Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Australia - New Law

"On May 22, 2006, Australia passed the "Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006" making both parents responsible for decisions about their child through the concept of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’, but did not order that the child must spend equal amounts of time with each parent.[84]"

This is in agreement with the linked document.

However, in the absence of parental agreement, the law requires judges to order 50/50 shared custody unless it is not practical and not in the best interest of the children. This was clearly written in the law (which was previously linked); a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting was created. This is not communicated in the article.

"Fathers' rights group...step in right direction...disppointment"

The "disppointment" of a fathers' rights group is not linked to the final law, but rather to what the Senate had passed prior to the enactment of the final law. They may (but may not) be one in the same. The disappointment expressed by the fathers' rights group is based on the strong belief in the bias of family court judges. I wonder if judges are required to officially document why they did not order 50/50 shared custody.

I ask that that the quoted sentences above be considered for change.

Michael H 34 14:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following two sentences are from the article:

"Such laws require parents be directed to develop a mutually agreeable parenting plan. If they are unable to do so, judges order an equal time-share of physical custody between the parents, unless it is not practical or in the best interests of the children."

This is now the law in Australia (on a prospective basis). Shouldn't the article make this clear? Michael H 34 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I changed the sentence about the reaction to the Australia's new law, which contrary to the statement of the lawyer quoted in the link, prospectively creates a rebuttable presumption for equal parenting time.

Michael H 34 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: "65DAA Court to consider child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent in certain circumstances"

Michael H 34 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Link supporting disappointment of a FRG that the law did not guarantee equal parenting time:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/laca/familylaw/subs/sub40.pdf

Michael H 34 20:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Link for a description of the new law:

http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/14932.htm

Michael H 34 21:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I like the changes describing the new law. I'm done! Michael H 34 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Time to stop and think

A couple of things occur to me at this point:
Wikipedia is telling us that this article is too long, and I agree. I also think that we are continuing to fall into the trap of trying to add information about the issues, and not the Father's rights movement itself. As has been mentioned before, we need a good section about how the whole thing operates.
One thing that will help is a severe cropping the US section, cutting it down to a length similar to the other countries. At the moment this section is mostly about FRM issues/laws/polls, not about the FRM itself, though some of things (polls etc) can be mentioned very briefly, as they are in the other country sections. If the information is important then let's make a new page about the FRM in the US (though maybe it is more about family law in the US?) as already exists for the UK.
I am honestly getting very close to the point of suggesting a very severe pruning of this article, with the good information moved over into the related articles (such as child custody), leaving only very brief summaries here. There is way too but information about the issues themselves, and the problem is that these sections are getting expanded all the time. Let's put them in articles where such expansions would be welcomed, rather than causing problems.

BTW I have moved the information from the International section into Shared Custody which is was really about. --Slp1 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a series of proposed deletions. I agree that the section on the USA was too long. I believe that the article is much shorter now.

Should the details of the issues be moved while the critics' views remain?

Michael H 34 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Slp1, Please review the deletions that I made and revert as you wish.

If you see any additional information that you would like to move to another article, where it would be welcomed, please feel free or please let us know.

Best wishes and continued thanks,

Michael H 34 18:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Slp1,

Great job! Bravo! Keep up the good work!

Michael H 34 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Michael, Actually it is up to me to congratulate you for the ruthlessness and fairness with which you deleted stuff! As you will see I have returned a few things reworded, but think the whole thing is 100 times better than it was this morning. I am finished for the time being, but know that there are a few things in the air:

I have added some sentences that are not currently cited. I don't think they are controversial and know that they can be easily cited by me or someone else.
I am would still like the US to be more like the other countries, where the vignettes are given as examples of FRM activity rather just information. I have tried but not truly satisfied with this. Also it would be nice to get a bit more info on FRM history in the US as well as the major organizations, so that it could be more like the other country sections too.

There's a few more things, but they will wait! I think we are really getting somewhere now! Slp1 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Slp1, You've done well! Michael H 34 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Slp1,

I trust your judgement about removing the sentence about the potential effects of the adversarial system on involved fathers from the section on family court.

I don't know that much about the history of the fathers' rights movement in the US. I noticed that the US section is already relatively large. I'm not sure how to proceed, or whether it would be better for me to defer further changes to someone else.

If you prefer to replace this section with information that you believe would improve the article, please feel free.

Best wishes,

Michael H 34 Michael H 34 15:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Child Support

I resubmitted a few sentences to the Child Support section that had been deleted. I have no idea why they were deleted. They were relevant, cited statements that should have remained in that section.

I agree that the article was getting way too long. It's still too long. Hopefully, that will be remedied in the future.

Trish Wilson 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Slp1's rewrite was better than mine. Michael H 34 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Imprisonment is a last resort, after all other avenues of collection have been exhausted."

I do not believe that this sentence is supported by the provided link. http://www.childsupportenforcers.com/FAQ.htm

Michael H 34 16:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Wrightson v. Wrightson , 266 Ga. 493, 467 S.E.2d 498 (1996). The trial court’s determination of whether the obligor parent’s failure to pay child support is due to willful refusal or inability to pay will not be disturbed absent gross abuse of discretion.

"Hughes v. Dept. of Human Resources , 269 Ga. 587, 502 S.E.2d 233 (1998). Trial court abused its discretion in continuing father’s incarceration for civil contempt for nonpayment of child support after finding that the father lacked the ability to pay. The concurring opinion points out that the county in question did not have a diversion program, and because the father’s only way to earn income was through manual labor, he lost his job when he was incarcerated, making him quite literally unable to pay. See also: Pittman v. Pittman, 179 Ga.App. 454, 346 S.E.2d 594 (1986)."

http://law.gsu.edu/library/index/bibliographies/view?id=178

Michael H 34 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] family law

There is much that is not included in the article.

In the U.S., bloggers have discussed

  • their anecdotal experiences and views
  • the importance of fathers to children
  • the reasons why women initiate "the vast majority" of divorce and separation, especially when children are involved
  • the negative portrayal of fathers and men in advertising
  • the differences in the words used to describe men and women who commit crimes
  • the recent initiative by child support enforcement agencies in putting information about "dead beat dads" on pizza boxes

I appreciate that not everything can be included in the article.

However, the section on family law is incomplete.

Michael H 34 22:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

notes

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/feb05/05-02-02.html

Michael H 34 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

An encyclopedia article need to be a summary and can only be so long and I agree with you that not everything can be in it. Especially as the article needs to be global in tone and avoid recentism. And of course, blogs are not considered reliable sources of information anyway. I think the main points are there. --Slp1 01:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being misleading. I have no plans on using blogs as sources! I'm handing off my thoughts on what is not covered so that I can join the beehive of activity at the article on the magnifying transmitter!

Your changes have improved the article greatly, but the family law section is missing one important point.

The members of the fathers rights movement challenge the best interest of the child standard.

more notes

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/site/news.php?id=43

Michael H 34 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Political influences on family court judges

Is this another topic worthy of including in this article? Michael H 34 19:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes:

"Although reformers criticize the election of judges in so far as it has the potential to erode judicial independence, appointing family court judges does not guarantee an independent judiciary. Family court judges are not immune to outside influences, as they are susceptible to political pressures brought to bear by the elected officials who make decisions about the composition of the family court bench."

"Although the “best interests” of the child is the overarching principle for custody decisions,27 “[t]oo often, gender stereotypes play a role in custody determinations.”28 With the advent of the father’s rights movement in the 1970s, yet another perspective on which parent is the preferable custodian has become part of the child custody debate. Owing to the substantial political activism stemming from the father’s rights movement,29 the political ramifications of a custody award, rather than the “best interests” of the child, may influence judges faced with a custody dispute."

http://www.abanet.org/judind/jeopardy/pdf/report.pdf

Michael H 34 00:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Certainly, statistics from the Family Court confirm men, on the whole, don't fare well when it comes to residence applications. In the 1998-1999 financial year, fathers were granted residence in just 19.6 per cent of cases." Bill Jackson, spokesperson for the Family Court, defends these figures. "The statistics reflect what the community wants. If the court started sending children to live with their fathers, it would be acting outside of what society expects."

http://www.mensconfraternity.org.au/?page=p3

Michael H 34 03:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"There seem to be networks of feminists tied in with every courthouse in Massachusetts who can create a media storm if a decision is unfavorable to them. Inexplicable decisions, nonsensical restraining orders, and gender bias in the extreme are the rule, not the exception."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Baskerville/stephen1.htm

Michael H 34 06:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] USA

More on Massachusetts

http://www.ejfi.org/Courts/Courts-10.htm

Michael H 34 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

http://www.massoutrage.com/dssdirtytricks.htm

Michael H 34 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

NH link: Article on Father's Rights in NH

MN Link: Center for Parental Responsibility

quilteresq 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fathers Are Capable Too, a FRG from Canada, includes an article about the Massachusetts DSS on its website:

The article is about the role of vested interest in the termination of parental rights.

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0004/mn00042d.htm

Michael H 34 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Shared Parenting and birth rate declines

On of the suggestions for changing low fertility: "exploring more progressive social values, like creating a shared-parenting norm"

Alternate suggestion: ‘We have to plan a major power cut or ban television, it’s the only hope we’ve got.’

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Working/wp-2000-009.pdf

Michael H 34 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] SLP1: Why do you allow yourself to remove other people's edits, instead of improving them?

Why would you remove material when you are first charged with improving material?

If you believe material is unsourced or original research, why not state {cite} and discuss this on the discussion page.

Don't you believe in good faith by other editors?

In fact, I cited the actual APA memo that states their position is "no official position". And I referenced their website that sells books on PAS and workshops on PAS. All of this is factual, linkable, and points to a non-POV conclusion that the APA does not say there is no such thing as APA, and that they have no official position.

More cites here: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/1109rosenthal.html

http://www.fathersunite.org/Letters%20and%20Articles/Freedom%20from%20Standards.html


The parental alienation syndrome is not listed in The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Critics of PAS are quick to point this out and consider its absence to support arguments that PAS does not exist. The facts are that DSM-IV was published in 1994. When committees were meeting in the early 1990s, there were too few articles in peer-review journals, and too few rulings in courts of law that had recognized PAS, to warrant a submission. Accordingly, I did not submit a proposal at that time. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did anyone else.

DSM-V committees are scheduled to start meetings in 2006, and the projected date of publication of DSM-V is 2010. The DSM-V program coordinator at the American Psychiatric Association has informed me that a PAS file has been set up. This, of course, is good news in that it indicates that the APA is taking PAS seriously.

In short, the material I added was accurate and not original research. It could have used a cleanup, that would have been an appropriate action for you to take.

It is frustrating to add to the wikipedia in good faith and have someone remove the edits without any discussion. I find your actions lazy and ask you to stop and first a) assume good faith, and b) discuss your removals on the discussion page before acting on them.

I ask you to restore my material and clean it up as you may desire.

thank you,

130.76.64.14 20:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Slp1 has worked very hard on this article and it is a result of her (or his) efforts, that the article has been greatly improved. Slp1 has been both very fair and very helpful.

Michael H 34 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hello 130.76.64.14, Welcome to Wikipedia. I removed the follow edit

"Defenders of Fathers point out that the current, official, position of the American Psychological Association on Parental Alienation Syndrome is one of "no position".[69] Since PAS is a relatively newly diagnosed phenomena, it is not unreasonable that the APA has no official position yet. It is noted that while there is no official position from the APA, that the APA Bookstore sells at least one book that describes how to diagnose PAS and determine its severity"Divorce Wars: Interventions With Families in Conflict Elizabeth M. Ellis, PhD; Chapter 8. Parental Alienation Syndrome: A New Challenge for Family Courts", and has offered workshops that also discuss the diagnosis of PAS and how to determine when it does and does not exist."session 133 Complex Issues for Experienced Child Custody Evaluators: An Advanced Seminar"

because it was Original research, as I clearly marked in the edit summary, which you obviously saw. Wikipedia's policies clearly indicate that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You had a good cite for the first part (the no position part) but nothing for the second that does not depend on original research and the specifically the sort of connecting of the dots that is not allowed when writing this encyclopaedia. The exact quote from the OR policy that applied is "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position".
Please avoid personal attacks. As you can imagine, I do not appreciate being called lazy and malicious (though you obviously had second thoughts about the malicious part-see my talkpage- for which I thank you!). I'm sure you realize that really is not my job to clean up or improve your edits! Another time it might be a good idea to discuss your suggested edits on the talkpage first, and that would have avoided some frustration on all sides.
As a gesture of good faith, I will readd the part about "no position" to the appropriate part of article, since that is well sourced at present. --Slp1 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) --Slp1 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but thank you Michael! Slp1 21:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is all well sourced and none of it was OR. Gardner discusses specifically why there is nothing in the DSM about it, and that goes right to "it being a relatively new phenomena so it is reasonable there is no official position yet". Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq. demonstrates that the APA does in fact sell book(s) on PAS and has workshop(s) on PAS and that goes to refuting the claim that the APA does not believe that PAS exists.

I do think your removal was lazy. And in fact, I do think you had a duty to cleanup the text before removing it, and of discussing the removal before removing it.

[1]

Perfection is not required

With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments.

Alternatives include:

   * rephrasing
   * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
   * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
   * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
   * requesting a citation by adding the {{Fact}} tag

If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false.

This is one of my pet peeves about the wikipedia. That "editors" feel free to piss all over and remove another's contribution when in fact one of the first policies is to make things better and not just remove.

So yeah, I think your edit was lazy and I think you do have a duty to cleanup text you do not like before you remove it.

In this case, you could have added some {cite}s and discussed the issue.

[edit] Parenting Time and Parental Alienation Syndrome

I made an edit to this section. Please feel free to edit or remove!

Michael H 34 23:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Criticism of Social workers and family court judges

This article concerned cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse accusations.

"The Comhairle remains committed to providing the best possible child protection services for children in the Western Isles."

"Plain English translation:'Watch out! Your family is next!'"

Criticism of "child kidnapping" is not reserved for Massachusetts (ironically, the witch trials occurred in Salem, Massachusetts - 1690's I believe).

"Do you know that some of the children kidnapped in The Orkneys, whose parents were proven innocent, have not been returned, as they were legally adopted by their foster-parents, and, due to the long (five years) time of unjust separation, they were adjudged to be so bonded to their new "parents" it was held to be "No longer in the best interests of the child" to be returned to their real families. If you are a member of the media, please, ask your editor if you can get out of the office and investigate this travesty of justice."

http://fathersforlife.org/cps/comhairle.htm

Michael H 34 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Analogy to Salem witch hunts made by fathers' rights organizer and use of the word hysteria:

"Alluding to the recent discovery of 300-year-old court documents in Essex County, Massachusetts, Charalambous drew parallels between the Salem witch trials and the current hysteria surrounding domestic violence. According to Charalambous, we are in the midst of a witch hunt that will appear prominently in historical records three hundred years from now, when our ancestors examine the courts documents of today."

http://www.fathermag.com/news/1782-boston01.shtml

Michael H 34 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Criticism of the government encouragement of false accusations of sexual abuse

Recovered Memory Therapy - A Father’s Story; interview by Robert Mann

http://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/december-1997/#Recovered_Memory

Michael H 34 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Technology and its role - anecdote about global spread of information; "Sexual abuse hysteria"

Men’s Hour Radio Programme has International Impact The following interview by Bob Mann on "The Men’s Hour", was broadcast on Access Radio Monday 13th October. Following the show, Mark posted this transcript on the internet to a group of New Zealanders who regularly discuss men’s issues.

One of them was so impressed that he posted it on "witchut" - a long-running international newsgroup that discusses sexual abuse hysteria. From there it was picked up by a Canadian researcher who sends a digest version of the most interesting articles on witchut to researchers around the world, so by Wednesday morning it was back in New Zealand waiting in Felicity’s e-mail.

The story was also sent to the editor of the Canadian False Memory Society journal, who we hear intends to publish it. It’s good to know our efforts to get the word out about this tragic problem are succeeding.

http://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/december-1997/#Recovered_Memory

Michael H 34 02:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Criticism of therapists and link to vested interest

These charlatans, these cheats, these defrauders, who have always falsely claimed to be able to read people's minds, simply created another piece of fiction. Another fantasy.

Why?

Power, money, status, court appearance fees, clients, workshops, touchy-feelie groups, salacious gossip, fantasy role playing games, fun, victimhood, friends, media appearances ....

And it put therapists back into the limelight.

http://www.angryharry.com/esShamefulTherapists.htm

Michael H 34 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


I don't know how to do it. Please feel free to archive this section and everything above it.

Thank you, Michael H 34 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


[edit] Legal recognition of social parents

Note: Members of the fathers' rights movement have expressed concern that legal recognition for social parents may allow social parents to obtain rights at the expense of biological parents.

http://www.gabnet.com/ep/ie/ldcr90815.htm

Michael H 34 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Th link is dead. There is split in the FRM concerning the rights of spouses and the rights of biological parents. I have no citation. Michael H 34 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Unwarranted Termination of Parental Rights and Adoption

Case from Canada:

[2]



[edit] Sources

We need to take a serious look at the references for this article. Many of the references are used to try to support original research, and many have nothing to do with the claims made in a particular sentence. --Justine4all 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justine, as I mentioned on your talkpage, I think that in this case father's rights websites are considered appropriate to verify the concerns and claims of the subject see WP:SELFPUB. Also when I have checked in the past, the references have generally been appropriate. Having said that, I agree with your questions about the "Women" section, which seems out of place and to contain non-relevant information for this article. I also agree that the initial section about what caused the rise of the men's rights movement is original research, nicely cited, but original research nonetheless. We need a reliable source that describes the social factors that gave rise to the FRM, not just references to the social factors themselves.
I plan to replace Justine's edits, partly because I think some appropriate references got deleted along the way (by mistake, I am sure) and partly because it is easier (!) given the multiple edits. However, I would like to propose deleting the "rise of the men's rights movement" and "women" sections if the problems described above are not sorted out in a few days.--Slp1 02:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with:

[edit] Background and history

The following is in the section titled "Background and history":

The fathers' rights movement arose in the 1970s as a result of issues regarding custody of the children in association with increased rates of separation and divorce,(reference: http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=75570) linked to:

I agree that all these things are important as background. In my own view however, the development of the fathers' rights movement began around 1990 - in the US, that's when the Family Support Act of 1988 went into effect. Similar legislation went into effect in other countries around the same time. Things got worse from there. Another important date - 1975, when the Office of Child Support Enforcement was established. Bureacrats in this agency who wanted more power and pay, and a well-paid private sector job to move into, are a very serious part of the problem. The growth in size, budget, and power of this agency is inseparable from the fathers' rights problem. Rogerfgay 08:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The fathers' rights movement is related to both the men's rights movement and masculism with some participants seeing it as a corollary to the women's rights and children's rights movements. It is also related to populism, as it often works against perceived government abuses of power. Its advocates see the movement's encouragement of shared parenting as complementary to, and not at odds with, equity feminism's goal of more equal parental involvement by both parents. However, some feminists and pro-feminist men hold that fathers' rights groups seek to entrench patriarchy and oppose the advances made by women in society,(ref: http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Staff_Students/staff_pages/flood.php) though members of the fathers' rights movement point out that their proposals help excluded mothers and they disagree that any substantial part of the movement is seeking a revival of ‘patriarchy’.(ref: http://www.fnf.org.uk/subs/dfes2004.htm) (ref: http://www.menstuff.org/archives/stoddard.html) Critics suggest that members of the fathers' rights movement cast their personal troubles as pressing social problems, lobby government for a legislative solution,(ref: Child support Policy in Australia: Back to basics? journal: Family Matters) (ref: "The Rhetoric of Rights and Needs: Moral Discourse in the Reform of Child Custody and Child Support Laws" journal: Social Problems, publisher = University of California Press) while members of the fathers' rights movement claim their opponents use the same techniques.(ref name="Fathers Movement or Family Rights Movement, you decide")

The first reference used (futureofchildren.org) is to an article that is supposed to show that the Father's Rights movement is a direct response to the increase in divorce. However, the article cited does not mention the Father's Rights movement. It talks about the methods courts have used to resolve child custody issues. The problem with the entire first paragraph of this section is that it is trying to make the argument that there is an actual "movement." The paragraph should be re-written to say the following:

The father's rights movement arose in the 1970's[citation needed]. During the 1970's, the rate of divorce increased in America, and as a result, American courts began to use a variety of strategies to resolve child custody issues.(reference: http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=75570) Some of the reasons for an increase in the rate of divorce has been attributed by father's rights groups to the following [citation needed]:
Father's rights groups hope to address the following:
  • The willingness and power of family courts to grant majority or sole custody to mothers
  • Increased societal problems which are seen as correlated with "fatherlessness".(http://www.gocrc.com/research/index.html)

The reference in the last bullet point no longer works - it needs to be replaced.

The second paragraph should be changed to include the following fact checks:

The fathers' rights movement is related to both the men's rights movement and masculism with some participants seeing it as a corollary to the women's rights and children's rights movements[citation needed]. It is also related to populism, as it often works against perceived government abuses of power[citation needed]. Its advocates see the movement's encouragement of shared parenting as complementary to, and not at odds with, equity feminism's goal of more equal parental involvement by both parents[citation needed]. However, some feminists and pro-feminist men hold that fathers' rights groups seek to entrench patriarchy and oppose the advances made by women in society,(ref: http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Staff_Students/staff_pages/flood.php) though members of the fathers' rights movement point out that their proposals help excluded mothers and they disagree that any substantial part of the movement is seeking a revival of ‘patriarchy’.(ref: http://www.fnf.org.uk/subs/dfes2004.htm) (ref: http://www.menstuff.org/archives/stoddard.html)

These fact checks are important because the article needs to establish objective, scholarly references that reflect these assertions. What makes the father's rights movement a "movement"? The numbers? A cohesive ideology? History? Is there scholarly, objective research to back the above claims up? Who knows?

--Justine4all 20:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects to this, I'll replace the text tomorrow. --Justine4all 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you wait a bit longer? I have a few suggestions, but it is late here, so I will need to get back to it tomorrow night sometime.--Slp1 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure! *waiting*--Justine4all 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Justine, for looking at all of this so carefully, as I think that good look at the article will be nothing but positive. Here are my thoughts:
The first paragraph, with or without your excellent revisions, is pure Original Research. As you note, the references source the "causes" mentioned in the paragraph, but none note that they contributed to the rise of the FRM, which makes the whole paragraph synthesis. I have had a quick look for other sources about the rise of the movement, but there are very few out there that would be considered reliable for our purposes. One just says that Wikipedia has a good article on it, which is rather amusing! [3] As a result, I believe the whole paragraph should be deleted in its entirety. A glance at the Maldonado article suggests it may be a useful scholarly source for some other issues about Fathers' rights, including possibly a word or two about its development, which would be good.
I agree with the addition of the fact tags for the second paragraph, since none of it is sourced at all. I think it would be okay to put the fact tags there and see if sources are found for a month or so. If not, it should be deleted too. What do others think? --Slp1 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. Since I am unfamiliar with all of the Wikipedia process, would you do the deletion? I'm sure you can document it better than I. --Justine4all 00:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's good! I have come to learn that going slow is a good policy on controversial articles. As some other editors have worked hard on this article, I suggest we give them (and others) another day or so to give comments and suggestions, (or even sources!) before deleting anything. Slp1 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic Violence

