation Legislation that could allow virtual visits for imprisoned fathers. (Signed into law: August 11, 2009)
HB 4008, sponsored by the Senate by Senator Martinez and Rep. Jehan Gordon, including the paternity provisions of SB 1628. This amends the Paternity Act to ensure that both parties will be told clearly to their right to DNA testing before the voluntary recognition of the father is signed or the father's order is entered. (Signed into law: August 14, 2009)
HB 2266, sponsored by Martinez and Rep. Ken Dunkin, changed the interference section of the Criminal Code visit with the use of the term used in today's family case (ie nursing time and time of detention). (Signed into law: August 25, 2009)
Massachusetts
Forensic researcher Zed McLarnon proves that the Massachusetts family court used a ghost clinical evaluation stored in hidden files, secret trials in the absence of both parents, and a court-hearing videocassette doctor. Father rights activists appealed to a Massachusetts state legislature who wrote an environmental law (named Anti-Slapp) intended to protect the rapporteur from punishment by companies and rewritten by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to immunize mothers and social workers who filed false accusations, noting that the father really has no cure for alleged misuse.
In 2004, some Massachusetts voters were offered the opportunity to vote on non-binding vote questions about creating legislative assumptions for joint custody. One such question is "Should the state representative of this district be ordered to vote in favor of a law requiring that in all separation and divorce processes involving small children, the court should uphold the basic rights of both parents to custody physical and legal rights of their children and the right of the children to maximize their time with each parent, as far as it is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parent agrees otherwise, subject to the requirements of the child support legislation and the prevention abuses available? "Of voters who choose to answer a non-binding or above-mentioned ballot initiative, 84.5% is approved.
Wisconsin
Members of the father's rights movement criticized the Sunday New York Times 2005 article which began with the words, "... the traditional custody decision is based on what is in the 'best interests of the child'. But some fathers are now arguing - and restless - for their own rights and interests, "to create a false dichotomy between the rights of the children and the rights of the father.
About the Public Service Broadcasting (PBS) film about children and divorce, states members commented that unlike previous PBS documentary, the event was balanced, but described the movement as promoting conflict, adding that average viewers do not distinguish conflicts in public spaces. from conflicts at home, which can hurt children.
Members also protested the Boston Globe article about a case in which a father managed to prevent a mother from moving 70 miles away to another state. According to campaigners, the article improperly links the mixed feelings of children with their inability to move with their mothers and parenting arrangements rather than divorce, adding that journalists questioned children about their life situations and thereby exacerbated conflicts perceived by children.
See also
- Father's rights movement
- Fathers' rights movement by country
- registative father registry
- U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Children
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments