Return-receipt-to: "glover" <glover@msmailgw1.arlut.utexas.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:01:17 U
From:         glover <glover@MSMAILGW1.ARLUT.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:      RE: Sexual Discrimination

I'm game, what can I do.
_______________________________________________________________________________
To: FREE-L%INDYCMS.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
From: Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange on Mon, Jan 25, 1993 3:00 PM
Subject: Sexual Discrimination
RFC Header:Received: by msmailgw1.arlut.utexas.edu (2.00/GatorMail) with
SMTP/TCP;25 Jan 93 15:00:15 U
Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 4360; Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:53:15 EST
Received: from PUCC.BITNET (NJE origin LISTSERV@PUCC) by PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU
(LMail V1.1b/1.7e) with BSMTP id 3230; Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:53:05 -0500
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:50:00 EST
Reply-To:     "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange"
<FREE-L%INDYCMS.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
<FREE-L%INDYCMS.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>
From:         a.hoffmeyer@ATT.COM
Subject:      Sexual Discrimination
X-To:         att!free-l@indycms.iupui.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list FREE-L
<FREE-L%INDYCMS.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU>

David Garrod writes in soc.men:
>In article <1993Jan18.104242.1644@actcnews.res.utc.com>,
 Bob.Clarke%bbs@actcnews.res.utc.com (Bob Clarke) writes:
>>  ....
>> Does anybody know what percentage of fathers get custody.  Both nation wide
>> and for the state of Ct would be helpful.  My child is 4 1/2 and I have been
>> told "not a chance".
>
>
>>From a survey of Indiana Court Orders, August 1992:
>
>Sole custody to mother  82.6%
>Sole custody to father   9.6%
>Joint legal custody      2.8%
>Split custody            5.0%   (Split custody is each parent getting
>sole custody of at least one child.)
>
>For Connecticut statstics, I would suggest you contact one of the
>father`s groups there.  The Children`s Rights Council used to have
>a CT chapter: 44 Franklin St., Trumbull, CT 06611, (203) 452-9624
>
>David Garrod

In 1974 a man in Columbus, Ohio named Dave Jordan filed a suit against
the Franklin Country Domestic Relations Court for sexual discrimination.
He named specific parties to the suit--judges and referees.  At that time
the law in this state said that judges and referees were to award custody
to parents without any gender bias.  Amazingly, the judges and referees
were awarding custody to women in well over 90% of all cases--and there
was no such thing as any form of joint custody.

This case took about six years to come to loggerheads.  During the case,
it was submitted to the US Supreme Court on appeals.  The US Supreme
Court considered this a domestic relations case and refused to take it,
sending it back down for review at the Ohio Appellate Court level with
some direction.  The Ohio Appellate Court, in the end, recommended that the
defendents settle--otherwise they may lose and the case would have
far-reaching consequences, establishing a precedent which could sweep the
nation and cause widespread legal reform.  And NO ONE wanted that.

Yet, here we see a state, Indiana, that, just as every other state in the
US, discriminating against men with total disregard for gender fairness.
If women could illustrate that they were being discriminated against with
such disregard, and so unjustly, they would surely be filing sexual
discrimination charges against all parties involved.  And, they would win
these cases.

So, what I am asking, or suggesting is this:  Why don't we look at this
avenue of approach for correcting the injustices in the system?  Any
precedent establishing case could inspire reform throughout the country,
and, at the very least, it could garner much needed attention on the
plight of oppressed, divorcing or divorced fathers.

Is it unreasonabe to incorporate such a goal into the mission of divorced
fathers's rights groups?  If 52 class-action lawsuits  were filed
simultaneously in the states and territories, the courts and the media
would have to sit up and take notice.  And maybe, at last, the charade
would be exposed for what it is:  sexual discrimination.

Comments, anyone?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM

P.S.  Also posted to alt.dads-rights, soc.men, soc.women and misc.legal.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU