The younger a person is the less likely he/she is to know 'it was not always this way.' Similar to other topics that 'sneaked up' on us when we did not notice, younger people having this disadvantage means it's up to us to speak out. Here are some examples:
In recent years, there's been a so-called men's movement that has an agenda no one should tolerate: they are pushing for legislation, claiming males should have the legal right to force girls and women to have abortions if they themselves do not wish to be parents.
The last I noticed, approximately half the states in the US allow rapists to claim 'parental rights.' If girls/women who have been raped choose to bear and raise the child, the rapists have the same rights as any 'fathers.'
There are websites, forums, and numerous books on the topics 'How to Co-Parent With a Psychopath' and 'How to Co-Parent With a Narcissist.' Similarly, 'rights' cannot even be denied to individuals who have committed domestic violence and even child abuse.
Not only has the issue known as Parental Alienation, which rarely existed in the distant past, turned into a near-epidemic, many who are aware of the facts and complications do not consider the damage done to children and parents as reason to sever an alienator's rights, either.
The first I ever heard of any of this: a story about a middle-aged physician in a local newspaper. I was partly interested because the physician had been a family member's doctor in the past, but also because the entire subject was new to me. However, the physician's story was much different from what we're encountering these days: the couple had been married for many years, during which time he'd been an in-person presence in his children's daily lives; and the complaints he had was not about his ex-wife, it was about his children's school- as he was not the custodial parent, the school was denying him access to the children's school records. Logically, he was well within his rights to make an issue of this.
How or why have times changed? Long ago, I was given what was probably confidential information: I knew a person who had worked for many years in a Social Services department, and was shocked even then by what I was told. The Social Services department had something they called 'Good Cause.' When a custodial mother applied for any type of assistance, she was routinely asked if she had good cause for not involving the absent father. She was also offered the opportunity to obtain backup proof, such as medical records, police records, etc. The employee let me in on the scam- how both custodial mothers and absent fathers were scammed by 'Good Cause.' First, the subject was presented in a manner that led mothers to believe the absent fathers would not be contacted; in the most extreme situations, they had a false sense of security that they and their children were safe because the individuals did not know where they were. The mothers were never told the individuals were contacted behind their backs, and forced to pay monthly 'support.' Second, absent fathers were scammed, too- individuals who grudgingly dipped into their wallets each month to send 'child support' checks clearly assumed the checks were exactly what they implied: that the money went to the mothers to put toward the children's expenses. They did not know the mothers never saw the checks, and didn't even know about it. Child support checks were kept by the Social Services department as partial repayment for the assistance the department provided to the mothers and their children.
From this knowledge and time-frame, this set the entire ball of insanity into motion. As only one example, I ran into a 'fathers rights' forum that was absolutely mindboggling: not one post expressed any love or concern for the children; instead, there were two themes: 'getting back' at the women, and/or 'if I have to pay for the kid, I'm gonna have the kid!' In other words, resentment over the financial responsibility for children they cared nothing about.
And it may bear noting that not once over the years/decades did I ever hear any single/custodial mother state that she wanted child support- women did not start this, government agencies did, and the government agencies have had no concern for the safety and well-being of mothers and children. To the agencies, it's all about money- regardless of the consequences to the individuals involved. It was bad enough decades ago, but when it's come to the extreme of granting 'parental rights' to rapists, and groups claiming males should have the legal right to force girls/women to have abortions, the consequences are too much to tolerate. I've even read a couple of cases where judges incarcerated preteens in juvenile facilities because the kids did not want to abide by 'visitation' requirements.
And the younger people are, the less likely they are to know it was not always this way. Young parents were not always advised or pressured to stay single and live apart if they wanted to 'parent' their child; but individuals who did not want to be parents were not forced to be financially 'responsible' either. The radical changes in both of these factors has led to 'parenting' becoming an absolute nightmare to too many young people these days. Similar to various other topics, it's a matter of 'we didn't see any of this coming.' So now we have those in power- from a family law website claiming men should have Roe v Wade rights, to a Ph.D claiming it's perfectly acceptable for (as he worded it) individuals to 'refuse to marry' their pregnant girlfriends and proceed to demand 'rights' as soon as the babies are born, to state agency websites aimed at teen 'dads' claiming 'You don't have to live with your child to have a relationship with him!'
The only way family life and the well-being of children can return is to a) eliminate child support in all cases except on a voluntary basis by parents who already had a solid, in-person relationship with their children; and b) stop encouraging young parents to live apart with the benefits and 'rights' they can have if they do not live together. Parents who truly love their children deserve better than 'the way things are these days,' and children do, too.
