From: dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Men's Issues Newsbriefs #56
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:44:02 GMT
Reply-To: dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross)
Organization: Mousebat, Follicle, Goosecreature, Ampersand, Spong, Wapcaplet,                 Looseliver, Vendetta & Pang


	* An especially brutal anecdote of domestic violence
	* Unemployed dads find their unemployment benefits tapped
	  for child support.
	* Fathers' rights groups protest roundups of fathers who
	  are behind in child support payments.
	* What kind of reproductive rights should men have?
	* Moms, too, fall behind in child support payments
	* The child support laws in California are changing; who
	  is lining up behind which proposals?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

	From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
	Source: Boston Herald, 27 September 1992
	DIVORCE WASN'T ENOUGH FOR HER
	----------------------------------------
Sharmin Begum of Dhaka, Bangladesh, who was divorced six months ago, called
her ex-husband, businessman Abdul Motaleb, to their home last week, telling
him that their two-year-old son was ill.

But when he got to the house, a group of people jumped him and held him down
while she sliced off his penis with a razor blade.  She then forced the
screaming victim to hold it up before her laughing friends.  The woman has
been arrested.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     Source: Manchester New Hampshire Sunday News, 8 March 1992
     Original article by Pat Grossmith
     UNEMPLOYED DADS = DEADBEAT DADS
     ----------------------------------------------------------
Child support payments are just another victim of the continuing recession in
New Hampshire, according to a state official who surmises the increase in
collection cases is directly related to people losing jobs and applying for
public assistance.

"We've had an enormous increase in cases," said Frank Richards, administrator
of the Office of Child Support Enforcement Services.  The agency was
established in 1975 under a federal mandate dictating that all states must
operate child support services.

Under the law, Richards explained, anyone applying for AFDC must assign
rights to child support through the state.  It means that whenever there is
an increase in AFDC cases, then the number of cases in his office increases.
Those child support payments are made directly to his agency.  The first $50
is paid to the family with the remainder going to reimburse the state and
federal governments for its assistance.

"Even though the collections have gone up, the debt has gone up even faster,"
Richards said.  Perhaps the most telling factor is the amount of money the
office is now collecting by attaching unemployment checks.  Richards said his
office can attach up to 20 percent of a worker's unemployment compensation
check.

"Essentially, collections (from unemployment compensation) doubled over last
year and more," he said.  "It's a very smal portion of the total debt.  It
reflects on the troubles the payor is having and on the client not likely to
get the full amount.  It's an undesireable situation but at least it ensures
something is going to the child."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     Source:  Newark New Jersey Star-Ledger, 26 March 1992
     Original article by Brian T. Murray
     "DEADBEAT DADS" PROTEST ROUNDUPS
     -----------------------------------------------------
"Deadbeat dads are not dead.  We're alive and well and mad a hell,"
proclaimed about a dozen protesters yesterday in Morris County, whose sheriff
they blame for starting a statewide trend of rounding up parents who are
behind in child support payments.

"We're angry.  It began in Morris County, and so that's where we've decided
to begin.  Until the courts and sheriff's department want to enforce
visitation rights as vigorously as support payments, we have a problem with
the system," said Chuck Raverta of Lincoln Park, a member of the New Jersey
Coalition for Children's Rights.

The marchers, all members of the organizqtion, were protesting the practice
of jailing parents, usually fathers, who fall behind in child support
payments to their ex-spouses.  Many contend the payments are not limited to
child support, but spouse support as well, and that the court-determined
payments are too often far beyond what the parent is able to afford.

"It's not just an issue of money, although the courts seem to thin so," said
Raverta, who spoke for the group as it marched outside the county jail and
courthouse in Morristown, vowing to continue marches elsewhere in the state.
"It's a matter of the relationship between a child and the non-custodial
parent.

"While the courts are busy enforcing support payments, they are not as
diligent in enforcing the rights of the non-custodial parents to see their
children.  How many times has [Family Court] Judge [Marianne Espinosa] Murphy

put a mother in jailfor refusing to let a father see his kids?  Never.  That
never happens," said Raverta.

Other fathers in the march contended it is difficult to meet some of the
court-ordered payments and still be able to support themselves.  People on
middle incomes and less are being asked to support two households and cannot,
said Raverta.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     Source: Christian Science Monitor, 16 April 1992
     Original article by Arthur B. Shostak
     REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FOR MEN
     ------------------------------------------------
After nearly two decades without legal standing, the male partner seeking
some say over a fetus he helped father may finally get some.  If and when the
Supreme Court returns abortion lawmaking to the states, men may be granted
unprecedented legal rights.

Roe v. Wade ruled that only a female and her physician had a right to resolve
how a pregnancy would end.  Since then a handful of distraught lovers,
fances, and husbands have sought injunctions to delay or prevent an
abortion.  Appellate courts and the high court itself contend these males
lack standing, though some judges express sympathy.

Four male rights will soon be debated and require resolution.  They encompass
four controversies that males and females cannot begin discussing separately
and together soon enough.

     * Spousal prenotification -- A component of the 1991 Pennsylvania law
now before the court [DG - this part of the law wasruled unconstitutional
subsequent to the publication of this article], raises the question of
whether a wife's right to privacy outweighs her husband's right to advanced
knowledge of an abortion.  Backers of prenotice point to public opinion
support among both genders.  But opponents note that almost all wives already
involve their spouse in the decision.  Other wives fear bodily harm or mental
abuse from their anti-abortion spouses, some of whom may not be the
biological father.

