PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label FATHER'S RIGHTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FATHER'S RIGHTS. Show all posts

Sunday, December 9, 2018

THE HATE FATHERS GIVE!

By Elizabeth A. Richter


have spent a considerable time now in the family court reform movement here in the State of CT and around the country.  What I find notable in the movement is the considerable divide between how father's behave and how mother's behave.  

Overall, mothers are generally challenging but open to discussion.  They are even kind and sympathetic to fathers, many of whom will engage with mothers and tell them their stories about how they've been oppressed.  

In contrast, fathers will be all sympathetic and sweet to mothers who agree to their father supremacist agenda.  However, should Moms not agree with them, fathers are very aggressive towards mothers and try to denigrate their stories of oppression, and deny the existence of abuse.  

Father's rights people require that you agree to their agenda, or else they become extremely hate filled and abusive.  

As an example of this, I thought I would share on this blog the kind of hate filled comments that father's rights people have directed towards me on Facebook.  

Now, I should acknowledge that I am a pretty straightforward individual.  There are many times when I've posted outright statements on my Facebook page that other people do not agree with. Most people enjoy challenging me on my opinions and exchanging views with me, and I usually enjoy that experience and learn a lot from doing so.  This is not true of father's rights people.  As you will see from the screen shots of the hate filled messages I've received, the level of malignant hatred among fathers rights towards Moms like me who don't immediately agree with them is extraordinary.  

See below:

Here are some comments father's rights people made suggesting that I kill myself.










Aside from the many texts sent to me suggesting I kill myself, there were a deluge of comments using the word "cunt" and "bitch" both public and private, and using quite violent imagery.  I would say I received well over a hundred of these remarks and I really couldn't keep up with the private messages I received so I just ignored them.  This kind of hate filled rhetoric is standard online towards advocates like me who are trying to speak up for Moms. 

Keep in mind as you read these comments that these are the fathers who are given preference in family court simply by virtue of being fathers.  These are the kinds of men who have been able to seize custody from good Moms using hate filled, psychopathic methods of legal assault with the collusion of an only too willing family court system. Now, I would not say that all Dads are like this--absolutely not. Many fathers are good fathers who work to benefit their children post divorce.Unfortunately, the father's rights movement has bred a level of malignant hatred towards mothers in their advocates which has garnered them the designation of being a hate movement.  

See additional comments below:


















Again, as I said, these comments go on and on.  I received dozens of these remarks simply because I tried to open a dialogue to discuss some of the more challenging aspects of child custody. I am posting these examples because it is important not to delude yourself when it comes to advocacy for family court reform when it comes to men. The hate that fathers feel, their fury that women are asking for their rights, their indignation that women will no longer accept being punching bags either verbally or physically appears to be boundless.  Be warned.  

While father's rights folks talk equality, the reality is that the last thing on earth they want is equality. The legislation they push, their agendas, the outcomes of their strategies show very concrete evidence of this fact.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT'S WAR AGAINST WOMEN IN FAMILY COURT!

In recent decades, claiming that fathers are endangered, and claiming to defend family values as embodied in The Natural Family, the religious right have attacked and sought to reverse the civil rights gains of the feminist movement of the 1970s. These groups blame feminism for the rising divorce rate, the plethora of single family households, and many social ills such as crime, poverty, mental illness and homelessness.  In doing so, they deny the existence of racism and the role of economic injustice.  

The Conservative right have waged a crafty, well financed, and highly organized war against women throughout America using Family Court as a backdrop.  This war has been documented partially in the book "Backlash" by Susan Fahludi published in 1991.  

The primary method Conservative politicians and the Evangelical right have used to attack women is by creating a false narrative of father absence, claiming that it has led to many social ills which require remedial action on behalf of men.  This is a complete lie.

For an example of their ideology, just look at the May 11, 2010 Multi-Agency Memorandum of Agreement for the State of Connecticut.  In the preamble, this document lists a broad range of areas in which the authors claim that fatherlessness has caused the breakdown of American society.  Has any of this been proven? No. These claims are based upon a body flawed, misleading, if not outright fake research which was created by right wing think tanks.  This is the right wing's tried and true approach to manipulating the public dialogue with fake research.  For an example of how this was done in an attempt to deny homosexual couples the right to parent, see The Regulus Study, funded by and conducted by the religious right wing. 

While there may be a correllation between fatherlessness and social problems, this is far from showing evidence of cause and effect. What we do know is that the primary factor in outcomes for young people is financial stability, not fatherlessness.  Nonetheless, the State of Connecticut has used these detailed and unproven conclusions regarding father absence to justify treating fathers preferentially when providing services, despite Connecticut statutes that clearly prohibit gender discrimination. 

This is how easily such ideas have penetrated into the mainstream.  

Added to this, Conservatives have decried the demise of the patriarchal ideal of The Natural Family. In a 2016 article entitled, "The Family Courts Are Killing Our Children", right wing politician, Dr. Mario Jimenez, stated that the loss of The Natural Family is also responsible for the high rate of both homicide and suicide in American society.  What they really want to do is restrict divorce and trap women in abusive marriages.

So what is this "Natural Family" that he is referring to?  According to Allan Carlson and Paul Mero, authors of the book "The Natural Family" (2005), the term properly refers to "the natural arrangement of husband and wife, plus their offspring, as the most identifiable and important family unit for protection, nurture, and social stability." By natural arrangement, what they mean is the father is the head of the family and has sole authority. Within The Natural Family "the conjugal bond built on fidelity, mutual duty, and respect allow [their members] to fulfill their potential as human beings."  In short, "The Natural Family is the first and fundamental unit of human society."  Most of all, it is biblical and, according to right wing evangelicals, God has endorsed it, and therefore government should insist upon it for the welfare of all.

According to Christian theorist, Michael Brendan Dougherty, The Natural Family stands opposed to The Contractual Family, which Conservatives state has improperly replaced The Natural Family in modern society. Dougherty states that The Contractual Family occurs when marital and parental relationships are determined as a matter of choice, and not biology.  For instance, it can include same sex parents, grandparents with their grandchildren, extended family, as well as unrelated persons who consider themselves family.  Conservatives and the Evangelical right condemn The Contractual Family and consider The Natural Family essential to liberty, freedom, as well as mental, physical, and economic health of American citizens.  This is what they mean when they talk about family values.  

In an attempt to restore The Natural Family, to restore fathers to their positions as heads of households, and to restore the patriarchy to its status of privilege, Conservatives have pushed an agenda to support fathers within Family Court so that they have greater access to their children, frequently replacing and eliminating Mothers.  Sure, go ahead and assert your civil rights if you wish, Conservatives appear to be saying.  Fight back against domestic violence, and leave marriages with abusers, but if you do so, you will risk the possibility that you will lose all access to your children and end up penniless and homeless.  This phenomenon was carefully documented and exposed in Phylis Chesler's book, "Mothers on Trial:  The Battle For Children and Custody" (1986) and the situation has only continued on to get worse.

It would be foolish to underestimate the extent of the misogyny behind the Christian right's movement to restore The Natural Family. Essentially, the religious right wants an end to birth control, and an increase in large families with accompanying homeschooling. They look back fondly on pre-industrial society and look forward to restoring a kind of agrarian idyll centered around large families.  In the words of one writer, The Natural Family flourishes best in "the small home economy which should act as the vital center of daily economy." The very idea of The Natural Family is closely allied with the quiverful movement to which the Duggar Family belong, which is famous for being in TLC's reality show "Nineteen and Counting." If these religious conservatives had their way, women would end up being walking baby factories just like Michelle Duggar.  

Central to the success of this vision of family life is the idea that women should stop earning a living outside the home and go back to being housewives, leaving their men to support the family.  The movement opposes equal pay for equal work, and they oppose the market wage, i.e. a wage determined by the market, and support giving men a living wage, i.e. sufficient salary which a man can use to support a wife, and one presumes his very large brood of children.  One such article entitled, "The Death of Our Family Wage Culture" by Dusty Gates quotes both Pope Pius and Pope John Paul II as stating that pushing mothers to leave their household duties in order to engage in work outside the home is a form of abuse.  

Who are the enemies of this brave new, or rather old, view of the world, or this reenvisioning of the patriarchy for the modern world?  The Gay Rights Movement, The Pro-Choice Movement, Advocates for Contraception, Advocates for Sex Education, Children's Rights Advocates, Industrialism, No-fault divorce,  Sexual Liberation, Secularists, Intellectuals and Scholars, i.e. anyone with brains, Liberals, and most particularly relevant in connection to this blog, Feminists. 

If you think the Conservatives and the Religious Right who are pursuing this movement are a small, powerless minority, who couldn't possibly seize the reins of power and impose this sexist vision on American Society, don't kid yourselves.  Who is it that is behind the millions and millions of dollars that goes into The Fatherhood Iniatiative which is present in every state of the Union right now? Who is it that is behind all the millions and millions of dollars that goes into the Marriage and Responsible Parenthood programs? What about the billions that goes into these faith based initiatives?

In fact, in her four part series on homophobia in Russia, Amanda Blue Keating of "Right Wing Watch" reports that in 2013, through the World Congress of Families, these Christian Evangelical right groups developed a major political network throughout Russia and were directly involved, along with France, in passing anti LGBT legislation that, among other things, criminalized advocacy for LGBT equality. Apparently, the Christian right views Russia as the last bastion of defense in preserving the rights of the family

All of this is the brain child of the religious right, and all of the money and effort involved is poured into programs whose fundamental intention is to destroy Women's Liberation which they consider inimical to Christianity and Western Civilization.  How are they going to destroy Women's Liberation? By seizing control of children and making it clear that if women don't learn their place, they will never see them again.  

Still, the plot goes deeper.  According to Amanda Blue, when the Russian, Konstantin Malofeev spoke at the 2012 World Congress of Families, he held out Russia as the model for the world saying, "Now Christian Russia can help liberate the West from the new liberal anti-Christian, totalitarianism of political correctness, gender ideology, mass-media censorship and neo-Marxist dogma."  Is it surprising, then, that they showed up in the 2016 elections to put Donald Trump in power to promote just that agenda! 

While I was pursing this project, I wrote down the names of the organizations that make up this Conservative, Religious movement, and I will list them below. The majority of them are members of the World Congress of Families. It is by no means a complete list, but it gives you a sense of how extensive it is.

Alliance Defense Fund
Americans United For Life
Alliance Defending Freedom
American Family Association
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
American United For Life
Bradley Foundation
Catholic family and Human Rights Institute
Concerned Women For America
Focus on the Family
Family Research Council
International Organization For the Family
National Organization For Marriage
The Heritage Foundation
The Howard Center For Family Religion, and Society
The Rockland Institute
The Ruth Institute
The Sutherland Institute
The Witherspoon Institute
United Families International
World Congress of Families

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

REFLECTIONS ON THE TASK FORCE OF 2013: WERE FAMILY COURT ACTIVISTS BETRAYED BY FATHER'S RIGHTS EXTREMISTS?

Sometime in the Summer of 2013, Jennifer Verraneault, a family court reform activist, contacted me and asked to meet with me to discuss family court reform.  Her partner, Jerry Mastrangelo had been engaged in a lengthy court battle to see his three triplets towards whom he had inexplicably been denied access.  

A year prior, she had taken the free Guardian Ad Litem class for the State of Connecticut and had been able to obtain certification despite not being a lawyer or having any background as a mental health professional.  In fact, to my knowledge, I wasn't even clear that she had a College degree.  I had also tried to sign up for that class, but the CT Judicial Branch had refused me admission, perhaps because I did have a college degree.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

TESTIMONY OPPOSING SB #1049 FROM THE CT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE



Testimony Opposing
SB 1049, AAC Registration Fees for Counsel and Guardians ad Litem for Minor Children and Other Requirements for Certain Family Relations Matters
Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee April 17, 2017

Text Originally Located at the following link:


Good afternoon Senator Fonfara, Senator Frantz, Representative Rojas and members of the committee. CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) is the state’s leading voice for victims of domestic violence and those who serve them. Our members provide essential services to nearly 40,000 victims of domestic violence each year. Services provided include 24-hour crisis response, emergency shelter, safety planning, counseling, agency/staff training, support groups and court advocacy.

We oppose SB 1049

Sunday, March 5, 2017

CT FATHER'S POWER ADVOCATES SKETCH OUT A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO CRUSH MOTHERS IN CT FAMILY COURT!

The Commander, "The Handmaiden's Tale"
The way Fathers in CT want things to be!
In Margaret Atwood's dystopic novel "The Handmaiden's Tale", a series which airs soon on Hulu, women have been reduced to baby making machines in a society where men have seized full political control  of the entire United States.  Impossible?  Unlikely?  Don't be so sure.

"Handmaidens" whose sole purpose is to give birth
in Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale"
Recently, I was at the Legislative Office Building with some friends when a person showed me current 2017 legislative proposals, which, appallingly enough, sketch out a strategic plan that will essentially crush mothers in Family Court and lead to a situation where men seize control of family court processes and essentially remove mothers from the lives of their children in droves. 

Saturday, March 4, 2017

SHARED PARENTING PUTS MEN IN CONTROL AND LEAVES WOMEN AND CHILDREN POWERLESS!

By Doreen Ludwig,
Author of "Motherless America: Confronting Welfare's Fatherhood Custody Program", see link:
Legislating Shared Parenting Awards Male Control
Fathers have succeeded in expanding public acceptance of shared parenting; creating the impression that shared parenting is the best situation for children whose parents no longer live together. Shared parenting has become so culturally normalized that in the Fall of 2016, Time Magazine endorsed it in “The Growing Case for Shared Parenting After Divorce” by Belinda Luscombe, going so far as to quote the nefarious father’s rights activist Jeffrey Leving. 

Monday, April 27, 2015

ADVOCATE JOHN DIBIASE CONFRONTS THE G.A.O. ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF HIS ADA RIGHTS!

John Di Biase Jr.
17 Newton Street
Meriden,CT. 06450-4414
  
May 29, 2010
  
RE: Dismissal of my Discrimination 
Complaint
  
Dear G.A.O.:
  
                            I received a certified letter from our state's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities which was mailed May 24, 2010. My Reconsideration Request for my Gender and Disability complaint against the Ct. Judicial Branch of Danbury, CT. for discrimination in my child custody case for which I have trying to regain custody of my now 14 year old son.   I was a stay at home Father for three years from Dec 25, 1995 until January 4, 1999   when judge Howard Moragahn gave my ex-wife Elena Fernandez Di Biase sole custody of our   son.  She has used my disability against me for the last 11 years to keep me from getting either more time with our son or custody. I was never determined to be an unfit parent so why did the judge rule in her favor ?  It came out in the pendente lite hearings that our son in fact flourished under my care. No harm ever came to our son as claimed by my ex-wife and her legal aide attorney. I was never informed of my rights under the A.D.A. by  the court nor my attorney.
  
                  In fact myself and an ADA advocate William Mulready worked with the Judicial Branch to help them   come into compliance with the ADA.  There wasn't proper notification at the time of my hearings and there were no ADA coordinators at the court house to assist me. There was only one ADA coordinator in the state for the Judicial Branch and she was located in Hartford,CT. at the Human Resources department for employees not for the general public. One notice the Judicial Branch had was in the court in Litchfield,CT. didn't even have the correct address on it. We got them to correct that when we noticed the neglect.  William  Mulready's case was in Litchfield Court. His family was also a special needs family and he wasn't aware of his Rights either at the time of his case and trial.
  
              This neglect by the state of Connecticut has a disparate impact on thousands of disabled persons going though the civil and criminal court system for many years in the past.
  
              Our states practice of giving custody to women more than 90 % of the time is an act of prima facie act of discrimination and has a disparate impact on men and parents with disabilities.
  
              Our states office of  O.P.A. also  refused me legal representation in my case as I am unable to adequately represent myself because of my hidden disabilities. I have been abused and discriminated by a number of judges over the last 11 years.  Twice the courts have taken away my right to file motions without the permission of the court.  The court is more concerned about winning legal battles against me than seeing that my son's best interests are protected which means that he is given equal access to both his parents. I was our sons primary  caregiver for the three most important, informative years of his life, from birth until he was three years of age. He has suffered much psychological harm because of the deprivation of his father and because of the alienating behavior of his mother.
  
  
               I also filed a complaint with the D.O.J. to no avail.  My CT. C.H.R.O. number is 0920396 It was dismissed because they say I was two days late filing my Reconsideration Request. I though that we had filed it on time. Again, the state cares more about winning legal battles against me than seeing I receive justice.  Also I filed a discrimination complaint against the Meriden Police department and CT.'s D.C.F for illegal home invasion and our Attorney General got the case dismissed, again another case of injustice.
  