There are real problems with this section as it has been revamped in the last few days. The statistics that women are more violent toward men in domestic partnerships is an extreme minority view. I'm all for breaking with conventional wisdom, but to claim that women are responsible for the majority of domestic violence instances is, frankly, intellectually dishonest. --Justine4all 00:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a close look at this section, but I generally agree that the phraseology is point of view, even if the specific arguments are real (and do have some research basis... I forget the name of the researcher, but he subsequently disowned the way his research was being used by the men's movement). Looking back in the history I see what has happened, as two sections have been split and stuff added making it less NPOV. I am currently super busy in my real life, but I have done a bit of research behind the scenes and will try to add some bits and pieces in the next few days. My current focus is the section of women, which is rather weak and has not much to do with the FRM anyway. I have some stuff collected to replace it. BTW, Justine, I think you are doing the right thing by proposing changes and concerns here. It gives a chance to build consensus. --Slp1 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have failed to follow my own advice and have done a bunch of edits well beyond the Domestic Violence section. Hopefully the edit summaries are fairly self-explanatory though.--Slp1 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Just wanted to post a couple of external links and noticed the notice not to. It looks like there are a couple of external links that may belong in the reference section. Another section might be useful for publications, such as Mens News Daily and a few others that support fathers rights very consistently. I would also like to suggest completed research that shows where child support amounts should actually be; can't post the geocities address, but search for "Tutorials in Child Support Decision Theory" Rogerfgay 10:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole section needs a massive pruning. Thanks for your pointers.--Slp1 21:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

"One law reform submission produced by this organisation presented an agenda strongly supporting the concerns of the non-custodial parent, while other law reform submissions contained agendas sympathetic to the interests of custodial parents, either male or female. Other borderline groups include those such as Women Who Want to be Women or Women and Grandparents Treated Unfairly by the Family Law, who clearly claim to represent neither fathers' interests nor the interests of non-custodial parents and yet present an agenda that is strongly sympathetic to these constituents."

This supports the statement that some women support the rights of non-custodial parents.

Michael H 34 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here's why I deleted it:
the statement "Women, particularly the second wives of divorced fathers" was already there and makes clear that some women support the FRM.
Your quote is talking about what are parents' rights groups since they "clearly claim to represent neither fathers' interests nor...". They are listed as "borderline" groups that not really members of the fathers' rights movement based on the definition in this article.
The sentence in quote above supports the proposition that women join "Women who want to be Women". The way it is currently in the article suggests that these women are joining the FRM. The two are different in my view, and I imagine the women concerned would agree (confirmed my the phraseology in the sentence). --Slp1 12:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is a member of the fathers' rights movement? Women, described as belonging to 'borderline groups' who support parents' rights, thus support fathers' rights despite even their own claims to the contrary. I see your points though and I defer to your good judgement. Michael H 34 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following is from [[4]].

"According to these numbers, two households -- one providing for the children, the other a "visitor" who does not need to provide anything for the children -- can maintain their pre-divorce standard of living if they are able to raise their collective income by 15%. It is self-evident that it is impossible to create two households out of one with only a 15% increase in income."

Michael H 34 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The reason I deleted it was not because it wasn't cited (or true) but because I didn't think it added to the article much extra from what was already there. We have to be careful not to lurch into advocacy, and there are bit of this article that lean in that direction. It is also presumably very US-specific, which is a problem. Slp1 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the restored sentence is US specific. The following is from the other supporting citation from FACT of Canada:
"In fact, the Guidelines were constructed on the specific assumption that a child will never live in the support-paying parent's home — not for one day a year, not for 39% of the year and not for 50% of the year." Michael H 34 01:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

A citation in the Domestic Violence section ref name=husbandbatt/" generated an error because the information for this reference name was not included in the article. I wondered whether this citation was intended to be the name of the following citation, and so I tried to repair it by combining the two. This was probably not right since the resulting single citation does not support the following sentence:

"Critics point out flaws in the studies based on the Conflict Tactics Scale, and note the selective use of the statistics, since the studies also point out that men have higher rates of the most injurious violence and that women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured than men."

Michael H 34 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

You are right about your repair being not quite correct, but not to worry! The ref had been deleted which caused the problem. I have put the citations back the way they were. The various refs from Flood and Sacks support the sentences they were attached to, in my opinion. Slp1 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slp1,

Thanks for fixing that citation. I hope you are doing well.

I restored a citation referencing an article by RADAR. I submit for your consideration the idea that RADAR is a fathers' rights group.

The article includes the following:

A recent report from the American Coalition for Fathers and Children summarizes the situation this way:

"Given definitions of “violence” so broad and subjective as to be meaningless, a presumption of guilt that virtually guarantees conviction and punishment, the suspension of the most basic civil liberties and due process protections such as jury trials, … we conclude that the hysteria generated by the domestic violence industry has no proven basis in fact and that it is little more than a hoax perpetrated on the American public.20"

Best wishes,

Michael H 34 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, you are quite right to return the citation. I did a search for it but somehow didn't find it the first time I looked. I do wonder if page numbers on these long documents would be useful, though. --Slp1 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued problem with original research

Most of the writing under the "Main Issues" section fall into the original research category. I've proposed in the past that this be cleaned up. I will start posting rewrites on the Talk page. The re-write will be in deference to what the citations actually say.--Justine4all 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued problem with original research

Most of the writing under the "Main Issues" section fall into the original research category. I've proposed in the past that this be cleaned up. I will start posting rewrites on the Talk page. The re-write will be in deference to what the citations actually say.--Justine4all 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Under the category "The Family court system," these references the following references are used for these sentences: "They state that the system is biased against fathers. For example, father's rights groups suggest that courts help mothers secure child custody by granting them initial custody, creating delay and then denying changes to the status quo thus created, and by granting mothers unwarranted temporary restraining orders.":
*http://www.glennsacks.com/national_fatherhood_initiative_ads.htm
*http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmconst/116/11606.htm
*http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville9.html
*http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2005/MC_Gardner_Study-2_050710.htm
The link to the UK parliament publications does not mention "Father's Rights." I believe this falls under the original research category and should be deleted. More importantly, it is not clear to me at all that the term used above "father's rights groups suggest" is precise considering that the references site mostly individual commentators like Glenn Sacks and Lew Rockwell. The only references that uses an "organization" is the one for the fatherhoodcoaltion.org - and this is specifically to cite the "restraining order" issue.--Justine4all 07:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure of the relevance of the Lew Rockwell reference. --Justine4all 07:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The link or the material linked to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs Fourth Report may have changed.

The following is a link associated with the Committee on Constitutional Affairs Fourth Report. One of the FNF reforms was to prevent delay for the purpose of creating a defense of the status quo established by the delay:

[[5]]

Michael H 34 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I switched the links. Here's the previous link for reference:

[[6]]

Michael H 34 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Fathers Rights advocates are naturally at odds with the judiciary as the courts are antagonistic to dads who refuse to ‘go along with the program’ in child custody litigation. Judges often act outside the law to punish these dads by criminalizing them through contempt powers and usurious child support orders that cannot be met."

[[7]]

Michael H 34 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

comment Justine4all has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Slp1 19:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parental Alienation Syndrome

Has the following been linked to the fathers' rights movement? Should it be removed?

and that it has been rejected by some members of the legal community,[1][2] Critics claim that Parental Alienation Syndrome can be used by abusive fathers as a weapon against appropriately protective mothers in order to win custody.[1]

Michael H 34 02:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I added attribution to critics of the syndrome. Michael H 34 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] The Early Buzz on the Fathers' Rights Movement !

[8]

"When Woman is Boss"

"Colliers, January 30, 1926"

"The life of the bee will be the life of our race, says Nikola Tesla, world-famed scientist."

"A NEW sex order is coming--with the female as superior. You will communicate instantly by simple vest-pocket equipment...."

"The Queen is the Center of Life"

"BUT the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress."

"The acquisition of new fields of endeavor by women, their gradual usurpation of leadership, will dull and finally dissipate feminine sensibilities, will choke the maternal instinct, so that marriage and motherhood may become abhorrent and human civilization draw closer and closer to the perfect civilization of the bee."

"Imagination falters at the prospect of human analogy to this mysterious and superbly dedicated civilization of the bee; but when we consider how the human instinct for race perpetuation dominates life in its normal and exaggerated and perverse manifestations, there is ironic justice in the possibility that this instinct, with the continuing intellectual advance of women, may be finally expressed after the manner of the bee, though it will take centuries to break down the habits and customs of peoples that bar the way to such a simiply [sic] and scientifically ordered civilization...."

"We have seen a beginning of this in the United States. In Wisconsin the sterilization of confirmed criminals and pre-marriage examination of males is required by law, while the doctrine of eugenics is now boldly preached where a few decades ago its advocacy was a statutory offense."

Michael H 34 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34