Surely America these days has changed from what it was 30, 40, 50 years ago. People who
grew up then will say many of these changes are not for the better. The list of current problems associated with failing government
programs and direction, and changes in the social structure of the country into an "anything goes" attitude and very little accountability,
seems endless. The changes in the "Good old U.S.A." have been documented endlessly and one wonders if anyone really cares. The list
of possible causes is just as long. A current paperback may be on the right track when it suggests an answer to "What has 'fatherlessness'
done to our country?" After all, the absence of a father in many homes may be the root of so many of the nation's problems.
These frightening statistics have been presented in the book, "Christopher Robin's Dad", by Christopher Robin Sr.
- 75% of youth suicides
are from fatherless homes
- 90% of runaways are from fatherless homes
- 85% of all children with behavioral problems are from fatherless
- 80% of rapists are from fatherless homes
- 76% of all high school dropouts are from fatherless homes
- 77% of juveniles in
state institutions are from fatherless homes
- 88% of all men in prison are from fatherless homes
The book points out that 90% of men lose their rights to their children the first day they enter Family Court during divorce proceedings,
and joint custody is "very rare anywhere in the United States." I wonder how many people, other than those who go before a Family
Court judge, are aware that "judges and lawyers have total power over the lives of families, and judges most often give custody to
mothers. Boyfriends of the mother can see the children anytime, but the father can only see them when the judge says he can." Isn't
there something wrong with that system?
"There are reportedly over 10,000,000 fathers
and grandparents in the USA today who are not allowed to see their children or grandchildren on birthdays, Christmas, Father's Day
and other holidays." This kind of "justice" seems strange when you consider that the right to Trial by Jury is missing. The Family
Court judge has the power to take away your property, driver's license, business license, anything else he wants. And they are immune
from retribution. Their is no right to fight their decisions.
Christopher Robin Sr. relates
his own personal voyage through divorce by pointing out that some mothers, who gain custody of children in a proceeding, can for some
bizarre reason easily flaunt the system by withholding the children from the father by not letting them speak to their father on the
phone, telling lies about the father, misusing child support, moving far away from the father, disobeying court orders, or replacing
the father with another man or woman. Custody given to the mother often happens even when evidence is given that the quality of life
and family values of the mother are obviously in question, or even that the father would provide a better environment for the children.
Of course, the book is not suggesting that all mothers are vile creatures who plot against
their former ex's obvious innate right to share the upbringing of their children. Nor is it suggesting that every father has the best
interests of his children in mind. It is talking about a loving father who wants to have equal impact on his children but who is stymied
by judges he calls "clowns in gowns" who regularly take away 90% of any rights a father should have, and too often a mother spitefully
takes advantage of the insane court rulings.
The book asks, "Why can't the Family Court
judge, in divorce proceedings, show simply that it's the Court's purpose to see that children have both parents, if possible, at least
to share equal time with them, and to make sure that what is done is best for the children."
Isn't it obvious that if family separations were handled better, there would be a more stable family oriented environment? Isn't it
obvious that a loving father has as much right to share the raising of children as a loving mother does, and even more right if the
mother is not capable of doing so? The internet is full of cases of Family Court corruption, and we all have heard, I'm sure, where
fathers have been shut off from their children for no other reason than that they are fathers. It seems obvious to me that handling
divorce cases in a saner manner, giving both parents custody rights, would contribute as much as anything else towards solving many
of the social ills and frustrations and problems in the country today?
marriage often sign pre-nup agreements to try to avoid long drawn out battles over money if a divorce pops up. The book's author sees
no reason why pre-birth and post-birth agreements couldn't also be drawn up to see that the best interests of the children are accounted
for in the case of a divorce or separation.
With the dawn of same-sex marriages, I wonder
what the outcome will be when two men marry, then file for divorce, and they have children, by adoption or some other procedure. In
this case, in the absence of a mother, how will the determination be made as to who has primary custody? The judges couldn't almost
automatically assign custody to a mother, as they do now, since there is none. Or, as has happened so often lately, would there be
a push by the "anything goes" crowd to change the definition of "mother", as was done for "marriage", "gay", "rainbow", and other
words. Judges might have to put some thought into their decisions, which would be a welcome change. Surely the Family Court would
balk at investigating the situation and doing what is right, as they don't do that now in traditional marriages, so the scenario in
same-sex marriage divorces could be a disaster waiting to happen.
There may not be unanimous
agreement on solutions involving the effects of divorce on children as handed out by a flawed Family Court system. But it seems strange
to me that we never hear about any attempts to correct what is a virtual nightmare in our society, one that profoundly affects what
is happening to our values and behavior trends in the country. "Christopher Robin's Dad" is not suggesting that a father who does
not show that he wants to do what is best for the children should have custody of them. His point is, according to studies, the mother
in a divorce is given custody solely because she is the mother rather than whether she deserves custody or not, thus shutting out
the father from having a hand in the upbringing of the children. A loving father is as important as a loving mother in raising children
to their best potential. That's a fact and any judge that does not see that should not be judging. Period.
Lastly, have you ever heard a tale of a father gaining custody of a child during a divorce proceedings where a mother was ordered
to pay child care to the father but got behind in her payments, then was summarily arrested, handcuffed, and led to jail and was sentenced,
without a trial, to sell her belongings, if need be, to cover the payments in arrears? Christopher Robin Sr. had that happen to him,
and has been active in the group Father's Rights Activists for family rights. In his book are accounts of atrocious acts and decisions
made by the Family Court system that are hard to believe. And at the writing of his book, The Family Court system has bankrupted him
and he has not seen his son for 19 years.