  
Yours Truly,
  
John  Di Biase

Thursday, April 16, 2015

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTS STATES ARE SHIFTING CUSTODY LAWS TO FAVOR MEN!

Reporter Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal reports as follows:
"Some of the biggest battles over child custody are playing out not in courtrooms, but in statehouses.
Prompted partly by fathers concerned that men for too long have gotten short shrift in custody decisions, about 20 states are considering measures that would change the laws governing which parent gets legal and physical control of a child after a divorce or separation.
The laws generally encourage judges to adopt custody schedules that maximize time for each parent. Some of the measures, such as those proposed in New York and Washington state, take an additional step by requiring judges to award equal time to each parent unless there is proof that such an arrangement wouldn’t be in a child’s best interests. 
Critics of these bills contend that they threaten to take discretion away from judges and risk giving leverage to abusive men. They also say the laws are poorly targeted because typically the only custody cases that end up in court are ones in which former spouses are too hostile toward each other to effectively practice shared parenting anyway."
For the rest of the article, please click on the link below:

Monday, March 9, 2015

WALL STREET JOURNAL REPORTS CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS DOWN!

According to          
"With little public attention, the Obama administration has been changing America’s child-support enforcement. The most recent Census Bureau report found that in 2011 fewer than 50% of single mothers had child-support orders—down from almost 60% in 2003. At least part of this decline reflects the administration’s shifting the focus from helping single parents with children toward helping absent parents who say they can’t afford payments. This is good news for delinquents, but bad news for children already coping with not having two parents at home.

Making absent parents (usually fathers) provide financial help for their children used to have bipartisan support and plenty of media attention. Begun in 1975 and strengthened by the 1996 welfare reform, child-support enforcement is one of the few antipoverty programs that stresses personal responsibility over government dependency. State child-support enforcement agencies—with federal funding—use wage garnishments and other techniques to hold absent parents responsible for contributing financially to the care of their children."

For more on this topic, please click on the link below:


Monday, January 12, 2015

DETERMINED NEW JERSEY MOTHER, KARIN WOLF, FIGHTS FOR HER CHILDREN IN FEDERAL COURT!

Karin Wolf, a New Jersey resident and mother of two, has filed A federal lawsuit against Judges of the Bergen County Family Court, and N.J. Appellate Court,  Governor Chris Christie, the State of New Jersey, DYFS caseworkers, Court Vendors, and others requesting damages and declaratory and injunctive relief in connection to her custody case. 

Ms. Wolf, who is a victim of domestic violence, and who obtained a divorce decree based upon charges of extreme cruelty against her ex-husband, brings her case under U.S. Code Title 42 Secs. 1983 and 1985, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18  U.S. Code Secs.  1961-1968, and the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951.  She is among many family court litigants throughout the country who have come to see the family court system as being in the center of a racket that conspires to take children away from fit mothers and transfer them over to the full custody of their abusers. 

As Karin Wolf explains in her Complaint, "Defendants are engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity and operating Rico Enterprises in the Family Court; through a calculated system of eugenics and social engineering; and dealing in obscene matters of human trafficking, child pornography and child prostitution, for motives both economic and non-economic." 

In her Complaint, Ms. Wolf talks about state government actors and court operatives acting in such a way as to "pre-determine the winner" in family court cases without due process as happened in her case.  She also complains that the family court conducts itself in such a way as to impose a "pay to play" policy on litigants and to promote "conflict for cash" while engaging in "emotional blackmail."  I am sure all these terms are very familiar to victims of family court here in Connecticut! 

Further, I think many Connecticut Family Court litigants can recognize as a common experience how badly Ms. Karin Wolf was treated as a self-represented party.  She states that when she acted on her own behalf Court Personnel behaved towards her with contempt and denied her due process rights because she is a self-represented party who "wasn't and isn't paying money into a corrupt system of racketeering, influence, and extortion in the Bergen County Family Court." 

Like many of the mothers in Connecticut who face family court judges who are ignorant of the reality of domestic violence, Karin Wolf reports that the defendants in her case "used retaliation, threats, and coercive control" against her and "deliberately acted obtuse to family violence, ignoring and minimizing it to subvert and circumvent established principles, codes and laws on child abuse and domestic violence."  She also talked about how the defendants provoked family violence so as to subject Ms. Wolf and her children to ongoing intervention from court vendors who then made considerable amounts of money from those interventions.  

In doing so, they invoked Richard Gardner's quack theories of parental alienation as a means to label Ms. Wolf, remove the children from her custody, and transfer them to the custody of their abuser. 

When she tried to defend herself, the Court denied her access to the child support, alimony and attorneys fees which were necessary for her to obtain legal representation.  This was also connected to a policy of refusing to allow Karin adequate discovery. 

Finally, Karin Wolf alleges that the actions of family court professionals are aligned with the nationwide father's rights agenda which is working to "resurrect Lord Hale's Law and the Rule of Thumb, to assist fathers in hiding income and assets, and avoid paying child support, without any concern for their children." 

Ms. Karin Wolf's case is not unique among protective mothers who have ended up losing custody after years of harassment and legal abuse.  Ms. Wolf's journey originally began when she fled her marital home on September 29, 2006 after several incidents of domestic violence and obtained a final judgment of divorce under NJ Rule 2A:34-2(c) having established in court a cause of action for divorce of extreme cruelty. 

Nonetheless, subsequent to the divorce, Ms. Wolf experienced ongoing legal and interpersonal harassment from her ex-husband for years afterwards and finally lost custody of her two children to her abuser on August 30, 2013. 

She lost custody in a flawed proceeding where the Court allowed  her attorney, Alexandra Stremler, Esq., to back out of the trial moments before the hearing without any advanced notice and forced Ms. Wolf to proceed as a self-represented party even though the attorney had failed to appear with copies of her exhibits which were essential to the conduct of a fair trial. Even more troubling the trial proceeded forward despite the fact that Attorney Stremler had failed to submit the trial summary indicating what evidence and witnesses she intended to present to the Court which left Ms. Wolf in disarray just as she was required to proceed to trial as a self-represented party without any opportunity to prepare. 

Karin Wolf describes the presiding judge in the matter,  Judge Gerald C. Escala, as being "rude, intimidating, and contemptuous" and further she describes him as "belittling her attempts to present her case."  Many of us who have represented ourselves in family court have had similar experiences when we have attempted to defend ourselves. 

I have to commend Ms. Karin Wolf for making this attempt to take her case to federal court when the state court and its associated vendors and state agencies have so grossly failed to accord her the fairness, due process, and justice to which she is entitled as a mother and as an American citizen.  Even though she is a single individual, she is speaking for the many thousands and thousands of mothers throughout this country who have been falsely accused, harassed, bullied, and legally abused by their perpetrator ex-husbands, and become victim of our corrupt family court and child protective systems. 

I am aware that in federal court Ms. Wolf's Complaint will face a daunting round of motions to dismiss and we can only hope that it survives to the point where she can present her evidence and obtain a fair hearing.  I admire Ms. Wolf for her strength, her courage, and her determination as well as her powerful dedication to her children.  As this case proceeds through federal court, I will continue to report back on her progress. 

For more news and information in regard to Ms. Karin Wolf, please click on the link below:


Wednesday, November 12, 2014

THE SILENT EPIDEMIC: TED TAUPIER'S DEVASTATING ENCOUNTER WITH THE CORRUPT CT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM!

From "The Rebel Pundit", see the report below:

"Up until two years ago, Ted Taupier didn’t spend much time thinking about the meaning of his first, second, eighth, and fourteenth amendment rights, but as he’s watched all those rights disappear along with his parental rights, Taupier tells RebelPundit he’s had a first hand look at the cruelty of an unchecked and unaccountable court system."

For more information on this situation, please click on the link below:

Thursday, October 31, 2013

THE CT LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE ON FATHERHOOD!

For those of you who are interested in the kind of work being done in support of fatherhood in the State of Connecticut, please click on the link to the Legislative Task Force on Fatherhood which is below:
 
http://www.cga.ct.gov/kid/Fatherhood/default.asp



MEMBERS OF THIS TASK FORCE INCLUDE:

Sen. Gary D. LeBeau

Rep. Bruce V. Morris

Sen. Edward Meyer

Sen. John A. Kissel

Rep. Charles D. Clemons

Sen. Antonietta "Toni" Boucher