Talk:Fathers' rights movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fathers' rights movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Fathers' rights movement has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archives
archive 1 archive 2 archive 3

Contents 1 Citation 2 Sources and Citations 3 Custody 4 Suggested edit to the beginning of the Article 5 Interim Contact Orders 6 Shared Parenting 7 Overall look at this article 8 Disputed 9 Outline 10 Flood criticism 11 Outline - Intro 12 Discussion on inclusion of Australian Law on Shared Parenting 13 Editing Notes 14 Shared Parenting Section - Outline 15 Proposed shared parenting section 16 Proposed Shared Parenting Section - Continued 17 Proposed Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Section 18 Time out!!! 19 Updated Article Page 20 My evening's efforts 21 Bias against fathers 22 Child support 23 Starting 24 Domestic Violence - Page Numbers for citations 25 Recent edits 26 Introduction 27 Individual help and support 28 Criticism 29 references to "FR believe" in introduction 30 POV by selective paraphrasing 31 Name and other stuff 32 Individual Support

[edit] Citation

"Trish Wilson claimed fathers' rights activists "showed their true colors" by having "supported" and "excused" what Mack is alleged to have done." I don't like this double indirection in references. (Trish Wilson said, that others said ...; not to mention weasel words...)

(By the way: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060614/NEWS10/606140341/1002 is a broken link ) Zslevi 14:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What weasle words? It is made clear the opinion come from the critic and not laid out definitively as a fact from Wikipedia. As for the missing citation, it seems to have only recently deleted; it may either be in history or somewhere in the mess of links at the bottom of the page. I'm not even sure what that broken link ever was.NeoApsara 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Trish Wilson, writer and freelance journalist, holds that while fathers' rights activists claim they are "only concerned with helping dads see their children", they actually "lobby for presumptive joint custody (a. k. a. shared parenting), seek to reduce protections for battered women" and that they "want laws that would lower their child support obligations".

(1) The sentence states that the fathers' rights activists have a hidden agenda. Why? Is this true?

(2) In the sentence, something laudable, helping dads see their children, is counterposed against the goals of the fathers' rights movement, which are thus by implication undesirable.

Isn't it true that the statement is inaccurate because many fathers' rights activists do not claim that they are "only" trying to help dads "see" their children?

Isn't it true that most fathers' rights activists support a legal presumption for shared parenting, ask courts to consider evidence in evaluating accusations that are used to take more than half custody away from any parent, and are concerned if child support does not take into account fathers' time as parents?

Michael H 34 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That depends on the individual Father's Rights Activist, for which Wiki cannot act as a soapbox. What it can have is a something verifiable and information based on a consensus, not the opinion of any editor. As for the criticism, it is a criticism - not a "truth" as Wiki itself is neutral. It, like the rest of the article, depends on citations, verifiability, and its NPOV - in this case being written as the opinion of the critic, not of Wiki.NeoApsara 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, my problem with Trish Wilson's criticism, that she simply states (or suggests) that father's movement activists are simply criminals. I doubt that it reaches the wikipedia quality standard.Zslevi 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Trish Wilson's opinion included? Her clever use of language makes fathers' rights activists (not some fathers' rights activists) appear intellectually dishonest and at the same time she counterposes goals of many fathers' rights activists implying that the latter goals are undesirable.

Michael H 34 12:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so please be patient with me. This is the first time I've done an edit. I updated statements attributed to me, Trish Wilson, on the "father's rights" page. I also gave a source when one was asked for. I did not write the passages where I am referenced and quoted. I don't know who did. Since I'm mentioned, I figured it was best to figure out how to use Wiki and update the entry. I might add to the page, but I haven't decided yet. If I made any mistakes in updating the entry, Wiki editors please let me know. Please be kind. I'm new.  ;)

Trish Wilson 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I somehow didn't noticed the following part: "who included the story about Darren Mack in a letter to a legislator". So that the JFK quotation obviously referenced to Mack Darren's case. So it was Randy Dickinson, who have excused Mack. I retract my previous post about the "gossip party". --Zslevi 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"As with many social movements, some of the strongest criticisms of men's groups come from other groups and activists. Some feminists and pro-feminist men hold that fathers' rights groups seek to entrench patriarchy and oppose the advances made by women in society."

The second sentence of this section is inaccurate and is therefore inappropriate.

A Wikipedia article describes 4 categories of feminist beliefs. Feminists in one of the categories advocate an "emphasize are sameness" approach in support of gender equality. This is why the second sentence had to start with the words "some feminists." An undetermined number of feminists support gender equality and the fathers' rights efforts with respect to Shared Parenting.

Fathers' rights criticism by some feminist groups is too generic and paints the word feminism with a very broad brush. There is no telling whether a false dichotomy is created.

It may be more accurate to say that MOST feminists support gender equality and the fathers' rights groups.

In this section, the word feminism is co-opted by feminists from the "males dominate" category of feminism.

Many fathers' rights activists, including Will Farrell, call themselves pro-feminist. Their beliefs very much overlap with the feminists from the emphasize-are-sameness school of thought.

It is very possible that nearly all of the men who would call themselves fathers' rights activists are pro-feminist men. Almost all fathers' rights activists advocate Shared Parenting, not a return to automatic father custody.

Therefore, the second sentence, which begins "Some feminists and pro-feminist men", is inaccurate. Pro-feminist men, like Will Farrell, are fathers' rights activists.

Fathers' rights and gender equality are very similar civil rights issues and the entire Criticism section of this article has been inaccurately used to disguise this fact.

Michael H 34 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I tend to agree with your points Michael H 34. I dropped Trish Wilson a line on her talk page becuase unfortunately, her comments are referenced from a non-notable source, I've asked if she can provide a notable source for the material - if she, or nobody else can, that paragraph will have to be changed. Critcism must be specific and notable, just as article content should be. However Michael H 34, in relation to the above post, replacing SOME feminists with MOST or A FACTION (or such terms) is not enough. Specific critiques of the subject of an article are the only ones that should be mentioned in articles otherwise they introduce elements of POV. I will try to find such specifics myself but if anyone else has them please post them.--Cailil 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

She cited from Timesunion. Isn't it a notable source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zslevi (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The piece about Darren Mack is okay - that's cited from Timesunion (ref no. 37). The quotes from her are sourced from a blog (ref no. 36) - she probably has had these published in a paper but those sources must be referenced rather than a blog (because blogs are not WP:RS). Also the comments Trish Wilson, writer and freelance journalist, holds that while fathers' rights activists claim they are "only concerned with helping dads see their children", they actually "lobby for presumptive joint custody (a. k. a. shared parenting), seek to reduce protections for battered women" and that they "want laws that would lower their child support obligations". are uncited - they need to be referenced from a WP:V or WP:RS source, otherwise it looks like POV. I've found these comments in an article on alternet but once again this doesn't fulfill WP:RS.--Cailil 18:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Has a source been found for this sentence? Michael H 34 15:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Sources and Citations

Since there has been recently some controversy about the editing of this page, can I suggest that all editors are careful to cite sources for any additions that they make to the article? For those who need it, information about citing sources can be found here WP:CITE. --Slp1 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Custody

I would like to insert the following text into the custody section.

"In a non-binding ballot initiative in 2004, 86% of Massachusetts voters agreed that the best outcome of a custody determination is joint physical custody of children. The question was put before approximately 700,000 Massachusetts voters, approximately one-quarter of the electorate, with broad geographical, ethnic and socio-economic diversity. Approximately 600,000 of those voters recorded a vote on the question, of whom 86% endorsed joint physical custody."

"The exact wording of the question was, 'Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the court shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children and the children’s right to maximize their time with each parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing child support and abuse prevention laws?'"

I'm trying to get verification that would be acceptable to Wikipedia.

The following link is from the Boston.Com / Boston Globe / New York Times. It does not include a summary of the results for all localities. The bottom of the webpage shows that information is copyrighted. A link on the page shows the wording of the non-binding ballot question.

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2004_results/general_election/questions_all_by_town.htm

Here's a link to an article in the Chattanoogan that mentions the results of the 2004 Massachusetts non-binding ballot initiative.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_65642.asp

I don't know if this is good enough. Would someone be kind enough to let me know if these links provide sufficient verification? Thank you.

Michael H 34 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've given a first answer on Micheal H's talkpage but others welcomed!--Slp1 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Slp1 makes a good point on your talk page Michael H 34 - this info is really specific to the US and should probably be in that section. Other than that it seems fine to me.--Cailil 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael H 34 was open to this (see my talk page) and so I have boldy moved it into the US section. --Slp1 18:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's okay by me. Thanks again for your help. Michael H 34

"Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts."

This sentence is unsupported by a citation. What guidance would be provided in court regarding outcomes? Fathers rights activists object to the outcomes and would prefer the judges to receive clear directives from the legislature for a presumption for shared parenting.

"Fathers' rights campaigners claim that vested interests in the legal trade are politically operative to preserve lawyers' revenue streams from this type of business."

This sentence is confusing. Reduced workload for the courts contradicts preserve lawyers' revenue streams. The idea that members of a divorce industry have a vested interest in divorce is redundant since it is mentioned elsewhere in the article.

"Judicial powers already exist to endeavor to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children's lives."

Why is the word already used? In addition, the word contact (or visitation) is controversial and objectionable. This section reads like a rebuttal to Bob Geldof. Fathers' rights activists object to the idea that a judge is empowered to take more than half custody away from any capable and willing parent, regardless of whether a routine has been established.

If there is no objection, I would prefer to remove these 4 sentences from this section.

Michael H 34 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Regarding this statement: "Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts.", I can provide a footnote that supports it. The web page is about collaborative law. Here's the URL:

http://www.divorcesource.com/CT/ARTICLES/prince1.html

That said, there is a trend today for some courts to hire "extras", like guardians ad litem, custody and psychological evaluators, and parenting coordinators - all who make a lot of money from divorces and custody cases. That's where the high fees are coming from, not necessarily from divorce lawyers themselves.

"Interim contact order" and "visitation" are only terms of art. They have legal meanings that differ from the Webster's dictionary definitions. The term "visitation" does not reduce fathers to visitors. It only refers to the specific times the child is with the non-custodial parent. It has nothing to do with parenting itself. The word "contact" is not controversial or objectionable except to fathers' rights advocates. Some states have changed the language, but there are plenty of states who still call it "contact" or "visitation". I would like to see the "judicial powers already exist..." statement to stay in.

Trish Wilson 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added the footnote I provided above to the text of the article.

Trish Wilson 21:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding this statement: "Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts.", I can provide a footnote that supports it. The web page is about collaborative law."

I believe that these sentences would be more appropriate in a different section. Collaborative law involves more than custody. Fathers' Rights activists want Shared Parenting and this article is improved if this point is made clear in the section on Custody.

"Interim contact order" and "visitation" are only terms of art. They have legal meanings that differ from the Webster's dictionary definitions. The term "visitation" does not reduce fathers to visitors. It only refers to the specific times the child is with the non-custodial parent. It has nothing to do with parenting itself. The word "contact" is not controversial or objectionable except to fathers' rights advocates. Some states have changed the language, but there are plenty of states who still call it "contact" or "visitation".

Fathers' rights activists probably prefer the word parenting time to contact. However, the word visitation is particularly objectionable to fathers' rights activists. The use of this word as a substitute for parenting time reinforces the idea in the minds of decision-makers that only custodial parents "raise the children" and that the non-custodial parent (another objectionable term - the non-parent if you will) makes no contribution except for financial contributions.

I would like to see the "judicial powers already exist..." statement to stay in."

I propose the following as a replacement for the 4 existing sentences.

Judges are empowered to enforce custody agreements, and even when agreements have not yet been reached, judges are empowered, taking into consideration the best interests of the children, to order mothers and fathers to share custody of their children on an interim basis while the parents develop a parenting plan.

Michael H 34 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I invite all readers to please feel free to comment on this suggestion.

Michael H 34 15:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Suggested edit to the beginning of the Article

I would like to expand the following bullet:

• The introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s, resulting in a rise in divorce rates throughout the world.

I would like to see it read as follows:

• The decline in the power of religious belief to support marriage and the introduction of no-fault divorce in the 1960s, resulting in a rise in divorce rates throughout the world.

How can I make it so?

Michael H 34 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Can you find a reliable source for this? I realize that very few things have citations at present, but any changes should have references to support them. If you have, go ahead! --Slp1 01:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6816 Michael H 34 03:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be a bit wary of using the Catholic News Agency as a WP:RS source, on the grounds that it has a partisan point of view - if you there's another source it would be better.--Cailil 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interim Contact Orders

I just noticed that the paragraph about interim contact orders in the section about "Child Custody/Residence and Parenting Time" has been changed. The problem is that the changes are not supported by any citations. Here is the changed statement:

"Judges are empowered to direct parents to share parenting time, and even before custody issues are resolved, judges are empowered, taking into account the best interests of the children, to order an interim parenting plan, which can prevent the father from being excluded from the children's lives, while the parents develop their own parenting plan."

I would like to see the original statements reposted, with the following citations (keep reading):

Interim contact orders are common in the U. K and in Australia. They have to do with all kinds of contact orders, not only joint custody (a. k. a. "shared parenting") orders. Sometimes parenting plans are included with these contact orders, but not all the time. Focusing only on joint custody/shared parenting orders limits the nature of interim contact orders. I would like to see the statement about these orders changed back to the original, which was this:

"Judicial powers already exist to endeavor to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children's lives."

Here are three sources to back up that statement above. One is from the U. K., and two are from Australia. Wiki editors, please let me know if these sources are okay to use. Two of them are rather lengthy papers. Just look for "interim contact orders" in them to see the pertinent information you need.

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/resources/file/eb0012059e946e8/fla.pdf

http://www.custodyissues.co.uk/court_welfare_officers.html

http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(03995EABC73F94816C2AF4AA2645824B)~Contact+Services+Report0605.doc/$file/Contact+Services+Report0605.doc [note: this is a Word document]

I would like to add the following sentence to the statement, since two of the three sources mentioned contact and domestic violence:

"While interim contact orders have helped more non-custodial parents have access to their children, they have been criticized for prioritizing the non-custodial parent's access to the child over the child's safety when domestic violence has been alleged."

I would also like to see the following statement reinstated, since it is accurate and supported with a footnote:

"Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts." I can provide a footnote that supports it. The web page is about collaborative law. Here's the URL:

http://www.divorcesource.com/CT/ARTICLES/prince1.html

If the sources are okay, I would like to change the paragraph as it is now written to read as follows, including the four sources listed above:

"Where clear guidance is provided in a court at the outset regarding outcomes, the result is less hostility and a reduced workload for the courts. Judicial powers already exist to endeavor to ensure that continuity is maintained in relationships between children and fathers. Interim contact orders can be issued before the establishment of a routine that excludes the father from the children's lives. While interim contact orders have helped more non-custodial parents have access to their children, they have been criticized for prioritizing the non-custodial parent's access to the child over the child's safety when domestic violence has been alleged."

Trish Wilson 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I just had another thought. Keep the rewritten section in, but find some citations for it. Place the section I wrote either in the same section as the rewritten section, or move my paragraph to another section.

Trish Wilson 12:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shared Parenting

I would like to add the following to the end of the Child custody/residence and parenting time section. It clarifies when joint custody/shared parenting works, and when it doesn't. I have included sources.

Researcher Paul Amato had found that when parents have an amicable relations, children are likely to benefit from joint custody. However, when children are exposed to conflict, joint custody can be harmful. Most parents with joint custody arrangements had only one child. They were relatively wealthy and educated. They also were relatively friendly towards each other. These parents were friendly and cooperative before and after the divorce, showing it was the predivorce characteristics of the parents that reflected the postdivorce relationship, not the type of custody arrangement itself. Ordering joint custody between parents who could not cooperate with each other has been shown to be detrimental. Joint custody parents "had reported the lowest satisfaction with the legal agreement one year after the child custody order." Paul Amato had also noted the lack of satisfaction when courts order joint custody when it is not the first choice of both parents. He wrote that "in a large California study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that joint custody is sometimes used to resolve custody disputes. They found that joint custody was awarded in about one-third of cases in which mothers and fathers had each sought sole custody. And the more legal conflict that occurred between parents, the more likely joint custody was to be awarded. Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent."

The sources are as follows:

Amato: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/resolve/ncpreport/amato(1993).html

Other joint custody info: http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/SIPP/pt2.htm

Trish Wilson 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent."

In other words, parents that are willing to collaborate prior to a divorce are able to collaborate better after a divorce.

Michael H 34 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following section could also be included in relation to shared parenting. However, I believe that claims about the appropriateness of Shared Parenting are better suited to an article titled "Shared Parenting."

"This is a case where a shared residence order is appropriate. But it also demonstrates clearly that shared residence orders are not a panacea. Shared residence and an equal division of the children's time between their parents' houses is possible in this case because the parents live close to each other, and the children can go to school from either home. The children welcome it because, in C's words, which I have already quoted, it gives his parents nothing left to fight about. But it is a pragmatic solution, which does nothing to address the underlying hostility between the parents. Whether or not it succeeds, only time will tell."

"This case has been about control throughout. Mrs. A sought to control the children, with seriously adverse consequence for the family. She failed. Control is not what this family needs. What it needs is co-operation. By making a shared residence order the court is making that point."

Michael H 34 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Overall look at this article

I am concerned that this article is getting away from the topic at hand (Fathers' rights) and getting into long paragraphs about particular issues such as Domestic Violence, Child custody/residence and parenting time etc. I believe that most of this argument/research should be placed in the articles dealing this those specific issues rather than in this article. For this article the focus should be on (sourced) opinions about what fathers' rights activists say about specific issues, there also needs to be a critique/criticism for each short section (if appropriate) and at the end. Of course there would be links the specific articles where the issues are laid out in more detail. Any thoughts.--Slp1 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you.

Michael H 34 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I like the various points of view in the article. They give the article depth, and prevent it from being biased in favor of one point of view. The article is already divided into the fathers' rights point of view, and then criticism, either at the end of the article, or within each section. I think that both ways work well. Maybe the article just needs editing so that it flows better. I also agree that much of the article needs to cite citations. More than anything the article needs to cite its sources, and the sources have to be valid.

Trish Wilson 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Don't get me wrong, Trish, I absolutely think that the article needs both perspectives and to avoid being biased. I just think we are getting bogged down in argument and detail about specific subjects that would be better covered in detail in the relevant article themselves. Here should just be a summary of the arguments so that we can focus specifically on the topic at hand... what Fathers' rights issues are, as well as how these perspectives are criticised. All cited from reliable sources as you say! Slp1 03:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the problem with this article is that it has digressed from describing Men's Rights and what they believe, and goes into argument attempting to justify those views. That makes this article read like advocacy Decr32 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article reads like advocacy. It's going to take a lot of work to fix that. I'd recommend creating - here - an outline. Start with opening statements/paragraphs, then outlining describing Father's Rights with criticisms, and then a closing paragraph/statements. I think outlining what needs to be done will make the work needed seem less onerous. Trish Wilson 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

____________

The members of the Fathers' Rights Movement advocate for change and their major goal is a legislative presumption for shared parenting. If the article does not make this clear, then it should. Please feel free to comment on anything which is not written from a neutral point of view.

I would like to communicate the idea that members of the Fathers' Rights movement believe that the Fathers' Rights movement and shared parenting can benefit some women.

(1) Shared parenting can help more women enjoy more freedom by providing them with more time and greater opportunities to develop fulfilling careers (2) To the same extent that some women receive additional child support income because they have had children with more than one man as opposed to one man, other women are not able to find a suitable man, who is willing to have a child with them. If anyone can find Wikipedia acceptable links that would help communicate these ideas, I believe that they would improve the article.

I found what I believe to be a good link for the first point. If anyone can find a good link for the second point, I believe that it would improve the article.

Michael H 34 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks for your comments all, and it looks like we are agreed that this article needs work, and I am sure it will be better as a result.
I suggest that we all take a look at the new combined policy of attribution and also WP is not a soapbox before we start on this.
Trish has suggested making an outline here first. That sounds like a good idea to me. I also have found editing one section at a time is helpful. We need to find reliable sources for every thought and idea, and that is a lot of work!!
I also think we need to be prepared for the fact that the article is likely going to be much shorter after the job is done. I think the article contains lots of detail about specific issues which reads like advocacy and which we need to boldly move into the relevant WP articles on Child custody/residence and parenting time, for example. It isn't that the information isn't interesting, just that it is not really relevant or necessary in this article. In my opinion, each section should begin with something like: "Fathers' rights activists say/report/want/another verb" followed by sourced information about what they believe and very briefly why. If there is a critique, then it can be followed by another paragraph starting with something like "Critics say/report etc...." with more sourced information. --Slp1 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

With respect to the section labeled Child custody/residence and parenting time, I suggest that the last two paragraphs that begin "Where clear guidance is provided...." and "Judges are empowered...." could be eliminated or moved to the article on Shared Parenting.

Michael H 34 17:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm glad you liked my suggestion re: outline, Slp1. The article as it stands now rambles so much that I think you'd lose readers after the first paragraph. Creating the outline here can help all editors break the article down so that they may be able to work on it with more ease. Plus, everything needs reliable sources, which is another problem the article has (lack of reliable sources). The outline can help editors avoid turning an encyclopedia page into advocacy. I think in the long run outlining the article will lead to the creating of a much better article. I have no personal problem with the article being much shorter. I expect it to be much shorter after much-needed editing. That will keep it from rambling, and that will keep it from leaning to heavily into activism.

I'd recommend not adding or deleting anything in the article until the outline is ready and posted. Maybe treat the article as a slush page. The part of the Child custody/residence and parenting time section Michael mentioned could be placed in a "criticism" portion of that particular section. I recommend not removing or adding anything to the article at this point in time. Wait until the outline is ready.

Trish Wilson 16:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.

Michael H 34 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Disputed

The bit on million dads march in this article contradicts the million dads march article, which claims million dads march network was founded in 2002 by Thomas Lessman. From the history of both articles it seems there are competing claims for credit for "founding" the MDM.

Decr32 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outline

How's this for the start of an outline? It's just a start. I hope it makes sense. I couldn't add numbers and letters like a normal outline because Wiki kept boxing everything. So, I used bullets. Everyone feel free to add or delete from it. I think it covers the major points.

1. Intro - Fathers Rights

Description of movement

Criticism

2. Main Issues

Family law and the family court

Adversarial court system

language

++::bias against fathers

criticism

Child Custody - Shared Parenting

criticism

Child Support

criticism

Domestic Violence and Child Abuse

criticism

Parental Alienation Syndrome

criticism

3. In the UK

Fathers 4 Justice

Families Need Fathers

criticism

4. In Australia

Men's Rights Agency

The Blackshirts

criticism

5. In the USA

Fathers and Families

Children's Rights Council

American Coalition For Fathers And Children

Alliance For Noncustodial Parents Rights

criticism

6. Famous Supporters

7. Conclusion, supportive and critical

Trish Wilson 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed up the formatting for an easier read and have added "Famous supporters" at the end, otherwise it looks good, though I am not an expert in this at all! Slp1 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for fixing the formatting, Slp1. I couldn't figure that out for the life of me. I see the code for it now.

I'm not sure that "Famous supporters" are the right words. Do you mean famous supporters as in famous people who support the movement, like Sir Bob Geldof, or notable members of the movement? Fathers' rights activists aren't really "famous" except within the movement. Maybe "Notable Supporters" is a better choice of words.

Trish Wilson 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, notable would be much better! Slp1 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable is better. Though father's rights activists aren't really notable outside their own group. Would this section contribute anything of encyclopedic value to the article? Decr32 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Decr32 makes some good points. It will probably not be necessary to have a separate section entitled "Notable Supporters", since the UK, Australian, and USA sections would already discuss the better-known groups and activists. Having a "Notable Supporters" section might be redundant in light of the previous sections. Trish Wilson 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

____

I think creating the outline was a good start.

I hope that the outline will not prevent this article from including phrases like "In response to such criticism, members of the fathers' rights movement state...."

I also hope that the outline will not prevent this article from including developments like Australia's new law on Shared Parenting legislation or the nonbinding ballot referendum in Massachusetts.

I also hope that you will consider Karen DeCrow notable.

Michael H 34 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Should Paternity Fraud be included in the outline?

Michael H 34 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Micheal H 34

[edit] Flood criticism

If anyone can find a citation for the following expansion of the response to Michael Flood's criticism, I would appreciate it.

"While fathers' rights advocates acknowledge that some men are not interested in their children, they also state that many more fathers are interested in their children, and that discrimination against fathers as a group is unfair. Fathers rights activists continue their response by comparing their situation to those of working women by asking, "if some women are not interested in working, is it then fair to discriminate against women as a group in the workplace?"

Michael H 34 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following is from the Michael Flood link http://www.xyonline.net/Respondingtomen.shtml provided:

"The men in men's rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men's rights groups and fathers' rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles."

This is from the Criticism section of the article:

"Critics, such as Michael Flood, a researcher in gender studies, especially in relation to men and masculinities,[45] see the men's rights movement and fathers' rights movement as the most extreme part of the broader men's movement[46]. According to this view, most fathers' rights advocates have joined the movement as the result of negative personal experience during a divorce or custody battle and not genuine concern for children and as fathers."

The inclusion of the words "and not genuine concern for children and as fathers" is a misrepresentation of what Dr. Flood published. Many fathers may be bitter because they feel that their children have been taken away from them. This does not mean that they do not love their children. In the linked document, Dr. Flood never stated that fathers are not genuinely concerned for their children. After providing time for comment, I intend to delete the words "and not genuine concern for children and as fathers" from the article. Michael H 34 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I agree. That phrase is not an accurate paraphrase of Flood's conclusion. As such it is unsourced opinion.

Decr32 07:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll wait longer to see if there are any more comments. Michael H 34 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michel H 34

[edit] Outline - Intro

How's this for the Intro - Fathers Rights? It's brief enough. I've included my sources after the relevant statements. It is a brief description of the movement, along with the major tenets, as well as criticism.

The fathers' rights movement claims that courts discriminate against fathers in court, citing the fact that mothers most often get custody of the children in divorce as proof that courts discriminate against fathers. (http://www.dadsrights.org/articles/advocates.html) Fathers rights groups also blame "fatherlessness" (single and divorced-mother homes) for a variety of social ills, including low SAT scores, juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, and teen substance abuse. (http://www.dadsrights.org/articles/advocates.html) To remedy this alleged discrimination, fathers' rights groups call for a presumption for joint physical custody (a. k. a. shared parenting). (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/child_custody/fathers_rights.html) They also believe that child support awards are too high. (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/child_custody/fathers_rights.html) Shared parenting often results in a lowering of child support. (http://www.divorcenet.com/states/oklahoma/child_support_in_oklahoma) Father's rights groups claim that they only wish to encourage that divorced fathers are able to remain a part of their children's lives. (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070113/NEWS02/70112025) They also claim that women frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse to get an upper hand in divorce and custody proceedings. (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22775.html) They cite Parental Alienation Syndrome as evidence that mothers frequently alienate children from their fathers, and they want to see this alienation stop. (http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/parental-alienation-syndrome.html) They claim that women and men are equally abusive, and they want to see more protections for battered men. (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/mlintima_e.html)

Critics charge that the fathers' rights movement is a backlash to the gains made by the women's movement since the 1970s that have contributed to more women being able to file for divorce. Some feminists have reported harassing behavior from fathers' rights activists at legislative hearings. (http://www.owjn.org/custody/lobby2.htm) Some non-custodial parents have sought shared parenting in the hope of getting their child support obligation reduced. Once the order is in place, that parent does not make good on the order. The custodial parent then spends the most time with the child, but is receiving less in child support than a sole custody/visitation award. (http://www.ontariodivorces.com/child-support.html) They also say that fathers' rights groups misrepresent valid research that has shown that joint physical custody (shared parenting) does not result in an increase in child support compliance as well as improving the lives of children who have more contact with their fathers. It is the quality of the relationship between the child and the fathers as well as the quality of the relationship between the father and mother that makes the difference. Critics state that joint physical custody ignores the contributions of the primary caregiver, most often the mother. (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/child_custody/fathers_rights.html) They say that children are harmed by joint custody when exposed to conflict, and especially when the relationship between the parents is abusive. The desires of adults, in particular non-custodial parents, are favored over what is best for the children. (http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/bookscutody.shtml) They also claim that, contrary to fathers' rights views, bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare, and that research showing that women and men are equally abusive is flawed. (http://www.omsys.com/mmcd/courtrev.htm) (Rita Smith (NCADV) & Pamela Coukos (PCADV), "Fairness and Accuracy in Evaluations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Custody Determinations", The Judges Journal, Fall 1997, Pp. 38-56) (http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html) Parental Alienation Syndrome is "junk science", unrecognized as a valid syndrome by the American Medical Association. (http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/ocean/host.php?folder=110&page=366&T=) Critics say that fathers' rights misrepresent research to support their contention that men and women are equally abusive. When the abusive relationship is examined, it becomes clear that most victims of domestic violence are women. (http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html)

Trish Wilson 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Trish for the great start. The following are my very preliminary comments:

1. I particularly appreciate the citations which gives us a good example to follow.

2. I like the way the article starts at present with a bit of a historical context: I think it would be a bit sudden to launch into these paragraphs without a more general intro.

3. I think the word "claim" is overused: it implies a POV, to me. Here are some other suggestions for verbs to use: argue, say, suggest, note, believe, speculate.--Slp1 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Trish, I also congratulate you on your efforts. I also have some preliminary comments.

"They cite Parental Alienation Syndrome as evidence that mothers frequently alienate children from their fathers, and they want to see this alienation stop. They also claim that women frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse to get an upper hand in divorce and custody proceedings." In both cases, the word "frequently" is inappropriate. Michael H 34 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Shared parenting often results in a lowering of child support." I would add "Some researchers have found that" to the beginning of this sentence. I also suggest that this valid finding should moved to the section on Shared Parenting. Michael H 34 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Father's rights groups claim that they only wish to encourage that divorced fathers are able to remain a part of their children's lives." The word "only" is inappropriate. Michael H 34 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Some non-custodial parents have sought shared parenting in the hope of getting their child support obligation reduced. Once the order is in place, that parent does not make good on the order." I think that this valid point should be moved to the section on Shared Parenting. Michael H 34 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"including low SAT scores" I would change "SAT scores", which is provincial, to academic achievement. Michael H 34 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"It is the quality of the relationship between the child and the fathers as well as the quality of the relationship between the father and mother that makes the difference." This sentence needs an introduction such as: "they also say that." Michael H 34 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Michael H 34

"Fathers' rights campaigners argue that their own and their children's rights and best interests are breached; they cite research[2]to argue that even after separation and divorce, children gain critical mental and emotional health benefits from continuing quality involvement by and with their father. Fathers' rights activists state that it is destructive to deny children the right to know and be cared for by both parents when both are available."

What will happen to this sentence and its link? Michael H 34 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That sentence and link should be deleted unless a reference can be found because it is a presentation of original research. A cite for that sentence should be a reference to Father's Rights activists citing research. Currently it is just a link to the original research, and the statement that FRs cite that research is an original synthesis of ideas.

Decr32 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1. I like the word "say" as well. I have no problem using it instead of "claim". Michael, fathers rights supporters have said quite often that they think false allegations of abuse are frequently made by women. I think the word "frequently" acknowledges that. I think that the points I made about shared parenting and child support are fine where they are. Maybe elaborate a bit in the Shared Parenting section. Changing SAT scores to "academic achievement" sounds fine to me. I used the word "only" to make the point sound more personal. I have no problem leaving it out. I think that the sentence, "It is the quality of the relationship" sounds fine the way it is, but I'll think about it, and possibly come up with a better sentence. "They also say that..." makes me wonder who "they" are.

Trish Wilson 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement about false allegations is clearly false without context. Why would the article be improved if a false statement is attributed to a group of people? If the word frequently is used in the sentence about false allegations, then the sentence could finish with "when custody is contested in an adversarial court system inclined to award sole custody to one parent" in order to give the attributed statement its context.

Wherever they are located, the statements about shared parenting and child support could be attributed with phrases such as "critics of fathers' rights groups state that" so that the article can maintain a neutral point of view.

Michael H 34 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Actually the statement on false allegations had more context than the statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome. "They cite Parental Alienation Syndrome as evidence that mothers frequently alienate children from their fathers, and they want to see this alienation stop." Michael H 34 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Discussion on inclusion of Australian Law on Shared Parenting

I also hope that the outline will not prevent this article from including developments like Australia's new law on Shared Parenting legislation or the nonbinding ballot referendum in Massachusetts.

I also hope that you will consider Karen DeCrow notable.

Michael H 34 00:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Developments in family law belong in an article about "history of Family Law in Australia" or whatever. It doesn't belong in this article because:

1 inclusion implies the development in law is related to or caused by Father's Rights Activists. WP:A.

2 a list of 'recent developments in law' is an indiscriminate collection of information WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.

3 there is no consensus among the activists about these laws. eg Lionel Richards was livid about the new shared parenting laws in Australia.

Decr32 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you.

Shared Parenting is the key topic for this article.

Members of the fathers' rights movement do advocate for shared parenting.

Developments related to Shared Parenting are most relevant for this article.

Just because consensus is not achieved on an issue doesn't make it irrelevant. I don't know who Lionel Richards is, but maybe his views are irrelevant.

Michael H 34 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

1. Shared parenting is the key topic for the article on Shared parenting.

2. The article can say FR's advocate for shared parenting. However Father's Righters are only a subset of the people/groups who advocate a position on Shared Parenting. The interest in Shared parenting is broad enough that Shared parenting requires its own article.

3. I didn't suggest development in law is irrelevant. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry about Father's Right's because it fails salience, WP:A and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. (and probably also wikipedia is not a soapbox).

I submit recent developments are in the nature of News, which doesn't belong in encyclopedia. And a list of developments is more in the nature of history of law or history of Shared parenting and should go in that article.

Decr32 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend towards Decr32's view here. In my view, we should focus on what Father's rights people advocate for, and not include the arguments per se. These should be in the other relevant articles. If we can find citations that say that father right's activists were instrumental in getting the Australian laws passed, then it deserves a mention, perhaps as part of the successes of the movement in the area of shared parenting. Slp1 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There currently exists a section on Supporters. In the new outline, some contributors have planned to include a section or subsections titled "Supporters." Should Bob Geldof be included? Is what he said history? Was it recent news when he said it? The leadership of an entire nation has just passed laws in support of Shared Parenting! Just because this was a recent development, just because it is news, just because Wikipedia is encyclopedic in its content and style, doesn't mean that this information is inappropriate for this article on fathers' rights. In terms of including supporters of fathers' rights, nothing could be more relevant.

I write the following politely and with respect to all readers and contributors, and with continued thanks to SPL1 who helped me earlier. Anyone who supports Shared Parenting supports fathers' rights. I question the need for further documentation regarding the Australian Law. This article is titled fathers' rights, not fathers' rights groups.

Michael H 34 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

My point is less that it is news, and more because it is about Shared Parenting, and so far a cited link between the new law and the father's rights movement is entirely absent. But as I said above, if we can find a reference then it may well be appropriate as a sign that FR movement is being successful (depends what the reference says, though!)Slp1 00:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember when Australia made the changes. There was no change in time related to residence. The change was "shared parenting responsibility", which is the same as joint legal custody. It didn't affect the amount of time non-custodial parents would spend with their children. Australian fathers rights groups weren't happy with this at all. They saw it as no change at all. They didn't get the 50/50 shared parenting that they had lobbied for. So, the changes in family law were indirectly due to fathers' rights advocacy, but fathers' rights groups didn't get what they wanted. Family law and psychiatric industry people also lobbied for the changes in Australian family court. THEY got what they wanted - not fathers' rights activists. What actually happened was that professionals who made their livings with mediation, Guardians ad Litem, parenting coordinators, psychological and custody evaluations did well with these changes. Fathers rights activists didn't get the 50/50 shared parenting they had wanted.

Here's a link about it:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/shared-parenting-more-a-mirage-than-a-breakthrough/2006/01/01/1136050344137.html

And this. Check section 2.35. 50/50 shared parenting was rejected in Australia:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fca/childcustody/report/chapter2.pdf

If there have been changes in the past year or so, I don't know because I haven't been following Australia in a bit of awhile. I do know that fathers' rights activists weren't happy with the Australian committee's final decisions. They were actually quite livid about it.

Trish Wilson 16:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is fathers' rights groups being substituted for the fathers' rights movement? Please let me clarify my point. Anyone who supports Shared Parenting is a member of the fathers' rights movement. The fathers' rights movement was by definition responsible for the Australian Law. The existence of fathers' rights groups does not change this.

Please let me use myself as an example. Am I a member of the National Organization of Women? No. Do I support gender equality in employment? Yes. If we were working on an article about women's rights, and a law were passed concerning gender equality in employment, would it be relevant to the article? Yes, of course. Would there be a need to show that the National Organization of Women (why should the National Organization of Women be substituted for womens' rights?) was responsible? I strongly suggest no. Why wouldn't I be considered a member of the womens' rights movement simply because I am not a member of the National Organization of Women? Would the answer be different if the National Organization of Women did not exist? The article is about womens' rights, not womens' rights groups.

Fathers' rights and Shared Parenting overlap almost completely. With that said, I've also noted above that some information about Shared Parenting could be moved to the article about Shared Parenting. However, this article could become a list of links with everything moved to other articles. Do you think that such a change would improve the article? I don't. I thought that Trish Wilson did a good job with the outline. Michael H 34 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

If Fathers' rights and Shared Parenting overlap almost completely this article should say that and refer to the shared parenting article. This article then covers the areas which don't overlap, eg fathers rights groups and what they say about other things such as no fault divorce and misuse of DV proceedings.

Decr32 21:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I like Trish Wilson's outline. If you wish to move all references to fathers' rights groups to another article titled "fathers' rights groups", please build a consensus and make it so. Michael H 34 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

From the Australian Law:

"(1) If a parenting order provides (or is to provide) that a child’s parents are to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child, the court must:

(a) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and

(b) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of

the parents is reasonably practicable; and

(c) if it is, consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order)for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents."

I imagine that if there were no gender bias or perceived gender bias in family courts, then more women would be for Shared Parenting and fewer men would support it.

This law is shared parenting. If other countries or states adopted shared parenting, then appropriately, there will be allowances for and guidance on judicial discretion. Michael H 34 23:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Michael, you still have not shown any connection between the Australian law and father's rights. Asserting father's rights == shared parenting over and over is not a connection.

Decr32 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Trish's first link above [1] the job connecting the fathers' rights movement to the law, at least in regard to the how they campaigned for changes. --Slp1 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that because the article is titled fathers' rights and not fathers' rights groups, there is no need to attribute the law to the campaign of fathers' rights groups, and I submit the following hypothetical question: "What is the relevance of the Australian law on Shared Parenting to this article if fathers' rights groups did not exist?", as support of my belief. Michael H 34 18:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The changes to Australian law are based on children's rights, not father's rights. Section 60B of the [Family Law Act] sets out the principles underlying that part of the Act, specifically: "children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together". That section lists numerous childrens' rights the Australian parliament recognises and zero fathers' rights. To answer your hypothetical question, the australian law per se is not relevant to this article whether FR groups exist or not - the Australian law has nothing to do with fathers rights. The fact that FR groups lobbied for change and are disappointed with the result might be relevant.

Decr32 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fathers rights groups were not the only groups that lobbied the Australian government regarding changes in the family court system. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts lobbied heavily, and the changes that were made in Australia gave members work. Look at this conference brochure to see the kinds of work AFCC members make for themselves, all related to divorce and custody cases.

http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/2007%20AFCC%20Washington%20DC%20Program.pdf (Acrobat file)

Here is the history of AFCC. This group is very active in Australia, and it heavily influenced the changes in Australia's family court system.

http://www.afccnet.org/about/history.asp

AFCC made out very well with the changes in Australian family court, not fathers' rights groups. Remember that presumptive 50/50 shared parenting was rejected in Australia. Australia focused on "shared parental responsibility", which is NOT the presumptive 50/50 shared parenting that fathers rights groups wanted. "Shared parental responsibility" is the same as joint legal custody. Courts may order 50/50 timeshare, but only at their discretion. 50/50 timeshare is not automatic, and fathers' rights groups wanted it to be automatic. They failed to get what they wanted. Yes, they lobbied the Australian government, but so did many other groups, most notably AFCC. Fathers rights groups did not cause the changes in Australian law.

Trish Wilson 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The changes to Australian law are based on children's rights...." Excellent point. It is the effect of shared parenting in the context of courts more typically awarding sole or majority custody to one parent (typically the mother) that has created the conditional right of fathers (or more rarely working mothers whose husbands are the primary caretaker) to elect half custody or bargain more effectively for terms of separation that are more acceptable to him (or less typically her) (i.e. custody for two weekends out of three with a modest reduction in child support). If courts more typically awarded sole or majority custody to fathers, then shared parenting would certainly overlap almost completely with mothers' rights. Michael H 34 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The fact that FR groups lobbied for change and are disappointed with the result might be relevant." It might be relevant. As you pointed out the consensus of members on this issue is not 100%. Fathers' rights groups advocate for shared parenting. Shared parenting includes judicial discretion*. In response to critics of shared parenting, who state that shared parenting may allow some fathers to continue domestic violence and/or abuse, fathers' rights advocates point out that shared parenting is not and should not be an option for parents who commit domestic violence or abuse. *Fathers' rights groups want allegations of domestic violence to be evaluated based on evidence, and they prefer that judges not "err on the side of caution." Michael H 34 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Remember that presumptive 50/50 shared parenting was rejected in Australia." This statement is clearly contradicted by the quoted section of the Australian law above. The Australian law created a presumption for 50/50 shared parenting, which is conditional based on judicial discretion. Michael H 34 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The changes to Australian law are based on children's rights...."

In response I wrote, "If courts more typically awarded sole or majority custody to fathers, then shared parenting would certainly overlap almost completely with mothers' rights."

I would like to expand what I wrote here. Individual custody decisions apply to individual parents. The effect of shared parenting is relevant to mothers' rights as well as fathers' rights regardless of how courts "typically" decide custody. Michael H 34 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Editing Notes

Thank you for adding this new section, Michael. It makes it much clearer.
Can I suggest that we all add comments at the end of the sections, in time order, rather in the middle, as otherwise important posts might get lost? I have moved one of yours to the end, Michael, for this reason.
Another point of wikithequette is that it is not considered a good idea to edit comments (even your own comments) after they have been posted. See the talkpage guidelines for details of why, etc!! I figure it is okay to write a few clarifying changes within minutes of a first post, but additions and deletions otherwise should be done as a separate post, I believe. --Slp1 12:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Michael H 34 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I left out and later added a word to the following sentence from my prior post: "In response to critics of shared parenting, who state that shared parenting may allow some fathers to continue domestic violence and/or abuse, fathers' rights advocates point out that shared parenting is not and should not be an option for parents who commit domestic violence or abuse." I'm sorry if I created any confusion or if I violated any rules on etiquette. Michael H 34 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Shared Parenting Section - Outline

I apologize in advance for the paucity of citations. I believe that the following paragrpahs could be used for the section on shared parenting.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement want shared parenting laws. Shared parenting legislation includes guidance from legislators to family court judges on how to decide custody proceedings in case of divorce or separation of parents with dependent children. Shared Parenting legislation does not mean that children must reside half of the time with each parent. Shared parenting legislation does not preclude judicial discretion to decide that children should primarily reside with one of the parents.

Australia’s law titled Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 is an example of a shared parenting law. Based on this law, judges are directed to “(a) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents would be in the best interests of the child; and (b) consider whether the child spending equal time with each of the parents is reasonably practicable.” If the judge decides that both (a) and (b) apply, then the judge is directed “to consider making an order to provide (or including a provision in the order) for the children to spend equal time with each of the parents."

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that there are many reasons why they support shared parenting. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that they love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. Many members of the fathers’ rights movement state, “Children need both parents.” Members of the fathers’ rights movement cite a report http://www.apa.org/releases/custody2.html from the American Psychological Association, the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists, which states that “children [are] likely to be better adjusted in joint vs. sole custody arrangements in most cases.”

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement state that fathers want to lower their child support payments. Critics of the fathers’ rights movement state that fathers could choose half custody and then renege on providing half of the care. In response to these critics, many fathers’ rights activists state that child support payments are too generous and that courts can increase the child support for those parents who have shown that they are unwilling to provide half of the care.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that with respect to decisions of custody, there is both a bias against shared parenting and a bias against fathers as parents. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that mothers anticipate http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php this gender bias within an adversarial court system and that is why mothers initiate divorce significantly more often than fathers. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that women’s groups such as the National Organization of Women also realize the gender bias in the courts in favor of awarding majority or sole custody to the nurturing parent over the breadwinning parent, and further state that this is why the National Organization of Women currently advocates against shared parenting laws, which members of the fathers’ rights movement say is contrary to the National Organization of Women’s positions on gender equality. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that shared parenting laws are needed to counteract the actual and/or perceived gender bias in family courts.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that because mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they need not negotiate the terms of the separation, and they need only refuse to cooperate in order to win majority or sole custody (based on the idea that this is in the best interest of children since the parties could not get along enough to agree on custody) and generous child support (since this must be in the best interest of the children since majority or sole custody has been awarded to the mother). Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. Critics of the fathers’ rights movement state that sole custody or majority custody is more appropriate in order to provide the children with a home base and that the terms of separation should not be negotiated if a financial power imbalance exists because one parent does not earn income in order to take care of the children.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that often, the parties are able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in the proposed idea whereby judges should evaluate fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature.

Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that most parents are competent, capable and love their children. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that judges are elected government officials who are sensitive to political pressure, and who should not prefer to take more than half custody away from a competent, capable and loving parent. Critics of shared parenting laws state that any legislative presumptions are not optimal for the best functioning of judges to evaluate the best interests of the children. Members of the fathers’ rights movement state that in most cases, (1) it is not possible to decide on the best interest of the children if sole custody is awarded, since both parents are competent, capable and loving and (2) shared parenting is in the best interest of the children.

Michael H 34 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

WP:A An article should report what reliable sources say. This piece is an editor's original thoughts of what FR's position on shared parenting might be. Find sources first, then write.

Decr32 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You've done a lot of work on this, Michael, which is greatly appreciated, and I think it is well organized into sections. The problem, as you noted yourself, is the lack of citations. In my experience writing an article can go two ways: either Decr32's suggestion which is to find the sources first and then write the article, or to write a draft as you have and then try to find reliable resources to support the ideas. (The problem with the second route is the depression that sets in when one can't find a reliable source for an important point that one has spent ages carefully writing about. Very frustrating!!!!) Whichever route is taken, the citations are needed before adding it to the article proper. It looks like Decr32 has started the work below in any case. --Slp1 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Decr32 and Slp1 . You need sources for what you've written. It reads like an opinion piece. Also, you may want to reconsider citing Robert Bauserman's meta-analysis of existing joint custody studies. You gave a link to the APA's page on it: http://www.apa.org/releases/custody2.html. While his analysis has its own problems, a serious problem is that Bauserman is a co-author of the controverial Rind Study, which sought to normalize pedophilia. The APA took so much heat for publishing the Rind Study that it had to publicly apologize for publishing it. Robert Bauserman is already mentioned in the Wiki page Rind et al.. Any mention of Bauserman in an article about shared parenting will have to link to the Rind Wiki page. Trish Wilson 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. After reading the link, I didn't conclude that the Rind study was an attempt "normalize pedophilia." Best wishes, Michael H 34 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Proposed shared parenting section

The fathers rights movement advocates for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody [[2]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[3]].

Decr32 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote something for the shared parenting section that I'd like to submit for everyone's consideration. I included what Decr32 wrote above and I included some of what Michael H 34 had written.

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (SHARED PARENTING)

FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

Members of the fathers rights movement say that courts discriminate against fathers. They say that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. In her article for The Washington Times, Gabriella Boston pointed out that "about 85 percent of custodial parents in the United States are mothers, according to a 2001 report by the U. S. Census Bureau." [[4]] [[5]]Members of the fathers rights movement feel that upon divorce, fathers have become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives. They call for equality in custody decisions. [[6]] Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, stated in the Washington Times article that,"we believe the baseline should be equal time. We're encouraging states and courts to see there's a need for equality," referring to custody rulings. [[7]] Therefore, fathers rights groups lobby for laws that would make presumptive joint physical custody, also known as shared parenting, the favored form of custody. Presumptive joint physical custody would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father upwards of 35 – 50 percent of the time with his children. It also would result in a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually dad – would have to pay. [[8]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that there are many reasons why they support shared parenting. Members of the fathers' rights movement state that they love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. [[9]] Many members of the fathers' rights movement state, "Children need both parents." [[10]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that because mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they need not negotiate the terms of the separation, and they need only refuse to cooperate in order to win majority or sole custody (based on the idea that this is in the best interest of children since the parties could not get along enough to agree on custody) and generous child support (since this must be in the best interest of the children since majority or sole custody has been awarded to the mother). Members of the fathers' rights movement state that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. [[11]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. Members of the fathers' rights movement state that often, the parties are able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in the proposed idea whereby judges should evaluate fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. (Need sources for this paragraph.)

CRITIC'S VIEW

Shared parenting" is a euphemism for joint physical custody. The fathers rights movement advocates for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody [[12]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[13]]." Critics have pointed out that one appealing characteristic of shared parenting for fathers rights groups is the lowered or complete termination of the child support order the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually dad – is likely to have. [[14]] Critics also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[15]]

Members of the father's rights movement often cite studies conducted in the 1980s to support presumptive shared parenting. Fathers rights activists do not point out that these studies involved rare couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and they chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. The characteristics of the pre-divorce family lead to the success of shared parenting, not the shared parenting order itself. Those cases were not representative of most divorces, yet fathers' rights activists cited them to support their contention that shared parenting is far superior and preferable to sole custody, [[16]]

Critics point out that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over what is best for the children. [[17]] Custody decisions should focus on the developmental needs of children, depending on their ages and what is appropriate for them. [[18]] Parents should pay attention to the stress their children are under when deciding how to care for them, especially if they are considering shared parenting. Some children cannot handle the shunting back and forth between two homes. They lose track of friends, and the shared parenting schedule interferes with their extracurricular activities and social lives. They lose out on birthday parties, sleep-overs, and play dates in favor of abiding by a strict shared parenting schedule. [[19]] Fighting over adult "rights" takes the focus away from what is best and most appropriate for children. The wishes and needs of children are not given enough importance in divorce and custody cases. [[20]]

The Washington Times article cited earlier in this section described the truth behind the 85 percent rate of custody to mothers. In most cases, the parents settle out of court, and dad did not want custody. When he fought for it, he won either joint or sole custody about 70 percent of the time. [[21]] [[22]] That is why mothers most often get sole custody. It is not due to bias against dads in court. Contrary to what fathers rights activists say, mothers do not refuse to cooperate in divorce cases because the court system is biased in favor of them, and they know they will get sole custody.

While shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting has been shown to be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[23]] When joint custody is ordered in those cases, the conflict and abuse escalate, which is harmful for children. [[24]] When one parent wants shared parenting and the other doesn't, there will be conflict between those parents that shared parenting will not alleviate. Paul Amato noted in his article "Contact With Non-custodial Fathers and Children's Well-Being that "In a large California study, Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that joint custody is sometimes used to resolve custody disputes. They found that joint custody was awarded in about one-third of cases in which mothers and fathers had each sought sole custody. And the more legal conflict that occurred between parents, the more likely joint custody was to be awarded. Three and one-half years after separation, these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent." [[25]]

Trish Wilson 15:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Trish. I have a go at editing your version. Mostly minor changes, but I have made significant changes to the 'critics' section, including the order of points etc. It also seemed a bit advocacy-like, so I have tried to reword to change that. It is a bit shorter as a result, but I think the points are mostly there. I think it would be useful to have information about the 1980s studies that FRM people cite in the first section, since it seems a bit weird to criticise something that has noted been mentioned!!! Let me know what you all think.

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (SHARED PARENTING)

FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

Members of the fathers’ rights movement say that courts discriminate against fathers and that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions and that about 85 percent of custodial parents in the United States are mothers, according to a 2001 report by the U. S. Census Bureau. [[26]] [[27]] Members of the father’s rights movement feel that upon divorce, fathers often become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives and call for equality in custody decisions. [[28]] For example, Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, referred to custody rulings and stated, "we believe the baseline should be equal time. We're encouraging states and courts to see there's a need for equality,". [[29]] As a result, fathers’ rights groups lobby for laws that would make presumptive joint physical custody, also known as shared parenting, the preferred form of custody[[30]]. and equal parental responsibility following separation. [[31]] Presumptive joint physical custody would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father upwards of 35 – 50 percent of the time with his children as well as a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– would have to pay. [[32]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement support shared parenting for several reasons: they state that they love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. [[33]] They also argue that, "children need both parents." [[34]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement suggest that because mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they do not need negotiate the terms of the separation, and by refusing to cooperate they win majority or sole custody, based on the idea that this is in the best interest of children since the parties could not get along enough to agree on custody. They claim that as a result mothers also obtain generous child support, since this must be in the best interest of the children since majority or sole custody has been awarded to the mother. Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. [[35]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. They report that the parties are often able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in judges evaluating fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. (Need sources for this paragraph.)

CRITIC'S VIEW

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement point out that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over what is best for the children. They argue that custody decisions should focus on appropriately meeting the developmental needs of children.[[36]] as well as their wishes. [[37]] Possible difficulties include problems transitioning between two homes, routines, sets of friends etc. [[38]]

Critics note that the studies from the 1980s often cited by fathers’ rights activities studies to support presumptive shared parenting, involved couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and who chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. They report that such cases are not representative of most divorces, and that characteristics of the pre-divorce family led to the success of shared parenting, rather than shared parenting order itself.[[39]] [[40]] They argue that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[41]] Research has noted that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes, and that “these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent." [[42]]
:Critics of the fathers’ rights movement also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[43]]

While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time. [[44]] [[45]]

Critics also point out that a characteristic of shared parenting for fathers’ rights groups is the lowered or complete termination of the child support order the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– is likely to have to pay. [[46]]

Slp1 20:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Trish. I would just point out this contribution is longer than the section on shared parenting already in the article. I suggest much of the length is scope creep from presenting the subject as an argument from first principles - For example the first paragraph introduces 'bias in the court' and presents evidence and argument that there is bias, which is then said to justify FR's position. The scope creep is then mirrored with an argument that there is no 'bias in the courts' in the criticism section.

I submit this article should describe what FR's believe without uneccessary argument about the justification for those views. Eg the first 3 paragraphs can be rewritten something like:

Members of the fathers rights movement say that courts discriminate against fathers and that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. They say mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they need not negotiate the terms of the separation, and they need only refuse to cooperate in order to win majority or sole custody and generous child support. Members of the fathers' rights movement state that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. [[47]]

Decr32 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Response to Criticism subsection of Shared Parenting:

Members' of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting laws couple a presumption for 50% physical custody with consideration of the best interests of the children, and that assertions to the contrary, that the interest of parents are elevated above those of the children, are attempts to influence people against shared parenting based on a strawman argument. http://acfc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=Lansing_State_Journal Michael H 34 22:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting does not put the interests of parents above those of the children and quote a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, which found that children of divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. http://acfc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=Lansing_State_Journal Michael H 34 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here are citations for the paragraph for which citations were requested:

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. They report that the parties are often able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. [ source first cited was insufficient - source still needed ]

Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in judges evaluating fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. http://www.glennsacks.com/shockome_syndrome.htm Michael H 34 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I had to amend the second sentence:

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in judges being asked to evaluate fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. http://www.glennsacks.com/shockome_syndrome.htm Michael H 34 02:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time."

It would be nice if this statistic included more information. What is the breakdown between joint custody and sole custody, and what is meant by joint custody? Sometimes, joint custody is used to mean joint legal custody without reference to where the children reside.

Is it meaningful to include this statistic if the actual breakdown were 30% sole custody for the mother, 65% joint legal custody, but the children reside with the mother and the father has some "visitation" and 5% sole custody for the father? Michael H 34 00:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The following is from the next page of the link in which the statistic is cited:

"More and more men realize the possibility that they can be involved. ... It's not that they didn't want to be involved -- or share custody -- in the past; they just didn't think they had a chance."

I don't think that the 70% statistic should be included. However, if it remains, then I think that it is appropriate to include the following in the Response to Criticism Subsection: "Members of the fathers' rights movement believe that fathers should not have to "win" half custody and that those fathers who do not have sufficient financial resources should not be at a disadvantage because of the need to pay legal fees in order to contest for half custody. [I'll try to find a link if necessary.] Michael H 34 02:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Presumptive joint physical custody would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father upwards of 35 – 50 percent of the time with his children as well as a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– would have to pay."

The link does not show this and it's also not true. The following section contributed by Decr32 is accurate and correct.

The members of the fathers' rights movement "advocate for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody [[48]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[49]]."

Michael H 34 02:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Presumptive joint physical custody would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father upwards of 35 – 50 percent of the time with his children as well as a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– would have to pay."

I propose the following replacement for this sentence. I believe that what is meant by shared parenting should be made as clear as possible. This is the crux of the article.

The members of the fathers' rights movement "advocate for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody [[50]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[51]]." If, in the absence of agreement between the parents, a family court judge decides that the presumption of 50:50 shared custody has not been rebutted because it is both in the best interests of the children and practical, then the judge would order that physical custody of the children would be shared equally by the parents. As a consequence of this, the otherwise non-custodial father would be required to pay significantly less in child support, and if the mother had a greater income than the father, she would be required to pay child support to the father. Critics of the fathers' rights movement state that even if ordered, many fathers will not provide 50% of the child care after separation.

Michael H 34 14:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks for the comments. I agree with you, Decr, that what I wrote was too long. I wasn't sure what to do about that. I agree with what you said about scope creep, too. Thanks, Slp1, for taking the time and effort to edit what I had written. I like what you wrote. The Bauserman link that Michael had posted could be reinserted into the FRM section to bring up the 1980s studies. Most of the studies Bauserman analyzed were from the 1980s, and fathers' rights activists like to cite his analysis when they support shared parenting. Bauserman still has problems related to Rind et al., which could also be briefly mentioned in the critics section. Maybe write something like this in the FRM section:

Fathers rights activists refer to studies about joint custody, in particular studies from the 1980s, when they state their preference for shared parenting over sole custody. [[52]]

Trish Wilson 14:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The meta-study was published in 2002 and includes studies from 1982 - 1999. Michael H 34 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

__________________

Here's a proposal for a new shared parenting section for the outline. I believe that the term shared parenting should be carefully defined.

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (SHARED PARENTING)

The members of the fathers' rights movement advocate for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody [[53]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[54]], also known as shared parenting. If, in the absence of agreement between the parents, a family court judge decides that the presumption of 50:50 shared custody has not been rebutted because it is both in the best interests of the children and practical, then the judge would order that physical custody of the children would be shared equally by the parents. As a consequence of this, the otherwise non-custodial father would be required to pay significantly less in child support, and if the mother had a greater income than the father, the mother would be required to pay child support to the father. Critics of the fathers' rights movement state that even if ordered, many fathers will not provide 50% of the child care after separation.

FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

Members of the fathers’ rights movement say that courts discriminate against fathers and that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions and that about 85 percent of custodial parents in the United States are mothers, according to a 2001 report by the U. S. Census Bureau. [[55]] [[56]] Members of the father’s rights movement feel that upon divorce, fathers often become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives and call for equality in custody decisions. [[57]] For example, Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, referred to custody rulings and stated, "we believe the baseline should be equal time. We're encouraging states and courts to see there's a need for equality,". [[58]] As a result, fathers’ rights groups lobby for laws that would make a rebuttable presumption for joint physical custody, also known as shared parenting, the preferred form of custody[[59]] and equal parental responsibility following separation. [[60]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement note that the presumption for shared parenting is rebuttable and custody decisions are still based on the best interest of the children. In response to criticisms of shared parenting, members of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting does not put the interests of parents above those of the children and quote a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, which found that children of divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. [[61]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement support shared parenting for several reasons: they state that they love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. [[62]] They also argue that, "children need both parents." [[63]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that if custody is contested, the stress between the parties can be overwhelming and manifest, but that much of this stress is a result of the win or lose nature of the custody proceedings. They report that the parties are often able to collaborate after this stressful period has ended and that shared parenting is in the best interest of children. <source needed> Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that the adversarial nature of custody proceedings has resulted in judges evaluating fathers who act cooperatively and politely in court as potential abusers who are able to hide their true nature. [[64]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement suggest that because mothers are able to anticipate the gender bias of the family court, they do not need to negotiate the terms of the separation, and by refusing to cooperate they win majority or sole custody, based on the idea that this is in the best interest of children since the parties could not get along enough to agree on custody. They claim that as a result mothers also obtain generous child support, since this must be in the best interest of the children since majority or sole custody has been awarded to the mother. Members of the fathers' rights movement propose that negotiations of the terms of separation would be fairer if custody were removed from the negotiations. [[65]]

CRITIC'S VIEW

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement point out that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over what is best for the children. They argue that custody decisions should focus on appropriately meeting the developmental needs of children.[[66]] as well as their wishes. [[67]] Possible difficulties include problems transitioning between two homes, routines, sets of friends etc. [[68]]

Critics note that the studies from the 1980s often cited by fathers’ rights activities studies to support presumptive shared parenting, involved couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and who chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. They report that such cases are not representative of most divorces, and that characteristics of the pre-divorce family led to the success of shared parenting, rather than shared parenting order itself.[[69]] [[70]] They argue that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[71]] Research has noted that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes, and that “these couples were experiencing considerably more conflict and less co-operative parenting than were couples for whom joint custody was the first choice of each parent." [[72]]
:Critics of the fathers’ rights movement also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[73]]

While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time. <a more informative statistic is requested> [[74]] [[75]]

Critics also point out that a characteristic of shared parenting for fathers’ rights groups is the lowered or complete termination of the child support order the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– is likely to have to pay. [[76]]

Michael H 34 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

________

"Research has noted that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes...."

The conclusion is not universally true. In New York State, Braiman vs. Braiman and its progeny are used as a presumption to award sole custody when conflict between the parties is high. Michael H 34 16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time."

Thus, ignoring these potential gender biases against fathers allowed the study to conclude that “fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”116However, based on its own data and not ignoring potential gender bias against fathers, the study could also have trumpeted any of the following results, leading to far different conclusions:

Mothers get primary residential custody 93.4% of the time in divorces.

Fathers in divorce get primary residential custody only 2.5% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get joint physical custody only 4% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get primary or joint physical custody less than 7% of the time.

Where fathers actively seek custody, they receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%),121 and joint physical residency in less than half (46%).122[[77]]

Michael H 34 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Proposed Shared Parenting Section - Continued

I'm continuing the shared parenting discussion here because the other section is so long it's truncating on my computer.

Michael H 34 wrote (regarding Bauserman's joint custody analysis): "The meta-study was published in 2002 and includes studies from 1982 - 1999."

Most of those studies were from the 1980s and early 1990s. Some were even from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. They are listed at the end of the report, which is available online. What I wrote about those early joint custody studies in my proposed shared parenting section stands.

Michael H 34 wrote: "The conclusion is not universally true. In New York State, Braiman vs. Braiman and its progeny are used as a presumption to award sole custody when conflict between the parties is high"

The statement I had made didn't say that the conclusion was universally true. It said "joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes." That New York State awards sole custody in conflicted cases doesn't change the fact that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual cases. What I wrote in my proposed shared parenting section stands.

Michael H 34, re: comments about gender bias – What you've written doesn't discount what I had written in my proposed shared parenting section. The first important point: Regarding this quote you made from Cynthia McNeely's paper: "Where fathers actively seek custody, they receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%), and joint physical residency in less than half (46%)." 29 plus 46 equals 75% - only five points over what the Mass. Gender Bias Report had said. The 70% figure stands. It's even a bit low, according to Cynthia McNeely. And she was talking about residency, not legal custody.

You (and Cynthia McNeely, for that matter) are making the mistake of assuming that a low number of fathers winning some form of custody in that report means that lots of dads had asked for custody and most of them did not get it. That report you linked to included McNeely's commentary about the Massachusetts Gender Bias Report. The Massachusetts Gender Bias Reported stated dads get custody 70% of the time. Fathers who contested custody usually get some form of it. There weren't many of them, but they did win quite often in the small percentage of total cases that existed at that time. Keep in mind that that report was from about 1990, when few dads were asking for custody. I already pointed that out in the "critics" section of what I wrote about shared parenting that the early joint custody studies were about rare families with unusual qualities. Dads who wanted custody back then often got it when they asked for it, and most of the time both parents wanted it. Most dads didn't ask for custody at that time. Most dads today don't ask for it. . I've already posted information about how some courts would order joint custody to deal with custody disputes – so dad is getting some form of custody when he makes an issue of it. There are (I believe) 40 state gender bias reports. All of them found that fathers get either sole or joint custody more than half the time when they make an issue of it. 70% was the highest figure reported in the gender bias reports.

Some of the talk over the last two days has leaned towards debate about fathers' rights. I've defended the points I've made in the shared parenting section. I don't want to debate or argue here. It's inappropriate on Wikipedia.

Trish Wilson 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Couple of real quick points, and then I won't say anymore. I promise. I don't want to debate here.

From Michael H 34 (quoting Cynthia McNeely):

Mothers get primary residential custody 93.4% of the time in divorces.

Fathers in divorce get primary residential custody only 2.5% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get joint physical custody only 4% of the time.

Fathers in divorce get primary or joint physical custody less than 7% of the time.

All total cases, including the most common ones where both parents agreed on their own that mom should have custody. These figures include the vast majority of cases where dad did not request custody.

Where fathers actively seek custody, they receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%),121 and joint physical residency in less than half (46%).

These figures reflect the Massachusetts Gender Bias Report. When dads seek custody, they get some form of residential custody 75% of the time. Cynthia McNeely had tried to discredit the 70% figure from the Mass. Gender Bias Report, and she probably doesn't even know that she verified it - even added to it a little.

Trish Wilson 00:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ms. McNeely concluded that based on the results of the study that included the 70% statistic, one should not conclude that "fathers do not want custody."

I believe that the 70% statistic should not be included in this article and therefore, the following sentence in a Response to Criticism subsection would not be necessary:

Members of the fathers' rights movement note that high legal fees and preliminary legal advice guide many fathers to avoid contesting for custody and the fact that few fathers believe that they can still prevail in court despite a bias in favor of the primary caregiver and a perceived gender bias in favor of mothers does not mean that fathers do not want custody. Members of the fathers' rights movement further note that despite the selection for cases in which the father believes that he has a chance of succeeding, fathers receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%), and joint physical residency in less than half (46%).". <C. McNeely link> Michael H 34 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Ms. McNeely also concluded that the study did not disprove gender bias. Michael H 34 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"The statement I had made didn't say that the conclusion was universally true. It said "joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual custody disputes." That New York State awards sole custody in conflicted cases doesn't change the fact that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual cases. What I wrote in my proposed shared parenting section stands."

Please contrast "84.5% of people support shared parenting" with "In Massachusetts, some voters...." (A representation that the subset of counties for which results were available were a good representation of the diverse demographics within the state was not included in the article because even if true, it was not supported by the notable source.)

"....doesn't change the fact that joint custody is more likely to be awarded in highly conflictual cases." This is not universally true. What if it were not true except in one country, or one province of one country, or just for one judge of one province of one country? Michael H 34 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

A "Response to Criticism" subsection sounds like debate and activism, which are inappopriate on Wikipedia. You've proposed a "Response To Criticism" section twice on the "Talk" page when you didn't like what was written in the "criticism" section. There are no sources cited for the paragraph you've written (except for the McNeely link), and it reads like your personal point of view. That paragraph sounds like activism and debate, not a description of the major points about shared parenting. It's a debate about inclusion of the 70% figure regarding gender bias, which you don't like.

I am not going to debate here. It's inappropriate on Wikipedia.

Trish Wilson 15:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Section

Here's a start for the domestic violence section. I've amended it to call it Domestic Violence/Child Abuse, since child abuse sometimes comes up in divorce and custody cases. I think what I've written covers the main points. Since Parental Alienation Syndrome already has a page on Wikipedia, I've included some general information about it in this section. Any additional information about Parental Alienation Syndrome should probably be written on that page.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/CHILD ABUSE

THE FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

The fathers rights movement does not agree with the prevailing wisdom that women are the most common victims of domestic violence. They say that some research (especially research by Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz [[78]]) has found that women are as abusive as men. Fathers rights advocates say that men who say they are abused are not taken seriously and that they are seen as weak. [[79]] The fathers rights movement says that shelters for battered women discriminate against men. It wants to see more services for battered men, and therefore it has sued women's shelters for discrimination. [[80]] Fathers rights activists also believe that most domestic violence and child abuse allegations made by women are false. They say that child custody disputes drive most fabrications of domestic violence and child abuse. [[81]] The fathers rights movement says that the most common false allegations made are allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse, and that wives are more likely to make these false allegations than husbands, especially in the context of a custody dispute. [[82]] In line with their beliefs that mothers frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, father's rights activists have supported the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) in court to prevent mothers from falsely accusing fathers. PAS that says that mothers frequently try to alienate their children from the fathers during divorce and custody cases. [[83]].Fathers rights activists say that mothers who suffer from PAS want to eliminate the father from the children's lives. PAS mothers are described as making false allegations of domestic violence and sexual and/or physical or emotional abuse of the child. These mothers may also accuse the father of suffering from a mental illness, alcoholism/drug abuse, or of being gay. [[84]]

CRITIC'S VIEW

Critics say that fathers' rights activists have tried to roll back protections for battered women by claiming that most allegations of abuse are false and that men and women are equally abusive. [[85]]While there are male victims of domestic violence, most victims of domestic violence are women. [[86]] Men who are victims of domestic violence tend to be abused by their male partners in gay relationships. [[87]] While some fathers' rights activists have sued women's shelters, alleging that they discriminate against men, they have lost their cases due to the lack of evidence that they had suffered discrimination and that they lacked standing. [[88]] Researcher Richard Gelles had written that when looking at injuries, it is false to imply that there are the same number of battered men as battered women.[[89]] Gelles had written that it is a "significant distortion of well-grounded research data" for fathers' rights activists to say that there are significant numbers of battered men and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. [[90]]Critics say that women do not frequently make false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and that false allegations of both are rare. [[91]] [[92]] Critics say that allegations of domestic violence and child abuse made by women are often assumed to be false because they are made in a contentious legal environment. However, such beliefs are incorrect. [[93]] Bona fide false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are rare. [[94]] [[95]] Most bona fide false allegations of child abuse are made by men. [[96]] Parental Alienation Syndrome is not considered a valid medical syndrome by the American Psychological Association. [[97]] [[98]] PAS has never been subjected to testing, research, or study. It is also biased against women. [[99]] Critics say that Parental Alienation Syndrome is being used by abusive and controlling fathers as a weapon against mothers. The use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in court has lead to fit and good mothers losing custody of their children to their abusive and controlling ex-partners. [[100]]

Trish Wilson 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"The fathers rights movement does not agree with the prevailing wisdom that women are the most common victims of domestic violence." NPOV

Members of the fathers' rights movement prefer that the judiciary hold responsible parents who have been found to have made false accusations of abuse in order to win custody. Michael H 34 04:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I just updated what I wrote above. It's much shorter, and I took out the arguments for both sides. Sorry about the arguments. How's this sound?

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/CHILD ABUSE

The fathers rights movement does not believe that women are the most common victims of domestic violence. They say that some studies have found that women are as abusive as men. [[101]] Fathers rights activists also believe that most domestic violence and child abuse allegations made by women are false. [[102]] ]] In line with their beliefs that mothers frequently fabricate allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, father's rights activists have supported the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome, which says that mothers frequently try to alienate their children from the fathers during divorce and custody cases. [[103]]. Critics say that while there are male victims of domestic violence, most victims of domestic violence are women. [[104]] Critics say that women do not frequently make false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, and that false allegations of both are rare. [[105]] [[106]] Parental Alienation Syndrome is not considered a valid medical syndrome by the American Psychological Association. [[107]] [[108]] Critics say that PAS has never been subjected to testing, research, or study, and that it is biased against women. [[109]] Critics say that Parental Alienation Syndrome is being used by abusive and controlling fathers as a weapon against mothers. [[110]]

Trish Wilson 13:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be similarities between the accusations of a father concerning parental alienation syndrome (PAS) (sometimes just in order to win custody) and the accusations of a mother regarding domestic violence / child abuse (sometimes just in order to win custody). However, should parental alienation syndrome have its own section? I suggest that it should. Michael H 34 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

In the outline, parental alienation syndrome already has its own section. Sorry for not checking first. Michael H 34 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Time out!!!

I observe all this hive of activity from afar, amazed and impressed by the hardwork of well-informed editors, as well as the civility of people who probably hold very different POVs. It is an inspiration to see how things are working.

I think we need to make some decisions, though.

1. I think we have all agreed that this article is not the place for argument about the specific issues, but as the sections are worked on, every section seems to end up longer and with more argument and more evidence than is in the article now!! I am strongly with Decr32 above about this. What are we going to do to solve this? One of my suggestions is that Michael and Trish should branch out and start editing the related articles (e.g Child custody, Shared parenting etc etc) since they have such good information about these topics!!!
2. Once we have got this sorted out, I am wondering if all this editing on the talkpage is such a good idea in the longterm. It means that we never make any final decisions. Since politeness and civility have been so well established on this page, maybe we could start editing the article page itself. Once major changes have been made, we can then discuss possible changes or revisions to this here on the talk page, and make minor changes directly to the article with good edit summaries.

--Slp1 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Slp1. Everyone seemed to agree with the main intro of the article that was written here. Is it okay if that goes up? Everyone liked the idea of working on an outline, too. I thought we were going to work out the main sections here on the "Talk" page, and then post on the main article page what we had written after the main sections were finished. I guess the only section everyone seemed to agree on was the Intro.

What would you suggest for making the sections shorter? I liked your revision of what I had written for the Shared Parenting section. Is it okay if that goes up on the main page?

I think it's important to repeat that whatever is posted on the article page needs sources. Don't post anything there unless you have a source to back it up.

Also, what do we do with sections already written on the main article page? Do we delete what's there and write something new, more concise, and shorter? Do we save them somewhere on Wiki or offline? I'm not sure how to handle editing what is on the main article page. I've never done a substantial edit of a main article page before, and I don't know what the protocol is.

Trish Wilson 13:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slp1, I just updated my entry on Domestic Violence/Child Abuse. It's much shorter, and the arguments for both sides are gone. What does everyone think of it?

Trish Wilson 13:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

____

Trish, I'll get back to you with more comments on the section on Domestic Violence/Child Abuse. I think it is a good start.

_____________

Since there is a proposal to amend the article sooner rather than later and since there is some consensus that the section on Shared Parenting should be shortened to eliminate scope creep, I propose the following as the section on Shared Parenting with the idea that certain concepts may be introduced in other sections, namely child support and domestic violence/abuse. I believe strongly that the term shared parenting should be carefully defined.

JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY (SHARED PARENTING)

The members of the fathers' rights movement advocate for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50:50 shared custody 53 and equal parental responsibility following separation 54, also known as shared parenting. If, in the absence of agreement between the parents, a family court judge decides that the presumption of 50:50 shared custody has not been rebutted because it is both in the best interests of the children and practical, then the judge would order that physical custody of the children would be shared equally by the parents.

FATHERS RIGHTS VIEW

Members of the fathers' rights movement state that most fathers love their children and want to remain a part of their lives, and fear that if separation or divorce does occur, that they will lose meaningful contact with their children. 62 Members of the father’s rights movement feel that upon divorce, fathers often become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives and call for equality in custody decisions. 57 For example, Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, referred to custody rulings and stated, "we believe the baseline should be equal time. We're encouraging states and courts to see there's a need for equality." 58 Members of the fathers' rights movement argue that, "children need both parents." 63 As a result, fathers’ rights groups lobby for laws that would make a rebuttable presumption for joint physical custody, also known as shared parenting, the preferred form of custody 59.

Members of the fathers' rights movement note that the presumption for shared parenting is rebuttable and custody decisions are still based on the best interest of the children. In response to criticisms of shared parenting, members of the fathers' rights movement state that shared parenting does not put the interests of parents above those of the children and quote a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, which found that children of divorce “express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,” and cite the “benefit of remaining close to both parents” as an important factor. 61

Members of the fathers' rights movement acknowledge that policy makers are concerned with creating conflict between parents with respect to child support and the willingness of parents to desire parenting time in order to increase the amount of child support they receive or decrease the amount of child support that they have to pay. However, they state that this concern applies to both parents. G. Sacks and/or [[111]]

Members of the fathers' rights movement also state that the win/lose nature of the adversarial court system has lead to an increase in the accusations of abuse associated with winning custody hearings and that shared parenting is the solution for this problem. [[112]]

CRITIC'S VIEW

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement point out that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over what is best for the children. They argue that custody decisions should focus on appropriately meeting the developmental needs of children. 66 as well as their wishes. 67 Possible difficulties include problems transitioning between two homes, routines, sets of friends etc. 68

Critics note that the studies from the 1980s often cited by fathers’ rights activities studies to support presumptive shared parenting, involved couples who tended to have higher incomes, higher education, who had only one child, not much interpersonal conflict, and who chose joint custody because they wanted to make it work. They report that such cases are not representative of most divorces, and that characteristics of the pre-divorce family led to the success of shared parenting, rather than shared parenting order itself. 69 70 They argue that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. 71

Critics of the fathers’ rights movement also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. 73 Critics also point out that a characteristic of shared parenting for fathers’ rights groups is the lowered or complete termination of the child support order the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually the father– is likely to have to pay. 76

Michael H 34 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I think that both views are presented well, but the section is still way too long. Lots of the material could be added to the shared parenting section itself, as you wrote. I've shortened the shared parenting section a great deal, and I included in the beginning exactly what shared parenting is. How does this sound?

SHARED PARENTING

Members of the fathers rights movement say that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. [[113]] [[114]] Therefore, the fathers rights movement advocates for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody [[115]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[116]]. Shared parenting, also known as joint physical custody, would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father with more time with his children than he would have with sole custody. The fathers rights movement says studies show that children are happier with shared parenting than with sole custody. [[117]] Critics have pointed out that shared parenting would result in a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually dad – would have to pay. [[118]] [[119]] Critics also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[120]] Critics of the fathers' rights movement say that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over the developmental needs and wishes of children. [[121]] [[122]] Critics say that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, it may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[123]]

Trish Wilson 16:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that you included the word rebuttable. I prefer the prior version though, because I believe that it's clear. I don't think that it's too long although I'm open to suggestions.

"Shared parenting, also known as joint physical custody, would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father with more time with his children than he would have with sole custody. "

Shared parenting does not create anything. Michael H 34 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"Members of the fathers rights movement say that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. Therefore,...."

This statement is insufficient. "Children need both parents", is the heart of the fathers' rights movement (ACFC website - home page, G. Sacks). I believe that the prior version mentions various issues associated with Shared Parenting without delving into too much detail. Michael H 34 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

How's this? I don't think it should get much longer than what's below. Anyone interested can elaborate on the shared parenting page.

Members of the fathers rights movement say that mothers are unfairly favored in custody decisions. [[124]] [[125]] They state, "Children need both parents." [[126]] They feel that upon divorce, fathers often become nothing more than "visitors" in their children's lives and call for equality in custody decisions. [[127]] Therefore, the fathers rights movement advocates for laws creating a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 shared custody [[128]] and equal parental responsibility following separation [[129]]. Shared parenting, also known as joint physical custody, would create a time-share of physical custody between the parents, providing the otherwise non-custodial father with more time with his children than he would have with sole custody. The fathers rights movement says studies show that children are happier with shared parenting than with sole custody. [[130]] While agreeing that the custody is mainly awarded to women, critics point out this is because fathers often do not seek custody. When they do, fathers win joint or sole custody 70 percent of the time. [[131]] [[132]] Critics have pointed out that shared parenting would result in a substantial decrease in child support the otherwise non-custodial parent – usually dad – would have to pay. [[133]] [[134]] Critics also say that shared parenting ignores the dynamics of power and control in cases of domestic violence and child abuse. [[135]] Critics of the fathers' rights movement say that, in promoting shared parenting, fathers rights activists elevate the desires of adults, in particular non-custodial fathers, over the developmental needs and wishes of children. [[136]] Possible difficulties children may experience include problems transitioning between two homes, routines, sets of friends etc. [[137]] Critics say that while shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, it may be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict and abuse between their parents. [[138]]

Trish Wilson 18:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slp1, I'd like to add the intro to the beginning of the article, but Wiki won't let me do it. I think it's because the entire article is so long. Should I remove the content appearing before "supporters", save it to a Word file offline, and then try a cut and paste? How do you add to the beginning of the article?

Trish Wilson 18:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask that the longer version of Shared Parenting that I proposed above please be considered for inclusion in the article. Let's make the issue of family court bias the topic of another section. (Even in another section, the 70% statistic is not valid.) Michael H 34 20:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Updated Article Page

Slp1, I just saw the updates you made (I assume it was you) on the main article page. I like what you did very much. I don't have anything to add at the moment. I saw your two new templates at the top, so I won't add anything until I run it past you here first.

Thanks so much for doing all that work, and for helping out here in the discussion page. I know fathers' rights is a very contentious topic. I've enjoyed working with you and everyone else here so far.

Trish Wilson 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My evening's efforts

Hi all,
So I have bitten the bullet...

1. I added the new outline and moved the old article to roughly fit into the categories
2. I have added "improved" sections from the talk page into the appropriate spot on the outline
3. I made some changes to reflect the comments made by others
4. I made some of my own changes too. A major one has been to move most of the criticism from the intro down to a criticism section at the bottom of the article. I just felt the flow will be better that way, but others may disagree.

It is a start but we still have a lot of work to do!!!

• Since footnotes have been used in this article as the way of marking citations, we need to use that method too. Take a look at footnotes to learn how to do it. I have found the citation templates useful to help organize myself and make it a bit easier. I am happy to help with this, but don't want to do it all myself as it is very boring and labourious!!!
• There are lots of other sections to work on, of course.
• You may feel like altering the wording of some of the sections I have added and any other sections there. Please feel free!! This is a wiki and the whole point is that we can all edit the article and improve it as we all see fit (within WP policies, of course!). I think we have developed a good working relationship here, but it is worth proposing any potentially controversial edits here before making them, or at least mentioning them here after you make them! Good edit summaries are also very useful too.
  Trish is right that we need to make sure that we can provide reliable sources and citations for changes that we make.
  I still think that the there is creep going on here so I intend to be bold (as recommended by WP) and do a bit of pruning and condensing once I surface from the pile of other work I have do to in the next few days. You have been warned!!!!!

Trish, I am not sure why you had trouble editing the article page. Let me know if you have problems again and I will try to help figure out why. You could leave a message on my talk page. --Slp1 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Slp1. I made some minor edits, mainly adding paragraph breaks, especially for the criticism section. That section was one long, tedious paragraph, and it needed to be broken up. I also added to this statement in the Intro: "Critics dispute many of these points." I added: "Please see the "Criticism" section at the end of this article for some examples." I think the reader was just left hanging there without a clarifying comment about what the critics dispute.

I see what you mean about footnotes. I will probably tackle the footnotes formatting, but not right now. Yeah, it's very boring and labourious.  ;)

I did write a shorter version of both the shared parenting section and the domestic violence/child abuse section on this Talk Page, so you may want to go to those for future edits, since you mentioned wanting to do some pruning. Anyone interested could put the more extensive material in the Wikipedia "shared parenting", "domestic violence", and "child abuse" articles.

Slp1, I always have trouble editing the beginning of a Wiki page because there is no "edit" link on the right. I have to click on the top where it says "edit this page". The entire page comes up for editing, rather than bits and pieces of it. I can never add anything when I do this. I won't worry about it now, since I don't see a need after your edits to do anything to the very beginning of the article.

Once again, thanks for all your hard work.

Trish Wilson 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias against fathers

Is the 70% statistic being used to support criticism of shared parenting?

Since the 70% statistic is included in the section on shared parenting, I think that it is not incorrect to mention that the 70% statistic is being used as criticism of shared parenting in the section on Bias against fathers.

Michael H 34 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I agree that repetition is not desirable. --Slp1 22:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention of the 70% statistic as criticism of shared parenting currently appears twice. I propose that it remain in the section on bias against fathers. If the 70% statistic is removed from the Shared Parenting section, then I agree that it is appropriate to remove the statement that the 70% statistic is being used as criticism of shared parenting in the section on Bias against fathers.

I'll remove both occurrences of the 70% statistic as criticism of shared parenting. Please revert and make changes as you feel appropriate. Michael H 34 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Child support

You guys have been busy in the article today. Congratulations!! I am still swamped, but before you do any more, here is my comment about the new Child support section. I think it has drifted into advocacy: this is not the place for pointing forward points for and against, but pointing out FRA's attitudes towards the topic. Maybe it should go in the Child Custody article? That or rewording is necessary, I think. Ditto for criticism --Slp1 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the entire article is turning into advocacy, especially the Intro and the Bias Against Fathers sections. Child Support, too. I'm not going to add anything else for the time being. I do feel that I need to address what is being written, though. I don't feel comfortable deleting activist-oriented stuff that I didn't write, and make sure the article is a description of FRA attitudes, and what the critics have to say about that. I'm just not sure how to go about it at this point. I think that some of the stuff in the Criticism section can be added to another section called something like "Harassing Behavior By Fathers' Rights Groups". I think that was a header in the past.

Trish Wilson 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you are possibly not the best person to do any pruning required! I am willing to try to do the job once people have added whatever major points they feel important. I know virtually nothing about the topic so can't participate with this easily. Once I am free of a bunch of "real work" I have to do, I will try and condense things, with the goal of preserving the meaning of everybody's points while cutting out some of the unnecessary detail. How does that sound? --Slp1 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.

I added attribution to the statements of Amneus, which are needed if these statements remain. His views are extreme among members of the fathers' rights movement and are not appropriate for the section on shared parenting, since he supports automatic father custody.

If the current section on Child Support is misleading because Amneus's views are extreme, then please feel free to eliminate, reword and/or edit. I think that William Farrell's viewpoint is more representative of most members of the fathers' rights movement, since I believe that the elimination of child support is not part of the fathers' rights groups' agenda.

Many members of the fathers' rights movement prefer that child support be based on the cost of raising the children.

I have not found a cite in which criticism is expressed of child support designs in which greater child support is generally provided to women who have children with more than one man as compared to women who have children with one man.

I think that including a subsection of Criticism titled "Harrassing behavior by members of fathers' rights groups" is okay.

Michael H 34 23:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I made two minor edits just now. Michael H, he's "Warren Farrell", not "William Farrell". I fixed that for you. I also divided up the "Criticism" section because it is way too long.

I don't have much more to add to the text at this time. I know which sections are activism and POV, including stuff I wrote, but I'll wait until you yank and condense things, Slp1. I figure in time I'll be able to do that kind of editing myself. I'm still learning the ropes.

Trish Wilson 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting Warren Farrell's name. Michael H 34 04:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0915wilson.html Michael H 34 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Notes: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/childsup/csde/publications/brito_05.pdf Michael H 34 05:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Critics point out that noncustodial fathers pay only 19% of their incomes toward their children's household incomes. ^[1] In 2003, custodial parents were owed an average of $5,100 in child support. They received on average about $3,000. ^[2]

I don't understand why these sentences are included. Michael H 34 03:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Starting

I thought I would start with something easy and short,Parental Alienation. Not as easy as I thought! It bodes ill!
Two things:

1. I have started doing the references properly, with the authors names etc. Please can you help with this? You can take a look at the section I did to see how it looks. WP:FN and WP:CITET will give the full details.
2. re Criticism of PAS: I am not sure about whether the Leadership Council or the websites that Trish has given meet the requirements for reliable sources since I don't see that they are peer-reviewed in any way. It looks like the "Report of the American Psychological Association presidential task force on violence and the family" from 1995 would have the same sort of info about more specific criticism of how PAS gets used, but I can't find it on the web. Can anybody help? Or do you have a copy of it, Trish? --Slp1 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, forget about what I said in 2, since all we need to prove is that critics are saying these things, which the links do. I did think the APA specifics would be interesting though.--Slp1 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have engaged in a major condensing exercise of parts of the family law section. I have tried to maintain all the arguments, but have taken out many of the examples. Some I have moved to the US section since they were country specific. The others are in the history, and might be good in the WP articles on the specific topics.

A major change I have made is to put the Family Law, Child custody and shared parenting into one section, boldly moving away from our agreed outline. It seems to me that these are such overlapping areas that it was inappropriate to try to divide them artificially in the way we were planning. I am not sure the title is the greatest, though! Any ideas?

I have also put in a bunch of citation needed tags. I don't doubt that these statements are true, but we need attribution for them. We also need to do the proper footnoting as I noted above. Since doing this is what is really tedious, I suggest we all get in the habit of doing this straightaway since it is always a pain having to go back and redo these things. Slp1 18:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job you've done, Slp1. The article is much more clear now, and much easier to read. I like the condensation you've done of the Family Law section re: Child Custody and Shared Parenting. Much easier to read now.

I added a bit to the "Child Support" section, and I think it's in a neutral point of view.

Also, critics don't say that there is no bias against fathers in family law cases. All of the gender bias reports described gender bias against fathers in custody cases and such. They describe the kinds of bias fathers have faced in divorce and custody cases. That part of the statement is the only incorrect part. The rest of it (regarding fathers often getting custody when they contest it) is correct. I'll reword that paragraph in a bit. I'm taking a break from working now to check on Wikipedia.

I have the APA specifics about PAS, Slp1, but they are no longer available online. Let me dig through my research material and get the details. When I have them, I'll post them to the PAS section.

If I have sources for the areas where you placed "citation needed" tags, I'll post them. Those statements were written by someone else, so I don't have the citations off the top of my head. I try to include citations for everything that I write.

Trish Wilson 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A great consolidation has occurred! As a result some very interesting details and examples have been deleted. Michael H 34 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks for the (mostly) positive feedback. Some of the examples are in the US section now, since the main part of the article needs to avoid a US bias, surely. I also thought many of the details were unnecessary where we aren't really supposed to be giving extraneous details about the issues themselves. But they would probably be excellent in some of the other articles. Have you seen the Shared parenting one? It is in desperate need of expansion and a lot of those details would be great there, IMHO. The extra sub-heading is a great idea, Michael. And please do correct the sentence about no bias against fathers, Trish. I was trying to write an intro sentence, but my ignorance of the subject is showing! --Slp1 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I am concerned about your latest addition to the Domestic Violence section. Can you give sources for each sentence, please? Perhaps it is all in the document you link at the end, but I can't find them at a quick look. Please use proper footnotes including the name of the author, the date of the publication, publisher, and the page number in the reference as well as the weblink. I have already mentioned several times that Citation Templates may be helpful, so perhaps we can agree not to just add weblinks without the rest of the information required by WP. In the meantime I am going modify one sentence that I find very POV. --Slp1 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added the information from the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force to the Parental Alienation Syndrome section. Please do not remove it. It was removed once. It's a valid source, and I give the proper footnote, even though the report is no longer available online.

Trish Wilson 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slp1, please let me congratulate you on the excellent job that you have done with the consolidation and the article as a whole.

Some of the details that I missed were hidden by a missing "/" in a link. I agree with you that the article should not have a US bias. I found some other details that I missed in the US section (which has gotten quite big!!!) I imagine that the inclusion of anecdotal information is an issue for many articles and that their inclusion must be decided on a case by case basis. I imagine that when too many anecdotes are included, the quality of the article can be diminished. Does a particular anecdote contribute to the article by providing an example of a germane issue, or does it diminish the article?

One of the anecdotes that I missed was about a UK father who lost custody of his child or children because the judge acted with empathy toward the mother because she said that she was depressed.

Slp1, thank you again for your excellent work on the article. Michael H 34 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hi Decr32, Thank you for all your instructive comments which helped serve as wikipedia training for me. Thank you also for finding the supporting links to help define shared parenting. Michael H 34 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

• As noted below, you have done a great job with the references, Michael. Having a quick look through the current state of the article, I note that there is still a lot of repetition (esp in the criticism section) which I will try to condense and rationalize in the next little while.

Your questions about examples are important. My personal opinion is that we should avoid most of these, partly because they tend to be country-specific, and partly because they tend to smack of advocacy. For example, I am not sure the "banning" of one book in one country really rates a mention. The point is well made by the preceding sentence "Members of the fathers' rights movement state that the some governments have condoned censorship by making it a "crime to criticize family court judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly" and if people want to find more they can click the links and find out more. The same goes for the percentages of child support paid that Michael has noted. Other things that need work and thought

• The intro, and what follows "The fathers' rights movement arose with changes in both the law and in societal attitudes, including:...." All the items on the list may be individually sourceable, but we actually need a reference or references that state that these are the 'cause' (or whatever) of the FRM. Otherwise it is Original Research.
• A lot of the stuff in the country sections (e.g. ballots etc) is not really about the FRM per se but about the issues and would be better in the article on shared parenting or whatever. A much shorter version, such as "FRM activities have led to ballots in x and y states, blah blah" would probably be appropriate.

--Slp1 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the significance of the ballot results is evaluated as would be the inclusion of notable supporters. It also highlights the difference in results when opposition to the FRM campaign against shared parenting. Michael H 34 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Massachusetts 2004 Shared parenting non-binding vote - no campaigning => 84.5% voted approval

North Dakota 2006 Shared parenting plus child support based on costs. Measure defeated 56% to 43%. North Dakota State Bar Association campaigns against initiative. (Ads claim that Title IV-D money to North Dakota would be lost because of the child support provision.) Lawrence E. King, the president of the NDSBA, claimed that he believed that a main goal of Measure 3 was the reduction or elimination of the non-custodial parent's child support obligation.

Michigan 2007 Parent's Rights Activists such as Dads of Michigan and Moms of Michigan seek passage of HB 5267,[85] a bill that would allow for a presumption of joint physical custody in the case of divorce as long as both parents live in the same school district, there is no clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling or unable to care for the child, and makes no changes in child support payments.

It tells a story of the progression of the movement to achieve the goal of shared parenting in the US, one state at a time. Michael H 34 20:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Domestic Violence - Page Numbers for citations

"Members of the fathers' rights movement believe that it is extremely rare for fathers to abuse their children and that when children are abused, it almost always occurs after the father has been separated from their children."

^[3] Page 47 "Despite irresponsible statements.... Page 48 Maggie Gallagher sums....

"Members of the fathers' rights movement state the primary cause for increasing allegations of domestic violence and child abuse is the result of the inflamatory "win or lose" nature of child custody hearings, which they contend has encouraged false allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse." Page 43 "Child abuse has similarly.... Page 5 "Americans have been inundated...." Page 25 "We believe that...."

Members of the fathers' rights movement believe that domestic violence and child abuse should be prosecuted based on due process of law and that government officials and social workers should not have the power to violate constitutional rights. Page 58 "Our first recommendation...."

Members of the fathers' rights movement claim that fathers are considered guilty and are not presumed to be innocent, just because they are men. Page 44 "This lack of due process...." Page 60 In box "We recommend...." Page 51 "As will be seen...."

I'll find more or reword sentences, if mecessary.

Michael H 34 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

• Thanks for these, Michael and for the tremendous job at proper citations that you have done. Doesn't the reference list look better?! I will take a look at these specific references when I have a minute (not likely for a bit, since I am swamped at present). --Slp1 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome, SLP1! Michael H 34 15:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Recent edits

I have boldly replaced a large chunk of the intro section that had just been deleted. I agree that it is only partially cited at present, but only today has the need for attribution for this section and the dangers of WP:SYNT been pointed out (see above), and I believe that a little more time is appropriate. The replacement text while sourced did not seemed somewhat POV, so I have moved it with a minor change to the criticism section.

Before hitting save page I see that Decr32 has deleted part of it again, rather than get in edit war I would ask him or her to consider reinstating it while giving a chance for citations to be found. --Slp1 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed, Decr32. I appreciate your actions in restoring the section very much. --Slp1 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that quite a bit of the intro section was very POV, and it needed to be changed. I'm glad that Decr32 changed some of that. I'll change some of it on my own in the next couple of days, with sources as I always do.

Trish Wilson 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• What I have noticed is how difficult it is to add information and make it NPOV without getting very longwinded (and dare I say it, a bit boring!!!!). Somehow we need to get the important points in without belabouring things and avoiding POV phrasing. It is quite a challenge, I find. But we are getting there, I think, with a few steps forward and backward as we go. Once again I congratulate all on the cooperative spirit, given that we are coming from some very different POVs --Slp1 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO the problem with length is because FR = lobbying. One could say the FR movement is the set of people who use persuasive argument to convince the world at large that FR's issues are pressing social issues. FR lobbying is directly opposed by mother's interest groups doing the same thing with their issues - thus you have 2 (small) groups of people trying to outdo each other's persuasive arguments.

This article achieves a semblance of balance by including the shouting from both sides. However in doing so it includes ALL the persuasive argument from both sides (which is so tedious to read). And it omits a description of what FR is - it just goes on and on repeating the persuasive arguments that FR's use in their lobbying activity. In that sense the entire article is soapbox.

I really think this article should be, at most, 1 page long. Describe the father's rights movement....

Decr32 07:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Funnily enough, something of the same thought came to me overnight. It occured to me that way too much space is spent arguing the points without any mention of how the movement is organized, how/do they meet, relationship between various groupings, etc etc. --Slp1 11:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"One could say the FR movement is the set of people who use persuasive argument to convince the world at large that FR's issues are pressing social issues."

Wouldn't you like to know more about the issues facing fathers?

The article as it exists presents the point of view of the members of the fathers' rights movement concerning fathers' rights.

I believe that the article should maintain a neutral point of view while expressing the point of view of the members of the fathers' rights movement and their critics. If this is achieved though the proper attribution of statements, then the article is not "soapbox".

Is it true that no other Wikipedia article discusses the point of view of members of a group while maintaining a neutral point of view?

This is not an article about the Magnifying Transmitter.

Michael H 34 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The article as it exists presents the point of view of the members of the fathers' rights movement concerning fathers' rights.

That is my point. An encyclopedia article is supposed to summarise the consensus of KNOWLEDGE, not a compendium of opinion

Decr32 19:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you like to know more about the issues facing fathers?

The issues can be explained in a couple of paragraphs.

However any summary here is buried under persuasive argument to convince readers that FR's issues are pressing social concerns. An encyclopedia should only present the facts and let readers do their own interpretation.

Decr32 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon reflection: the length of this article does not result in more information about the issues - it just repeats more of the argument. More precisely, the extra material in the article does not contribute to expand on the issues in greater depth or breadth - it just expands on the argument about the issues.

Decr32 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you have informed me of your point of view about the article.

A point of view is information and encyclopedia articles include information. It would be a mistake to present viewpoints as fact without attribution. However, this is not being done in this article. The fathers' rights point of view is presented. The critics point of view is presented. All points of view are attributed and as a result, the article itself is neutral and does not have a point of view.

Michael H 34 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34\

A point of view is information and encyclopedia articles include information.

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because someone has an opinion does not make that opinion encyclopedic content.

Decr32 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I hope that you will agree that the point of view of the members of the fathers' rights movement would qualify as encyclopedic content for this article. Michael H 34 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Consider a school student or 1st year undergrad doing a paper on some aspect of the father's rights movement. What do people use the encyclopedia for? They want a general overview of what the movement is, how it is organised and what FR people do. It's a starting point for their own research.

The academic value of the opinion here is comparable to a self-selected opinion poll. It's not academically useful for research, and it's not informative in its own right. Basically, FRs are not authorities on sociology etc, so why should hypothetical reader Joe Bloggs care what some FR bloke thinks about some study about parenting outcomes?

Decr32 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has no opinion of its own and informs the reader of the viewpoints of those who support fathers' rights and those who are critical of fathers' rights. Readers can value the information as they wish. Michael H 34 16:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Introduction

"The fathers' rights movement arose with changes in both the law and in societal attitudes" uses "arose with" as weasel words to imply a relationship without evidence. Also the nature of the relationship is missing - if a relationship is notable enough to mention in a wikipedia entry the source would identify the nature of the relationship. Decr32 02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• As noted above, I totally agree that we need a reference that sees there being a causal relationship between these various factors and the growth of the fathers' rights movements. --Slp1 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing some of the indicators [not in citation given].

The decline in the power of religious belief to support marriage

"Some experts say the divorce rate increase is not surprising in these countries given the decline in the practice of Catholicism"

Alleged government policies which have lead to increases in divorce rates

"Fatherless families are a growing problem, but the principal cause is not bad behavior or the fault of fathers; it is government policies with respect to divorce and child support. Beginning with California in 1969, every state has adopted “no-fault” divorce, which may be more properly called unilateral divorce — one partner can end a marriage without penalty and without the consent of the other party."

"Women are almost always awarded custody of the children, leading one research team to conclude that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce."

Alleged government policies which have lead to increases in divorce rates ==>

Government policies which some believe have lead to increases in divorce rates

Michael H 34 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I replaced the tags. The cite does not support the claim in the article that there is a connection between these things and FRM.

Decr32 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I will make an edit and remove the tags. Please revert if you think it appropriate. Michael H 34 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That whole passage in the intro is an exercise in gilding the lily - historical revisionism - because some FR would like their movement to have a noble history, for lobbying reasons.

The fact is less glamorous, simply that FRM arose as a response to changes in child support laws in the 80s in US, UK and Australia. You could perhaps include no-fault divorce, because that increased the number of men exposed to those new laws. But that is about as noble a heritage as the sources will stretch to.

Admittedly it's not as flattering as FR might like, but that is what the attributable published consensus is, and that is what the article should say.

Decr32 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the movement arose as result of the increase in divorce rates and the effects of divorce on fathers. I'm going to eliminate the statement about changes in societal attitudes. Michael H 34 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Individual help and support

I have boldly removed weasel words from this section about infighting, as both FR and critics agree that infighting is a problem.

Decr32 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Trish Wilson merely stated that members of the fathers' movement agree that infighting is a problem. Michael H 34 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The evidence presented is FR's writing about being backstabbed by each other. There is plenty more evidence but I don't think you would want it in the FR article: FR's stalking their fellow FR's current wives, conspiring with ex-wives and supplying private information to sabotage family court cases, hassling employers to shut down competing mailing lists... really grubby stuff, done by FR's to fellow FR's.

I would suggest a general comment that infighting goes on is tame and relatively flattering to FR - given the alternative is a detailed account with examples.

Decr32 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer to the judgment of others regarding the significance of "infighting" and the notability of the evidence provided.

Is there evidence that Yuri Joakamedis is a member of the fathers' rights movement? What does it mean to be a member of the fathers' rights movement? In one of the links, somebody claims that the plot to kidnap Tony Blair's child was planted by opposition to Fathers 4 Justice. Is this true? If a member had discussed such a plot, then is it laudable that the group disbanded? Did the group really disband and then regroup? Didn't some fathers recently demonstrate at Stonehenge? Michael H 34 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

"At the local level, many fathers' rights groups spend a large portion of their time providing support for newly separated fathers. In many cases these groups also campaign for a greater consideration of the rights of grandparents and women (especially step mothers) in second marriages."

Members of the fathers' rights movement also support the rights of non-custodial mothers and mothers who have had their children taken away from them by social workers. Michael H 34 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

These issues, membership and infighting, would be more appropriate in a section about the organisation of FR. As I understand the sources:

FR [in the western world] is a loose collection of individuals with transient affiliation to FR groups. FR groups tend to be organised around a charismatic leader. (perhaps charismatic is not the right word, groups tend to be a one-man organisation with a 'fan club' of followers.)

The movement includes a broad range of positions from:

• organised self-help - such as Dads in Distress, loosely based on AA methods.
• casual self-help - eg discussion groups such as dadsontheair.com
• groups revolving around bitterness over their own personal situation (the personal situation of their charismatic leader)
• religious-right, who use FR as a platform to push a moral agenda.
• and patriarchal misogynists - such as 'The Ozydads Network' which seriously claimed there is a feminist conspiracy to exterminate the male sex.

Typically members of the FR movement belong to numerous groups at any one time. (membership tends to be 'the group' claims the member among its membership, rather than the member identifies themselves as a member)

Decr32 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Yuri Joakimidis membership of FR illustrates the above point. Joakamidis does not identify himself as a member of the FR movement.

However Lionel Richards claims he is, to lecture him about infighting. And another Australian FR (WP user manumit) listed Joakimidis as a notable activist in a previous version of this article.

Yoakamidis is certainly involved in the same subjects as FR is interested in (see "Why Howard suddenly started talking about custody battles" - ref note 28 in the main article). He is head of the Joint Parenting Association of Australia, and authored the definitive report on shared parenting used by all FR groups in Aus.

Is he a member of the FR movement? Perhaps it depends on how we define the FR movement - the article doesn't have a definition yet.

Decr32 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. Michael H 34 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

At the local level, many fathers' rights groups spend a large portion of their time providing support for newly separated fathers.

What support is provided? How is it provided? How is it funded? Where can a newly separated father get some? These are the kind of facts the article needs.

Decr32 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I noted that others agreed with you. Michael H 34 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Criticism

They draw on anecdote and "horror stories" to support their claims and use rhetorical strategies to elicit emotional response.

This sentence needs to be attributed. (The citation provided is not working.) Michael H 34 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

It is attributed. The citation is a peer-reviewed journal, primary publication is on paper. There are electronic copies at various libraries but you need an account to access them.

Decr32 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement should read: "Critics say that ...." In this way, the article remains neutral. Michael H 34 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Labelling the observer as a critic imparts POV. The statement is one of objective facts that can be objectively answered.

• Do FRs draw on anecdote? Yes they do. In fact Michael H mentions it in this talk page to defend the use of anecdote in the article.

• Do FRs use "horror stories"? There are several in the Michigan section. The term "horror stories" might be reworded NPOV as "dramatic anecdote", but FR themselves use "horror stories" when discussing strategy.

• Do FR use rhetorical strategies? Rhetoric means 'persuasive argument'.

• Do FR attempt to elicit emotional response with their persuasive arguments that begin "children can suffer..."?

I recall an online discussion where FR's discussed how to present horror stories for most shock value, I will source it to make the references more NPOV.

Decr32 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Labelling the observer as a critic imparts POV. The statement is one of objective facts that can be objectively answered."

The article should include POV, but the POV must be assigned.

Assuming that I am a member of the fathers' rights movement (I've never attend a meeting....), then the bullet points listed above may be "fact".

However "They draw on anecdote and 'horror stories' to support their claims and use rhetorical strategies to elicit emotional response" as fact without attribution is stated as a criticism of the fathers' rights movement and it is included in a section labeled criticism! Without attribution, the article does not maintain a neutral point of view. It is appropriate to attribute the statement to critics, because it is the viewpoint of the critics that the use of anecdote and rhetoric is something to be critical about.

I noticed that anecdotes were included in the section titled Harassing....

Michael H 34 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

That paragraph already begins with "Critics say..". We don't have to wrap every phrase in weasel words.

Also, what is your criteria for calling this sentence criticism?

Example, "Hitler killed people", is that criticism or a statement of fact? Should we wrap that in weasel words, "Critics say Hitler killed people". If not, why not? What is the difference between the sentences 'hitler killed people' and 'FRs draw on anecdote' to justify different treatment of attribution?

Decr32 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The placement of that sentence in the criticism section is an artifact of Slp restoring my edits to the introduction. But since you mentioned that you drew an inference from the placement, that raises another concern I have: that the existence of a criticism section creates POV by artifically partitioning the material into 2 classes:

• pro father's rights and advocacy
• everything that isn't pro-father's rights

Similarly with the partitioning of books into 2 classes: Michael Flood's book is unfairly labelled "critical of FR" when it is, more or less, a balanced academic work.

Decr32 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Michael Flood's views are not neutral.

Including viewpoints in this article is necessary. Viewpoints should be properly attributed.

Michael H 34 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Saying that Flood wrote a book is not including Floods view in the article. Stating your opinion about about Flood's book while mentioning he wrote a book is POV and, as you say, should be properly attributed.

Decr32 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read Flood's book. If a link to the book is included, then, in my opinion, it is proper to list it among books that are critical of the fathers' rights movement. The title of the book includes the word undermine. Michael H 34 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The title of a second book includes the words backlash and angry men. Michael H 34 13:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] references to "FR believe" in introduction

Belief is not verifiable because it is a private thing inside someone's head. 'Claim' or 'say' is verifiable.

It is debatable whether FR's actually "believe" all the things they say. Political lobbying frequently involves saying things which advance the activist's argument or appeal to the audience, not necessarily because the activist actually believes it.

Decr32 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that belief is difficult to verify. I replaced believe with state.

I also fixed the second paragraph of the introduction and removed attribution.

Michael H 34 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] POV by selective paraphrasing

The FR in the cite stated that politicians go out of their way to kill fathers. NPOV requires that ALL things FR say be treated consistently. Gilding the lily with paraphrasing to hide stuff is POV and advocacy. WP is not a soapbox.

Decr32 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please explain your rationale for deleting this encyclopedic content.

Decr32 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the anonymous poster who wrote profanity on a blog represents the collective views of the "members of the fathers' rights movement."

Michael H 34 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The statement didn't claim it was the collective views of the "members of the fathers' rights movement". It said, "Members of FRM state... just like many of your contributions, of which there is also no evidence that they are representative of the collective views of FRM.

As for credibility of the source, DOTA is a radio show with a discussion forum which has been running for years and is recognised by FR groups, such as the shared parenting council of australia. Jason has been a regular contributor to DOTA for years.

Decr32 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I have reinstated the content again. I would appreciate if you leave the content there until the other contributors give their opinion.

If the profanity really bothers you (and I doubt it really does), I will find another source for this factual statement

Decr32 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A minute on google turns up the fatherhood coalition saying the same thing: According to Johnson, "We must call attention to Federal legislators that bonus incentives from the Federal government to the States are killing fathers and families - Attorney Barbara Johnson

Are you now satified this statement is true: "Members of FRM state that these policies kill fathers?"

Decr32 05:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read that "suicide is a problem for fathers" and "many fathers find their situation hopeless."

Why have you offered a profane blog post as a citation and placed the statement right in front of the section where the views of the fathers' rights movement are introduced?

For this article to remain neutral, shouldn't the sentence "members of the fathers' rights movement are angry men, who do not have a parental instinct, and it is not in the best interest of the children to allow them to be parents" be stated, instead of implied, preceded with "Critics of the FRM state" and presented in the Criticism section?

I don't condone profanity. Clearly, the blogger in the citation that you offered is angry.

(Perhaps the blogger is suffering because his children have been taken away from him, and that he has to pay a significant amount of his discretionary income to support the lifestyle of his ex-wife or girlfriend and her new boyfriend, who now spends more time with his children than he does. Perhaps he believes that women no longer find him attractive because, although he is working, he has little discretionary income to help support a new girlfriend. Perhaps, he no longer trusts women because, if he has another child, the same thing might happen and if it does, he might wind-up homeless. Perhaps he views his situation as hopeless.)

If this were a Wikipedia article on the women's rights movement, in which both supporting and critical viewpoints are presented, would it be appropriate to allow an opponent of the women's rights movement to select and present the viewpoints and citations of the women's rights movement? Would that introduce POV into the article on the women's rights movement?

I have worked hard on this article and I have worked in good faith. The history of this article shows that I edited the critics' views on child abuse and domestic violence so that these viewpoints were presented clearly and presuasively.

Is it wrong to allow members of the fathers' rights movement to present their views clearly? How does that imbue the article with POV if the viewpoints of critics are also presented?

Michael H 34 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Regarding courts driving fathers to suicide, David Crary wrote an AP article that said angry fathers are driven to both suicide and murder. He quoted Lowell Jaks, President of the Alliance For Non-Custodial Parents Rights (ANCPR), which is a major fathers rights group. Jaks said, "none of these guys are poster children. But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to crack." Jaks also said "some guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others. You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem." The article also says that it might not be the court system per se that makes men like this. Those men may be more isolated than women are who divorce, so it's the isolation that leads to the behavior. Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said that those men likely had violent tendencies over a long period that contributed to the divorce and loss of custody.

The Darren Mack case involved an angry father who murdered his wife and shot the judge hearing the case. The Mack case is already mentioned in the FR article. Mack was just on 48 Hours, where he held himself up as a spokesman for fathers rights. If dads being driven to suicide by the court system is going to be mentioned, dads who commit murder should also be mentioned. Jaks is a major FR activist who found excuses for that kind of behavior. Here's the link to the AP article:

[[139]]

Here's the link to info about the 48 Hours show about Mack.

[[140]]

If fathers being driven to suicide is going to be brought up, fathers who commit murder should also be brought up. This is what I would write:

Finally, members of the fathers' rights movement point out that it has been acknowledged by officials in Canada, Australia, and Britain that fathers have been driven to suicide by family courts. Lowell Jaks, President of the Alliance For Non-Custodial Parents Rights, says that fathers are driven to both suicide and murder by family courts. However, Nancy Duff Campbell of the National Women's Law Center, said that those fathesr likely had violent tendencies over a long period that contributed to the divorce and loss of custody. [[141]]

I won't post about this until I get an okay. It's worth pointing out, but it might make the article too much like activism and too POV. Can someone help me write this so that it is neither POV or activist?

Trish Wilson 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote looks okay to me. Would it be better placed in the section on family law? Michael H 34 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thanks, Michael. I moved the suicide and new murder info to the family court section. I think it's more appropriate for the family court section rather than the intro section, unless it follows the "Dads On The Air" reference in the intro. It could probably go in either section.

Trish Wilson 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Michael spent a lot of time on the article. However effort and good intention is not a factor when evaluating the encyclopedic value of the material.

The introduction should introduce the material with a coherent, logical flow of ideas.

The current introduction began as advocacy, now the material is an awkward fit to the article because the clean up attempted to preserve every point and fit sources around it. As sources came in the statements were changed to fit the sources, and now the intro says almost nothing about the FRM:

It starts with postmodern-ish waffle about FRM being related to other concepts (all unsourced)

it proposes reasons for an increase in divorce rate

then it moves straight to FRM advocating about children's rights

The underlying structure of that section was sound:

• FRM arose from..... (reaction to changes in public policy) + (increase number or men affected)
• because.... (the changes affect men in these ways.....)
• consequently FRs formed groups which do ....(support, political activism)

We have a loose consensus on the first item. The second item needs work for consensus.

FRs become FRs first and foremost because of their own personal concerns: emotional responses such as anger and loneliness, and financial concerns from child support and property settlement.

I understand Michael is saying nothing with negative connotations can be allowed in the article unless it is labelled as "criticism". How then, can we include these things in the article?

A NPOV article can't skip over these facts and go straight to men citing such and such study. (Men don't walk out of court and look up sociology research - they are given the material by FR groups when they seek help with their personal problems)

Decr32 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have you offered a profane blog post as a citation and placed the statement right in front of the section where the views of the fathers' rights movement are introduced?

I put the material immediately after the list of policies that FR is a reaction to, because the statement is a response to those policies and how they affect fathers. The placement is in line with the logical flow of the introduction.

Alleged profanity in the source is irrelevant.

Decr32 19:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Decr32, how does this sound as a start for a rewrite of the intro, explaining what fathers' rights groups are? I can find more sources than the one that I cite below. I just haven't done it yet.

The fathers rights movement is part of the larger men's movement. Men become active in the fathers' rights movement most often when they divorce or become involved in custody battles.[[142]] Fathers rights groups organize on the Internet and in individual states. [[143]] Some members of the fathers' rights movement financially benefit from the movement, such as some attorneys who specialize in fathers' rights. [[144]] [[145]] The fathers' rights movement offers these men a haven to express their hurt, anger, and fear. [[146]] On the other hand, rivalry and infighting often occur in fathers rights groups and members have been hurt in power struggles.^[4] Father's rights activists themselves have admitted that infighting between groups and individuals is a problem for the movement.^[5][6][7][8]Internal strife is one factor that lead to the disbanding of Fathers 4 Justice in the U. K.^[9]

Trish Wilson 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Trish, I disagree with this change to the introduction.

Decr32, in response to your statement:

"FRs become FRs first and foremost because of their own personal concerns: emotional responses such as anger and loneliness, and financial concerns from child support and property settlement."

Perhaps, Michael Flood would agree with the point of view.

Members of the fathers' right movement state that they love their children.

Michael H 34 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The encyclopedic value of that statement would be...?

Michael, your POV that anything that doesn't portray FRM positively is POV has been noted. However FRM does not exist in a Relativist fairyland devoid of all fact.

Men who have never had anything to do with FRM before initiate contact with FRM for some reason - and those reasons can be objectively identified. That would be a fact, not point of view.

It is ludicrous to suggest by omission that Men who get dumped by their wives on acrimonious terms respond by citing sociology texts in noble, self-sacrificing terms.

Decr32 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think Michael has been very fair and very clear about his willingness to have "negative" perspectives in the article. --Slp1 11:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name and other stuff

You guys have been busy. My thoughts are:

1. This article is really about the Fathers' Rights movement. Should it be renamed? (Honest question)
2. Blogs etc are not considered reliable sources, so I think there is some doubt about some of the citations in the article
3. I have found some interesting scholarly articles on the Fathers' Rights Movement that we should use
4. I still think that there are way too many examples and details and repetition, as well as attempts to convince. I know it is tempting to add stuff, but I think our goal should streamline and condense what we have already.
5. I am currently leaning towards a much shorted intro, that includes some of the "criticism" rather than referring people to the end. This is supposed to be a encyclopedia article, and there are clearly very different attitudes towards the movement.
   I intend to begin some editing shortly!--Slp1 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be renamed to Fathers Rights Movement Decr32 06:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been doing an extensive series of edits of some sections, including reorganizing, condensing and citing, while trying to preserve the intent. As a general explanation:

1. I have removed some very specific US issues.
2. I have checked most of the citations and have deleted/modified some claims/comments because they were not supported by the citation. I have asked for citations for a few others: since some would not be considered reliable by WP standards (e.g. facts from non-peer reviewed paper)

--Slp1 13:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no nays in the last week, and since I tend to agree with Decr32, I think I will boldly renamed the article. --Slp1 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individual Support

"Rivalry and infighting often occur in fathers rights groups and members have been hurt in power struggles.[65] Father's rights activists themselves have admitted that infighting between groups and individuals is a problem for the movement.[66][67][68][69]Internal strife is one factor that lead to the disbanding of Fathers 4 Justice in the U. K.[70]"

I that these sentences be considered for elimination. The sources do not appear to be notable and the information about Fathers 4 Justice is repeated just below it.

Michael H 34 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I think it should stay up because one site is that of a well-known critic of the fathers' rights movement, and the other sources are newsgroup posts from fathers' rights activists themselves. It should be pointed out that rivalry and infighting do happen in fathers' rights groups. The most notable example of this is the infighting that lead to the disbanding of Fathers 4 Justice.

In addition, there are plenty of sources in the article supportive of fathers rights that could be said to be not notable. If the sources regarding rivalry and infighting are to be removed, sources supportive of the fathers' rights movement should be looked at in the same manner.

Trish Wilson 13:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The text could be written to say that "Critics say that rivalry and infighting often occur in fathers' rights groups and members have been hurt in power struggles." The second sentence is fine the way it is because those are statements by fathers' rights activists themselves.

Trish Wilson 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an extra footnote to this section, and I fixed the existing footnotes. The footnote I added is to a newspaper, but you can't read the article anymore without paying a fee. The first two paragraphs appear on the newspaper's web site, but you can't read the rest without registering and paying a fee. The article is below. This article shows another example of infighting within a fathers' rights group, and I think it takes care of any problems with citations.

Fatherhood Coalition ousts leader

By Jack Dew,

Berkshire Eagle Staff

North Adams Transcript (MA)

PITTSFIELD -- A sharp rift has been exposed in the leadership of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition after a group of dissident officers say they have ousted their controversial spokesman.

The coup took place on Wednesday night, when eight members of the fathers' rights group met and voted to eject Rinaldo Del Gallo III, said Richard Hover, who claims to be the group's new president. Hover said Del Gallo's tirades, unreliability and militant stance on the subject of fathers' rights have combined to drive members away, weakening the coalition.

But Del Gallo said the vote was attended by only three of the coalition's eight officers, and thus did not constitute a majority. In a written statement, Del Gallo said that he is the spokesman of the group, and that -- since only the spokesman has the authority to make official statements on behalf of the coalition -- it is the official position of the coalition that he is still an officer and the group's spokesman. He said Hover's statements should be disregarded.

Trish Wilson 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree with Michael, but mostly because I find it a very odd transition from self-help stuff to the infighting. I would actually like to see this section expanded and made into broader section about how the movement works (and put it right at the start of the article). There seems to be self-help aspects (face to face and online), lobbying/advocacy aspects, and more out-there activists such as the Fathers4Justice and the highly unpleasant (to me) Blackshirts. A related question is the relationship to the Religious right? I gather from some reading that there may a high degree of turnover in members and leaders which is probably part of this section, as well as the infighting thing. I am also going to suggest that we move the harassment parts into the individual country sections. I think they would go better there. Slp1 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The infighting is rather common in fathers' rights groups. Maybe that section needs to be developed a bit more to point out that lots of fathers do look to the fathers' rights movement for support and help, but the movement has been criticized for encouraging victimhood status and inciting anger in fathers who might not have acted that way if they had not been exposed to a fathers' rights group. I have sources to back up my statements. There are men's movement groups that do help men, but the fathers rights movement has a problem with rivalry, infighting, and suggestions to men that actually makes their personal situations worse. I also have sources regarding some fathers' rights movement ties to the Religious right. I agree that the harassment parts could be moved to the sections, such as countries, where that is appropriate. At the same time, I think that a separate "harassment" section works well, especially since it keeps all of those kinds of stories in one place where they are easier to find. Trish Wilson 16:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)