In recent years, there's been a so-called men's movement that has an agenda no one should tolerate: they are pushing for legislation, claiming males should have the legal right to force girls and women to have abortions if they themselves do not wish to be parents.
The last I noticed, approximately half the states in the US allow rapists to claim 'parental rights.' If girls/women who have been raped choose to bear and raise the child, the rapists have the same rights as any 'fathers.'
There are websites, forums, and numerous books on the topics 'How to Co-Parent With a Psychopath' and 'How to Co-Parent With a Narcissist.' Similarly, 'rights' cannot even be denied to individuals who have committed domestic violence and even child abuse.
Not only has the issue known as Parental Alienation, which rarely existed in the distant past, turned into a near-epidemic, many who are aware of the facts and complications do not consider the damage done to children and parents as reason to sever an alienator's rights, either.
The first I ever heard of any of this: a story about a middle-aged physician in a local newspaper. I was partly interested because the physician had been a family member's doctor in the past, but also because the entire subject was new to me. However, the physician's story was much different from what we're encountering these days: the couple had been married for many years, during which time he'd been an in-person presence in his children's daily lives; and the complaints he had was not about his ex-wife, it was about his children's school- as he was not the custodial parent, the school was denying him access to the children's school records. Logically, he was well within his rights to make an issue of this.
How or why have times changed? Long ago, I was given what was probably confidential information: I knew a person who had worked for many years in a Social Services department, and was shocked even then by what I was told. The Social Services department had something they called 'Good Cause.' When a custodial mother applied for any type of assistance, she was routinely asked if she had good cause for not involving the absent father. She was also offered the opportunity to obtain backup proof, such as medical records, police records, etc. The employee let me in on the scam- how both custodial mothers and absent fathers were scammed by 'Good Cause.' First, the subject was presented in a manner that led mothers to believe the absent fathers would not be contacted; in the most extreme situations, they had a false sense of security that they and their children were safe because the individuals did not know where they were. The mothers were never told the individuals were contacted behind their backs, and forced to pay monthly 'support.' Second, absent fathers were scammed, too- individuals who grudgingly dipped into their wallets each month to send 'child support' checks clearly assumed the checks were exactly what they implied: that the money went to the mothers to put toward the children's expenses. They did not know the mothers never saw the checks, and didn't even know about it. Child support checks were kept by the Social Services department as partial repayment for the assistance the department provided to the mothers and their children.
From this knowledge and time-frame, this set the entire ball of insanity into motion. As only one example, I ran into a 'fathers rights' forum that was absolutely mindboggling: not one post expressed any love or concern for the children; instead, there were two themes: 'getting back' at the women, and/or 'if I have to pay for the kid, I'm gonna have the kid!' In other words, resentment over the financial responsibility for children they cared nothing about.
And it may bear noting that not once over the years/decades did I ever hear any single/custodial mother state that she wanted child support- women did not start this, government agencies did, and the government agencies have had no concern for the safety and well-being of mothers and children. To the agencies, it's all about money- regardless of the consequences to the individuals involved. It was bad enough decades ago, but when it's come to the extreme of granting 'parental rights' to rapists, and groups claiming males should have the legal right to force girls/women to have abortions, the consequences are too much to tolerate. I've even read a couple of cases where judges incarcerated preteens in juvenile facilities because the kids did not want to abide by 'visitation' requirements.
And the younger people are, the less likely they are to know it was not always this way. Young parents were not always advised or pressured to stay single and live apart if they wanted to 'parent' their child; but individuals who did not want to be parents were not forced to be financially 'responsible' either. The radical changes in both of these factors has led to 'parenting' becoming an absolute nightmare to too many young people these days. Similar to various other topics, it's a matter of 'we didn't see any of this coming.' So now we have those in power- from a family law website claiming men should have Roe v Wade rights, to a Ph.D claiming it's perfectly acceptable for (as he worded it) individuals to 'refuse to marry' their pregnant girlfriends and proceed to demand 'rights' as soon as the babies are born, to state agency websites aimed at teen 'dads' claiming 'You don't have to live with your child to have a relationship with him!'
The only way family life and the well-being of children can return is to a) eliminate child support in all cases except on a voluntary basis by parents who already had a solid, in-person relationship with their children; and b) stop encouraging young parents to live apart with the benefits and 'rights' they can have if they do not live together. Parents who truly love their children deserve better than 'the way things are these days,' and children do, too.