     * Spousal consent - grants a husband a veto over his wife's desire to
terminate her pregnancy.  Proponents hail this as a way to protect the
unborn, while opponents equate it with biological "slavery."  They insist
"compulsory pregnancy" would require medical imprisonment, and detect in it a
hatred of women.

     * Child support exemptions -- allow a male to escape court-ordered
payments if he had urged an abortion and forsworn any role in the child's
upbringing.  Proponents insist no male should pay the cost of rearing a chid
whose birth he opposed.  Others repeat the adage "those who play should pay."
They warn that allowing males a "free ride" will undermine their vigilance in
contraception and unfairly shift all costs of child-rearing by indigent women
to the taxpayer.

     * Parity proposals -- the least well known of post-Roe prospects,
exposes a bias of courts against unwed males.  Over and over again, the fact
that a male is not married to the expectant mother has been cited with
derision in dismissing a plea to enjoin a contested abortion.  Proponents
applaud this as consistent with the state's interest in rewarding couples who
marry before they conceive.  Opponents insist this bias ignores the
popularity of living together as a marriage alternative, and argue that an
unwed male should have as much right as a husband to protect the life of a
child he has co-conceived.

Nearly 30 years of research into the male role in abortion persuades me that
the resolution of these four post-Roe controversies can work to reduce the

number of abortions, and, in fact, enhance the way couples relate before and
after confronting an abortion.

Spousal prenotification laws, for example, would send a message that society
expects both partners to share responsibility for the decision to terminate a
pregnancy.  These laws, however, should contain a "back door" provision to
permit a judge in chambers to waive the requirement for women endangered by
irrational, out-of-control males.

Rejection of spousal conset laws would signal the nation's unqualified
rejection of male supremacy doctrines.  Because a pregnancy directly impacts
a woman's health and lifestyle, its disposition must be her decision, free of
coercion by parties of any and all persuasion.

Passage of laws providing males an escape from child support payments has
superficial appeal.  It would pressure females to upgrade their contraception
choice.  But as it would relax this same pressure on males, it is far too
sexist and one-sided to warrant enactment into law.

Quite different is the case that can be made for equalizing the standing in
court of unwed and married males.  The practice of punishing the former and
favoring the latter in contested abortion (and adoption) matters is outmoded,
one-sided, and overdue for reform.  Second-class citizenship for unwed males
is out of step with our changing times.

Taken together, these public policy options offer Americans a precious
opportunity to redefine the entire abortion scene.  here we once termed it
solely a woman's problem, we should view it as a dilemma experience by a
twosome who should share equally in preventing an unwanted conception.

Where we once shunted the male to the side, we could invite him to shoulder
responsibility, albeit in full recognition of the female's right to
ultimately resolve the matter.  And where we once focused only on abortion's
dark side, we should dwell instead on how couples can use their abortion
experience to achieve a finer intimacy ad a healing reconciliation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     Source: Denver Colorado Rocky Mountain News, 5 April 1992
     Original article by Linda Castrone
     SOME STATISTICS ON MOMS, DADS, AND CHILD SUPPORT
     ---------------------------------------------------------
Only 11% of all divorced fathers have primary custody of their children, and
only 7% of their ex-wives have been ordered to pay them child support.  A
study done in 1990 by Denver's Center for Policy Studies found that only half
the men who get custody of their children get child-support awards.  Only 18%
of all women with custody have no child support order.

Half of those without support orders said they didn't want them because they
were able to support their children without help.  Those who did get support
averaged $138 a month, or 70% of what the average female parent is awarded.

The Center found that womens payment records were similar to mens, with about
a third paying the full amount due, a third paying part of it, and a third
paying nothing.  About 5% of the cases referred to the state Child Support
Enforcement Division concern women who fail to pay their support obligations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

     Source: Los Angeles Times, 24 September 1992
     CHILD SUPPORT BILLS PENDING IN CALIFORNIA
     --------------------------------------------
Shelia James Kuehl, managing director of the California Women's Law Center is
upset.  Recently, Pete Wilson signed a bill, sponsored by State Senator Gary
Hart, which eliminated the section of California's child support law that

allowed the noncustodial parent to pay less support if s/he was taking care
of the child part of the time.

Kuehl writes that "the outcry from 'father's rights' groups and, amazingly,
from male judges and attorneys, was loud, long, wounded and angry.  Because
so many men objected, and women didn't have a chance to support the new ida
because it hadn't taken effect yet, Hart felt constrained to water down his
wown bill.  The result is a new and less stringent version that went into
effect on July 1."

"Now," Kuehl writes, "men want to remove the weakened provisions and Hart's
desk has thousands of letters demanding that he reverse even the diluted
version.  At the same time, Sen. Charles Calderone has gleefully offered to
draft a bill to restore everything to the old system, so that California's
absent dads can return to paying as little as possible..."
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"The feminist perspective on relationships has become like flouride in water.
 We drink it without being aware of its presence.  The idea that men are jerks
 has become integrated into our unconscious."  -- Warren Farrell
Xref: sparky soc.men:17354 alt.child-support:3411 alt.politics.clinton:8526