|
Vol. 9, No.
6 The Fourteen Percenter September
2006
A publication for parents on the wrong side of the standard possession order. - I see my child two days out of every fourteen; 14%. That's not enough. -
Reprints from the Press
To begin
the month, the August 7, 2006, San Antonio Express-News ran my eulogy
to the editor regarding internationally known poet, Trinidad Sanchez -
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters/stories/MYSA080706.1O.letters.8fd3cb.html.
“Poet
fought for fathers” also appeared in the August edition of The
Fourteen Percenter
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCP-TX-Grayson/message/2
as well as the San Antonio Current,
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16996412&brd=2318&pag=797&dept_id=484045&startrow=1&maxrows=10
.
Regarding a program that
allows incarcerated men to read to their children (http://www.herald-democrat.com/articles/2006/07/27/life/life01.txt
), the August
1 Sherman, Texas, Herald-Democrat
ran this letter
http://heralddemocrat.com/articles/2006/08/01/letters/letters02.txt.
Heartened to hear about reading plan
I was
heartened to hear that members of the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, the
Texas Cooperative Extension and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
endeavor to encourage incarcerated men to read to their children. Even if
they read into a recorder instead of in person, the benefits will be
enormous to both father and child.
Most
inmates did not have an involved father when they were growing up.
Fatherlessness is a factor in everything from low grades, teen-aged
promiscuity, criminal activity, and
more.
Children of
prisoners involved in "Fathers Reading Every Day," will gain more than
literacy. They will know their dad cares enough to read to them.
Now, if we
could get public schools to routinely notify noncustodial parents about
their student's grades, portrait announcements, and discipline problems,
even regular kids who live apart from their fathers could benefit.
Don Mathis, Sherman, TX
The article about “Fathers Reading
Every Day” also appeared in the Texoma Enterprise and the
Whitewright, Texas, Sun. Both papers ran the above letter as well.
Apparently, some people do not see the
value of the father/child bond if the dad is imprisoned. The Worcester,
Mass., Telegram ran an article, “Ruling
leaves mom in disbelief -
Reluctant
kids must take inmate dad’s calls,”
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060730/COLUMN01/607300407/1008/COLUMN .
Fortunately, the Fourteen Percenter set them straight on August 7, from
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060807/NEWS/608070387/1055/opinion_letters
Even in prison, father has role to play
Dianne Williamson observed that David
P. Furey (“Ruling leaves mom in disbelief, Reluctant kids must take inmate
dad’s calls” Sunday Telegram, July 30) has embraced his parental duties
relatively late in life. She apparently believes that it’s better never than
late for Mr. Furey because he resides behind bars.
Ms. Williamson should know that the majority of
men in prison didn’t have an involved father in their childhood. Would she
want such a fate for the children of Mr. Furey?
In my neighborhood, groups of
volunteers are engaged in a program called “Fathers
Reading Every Day.” A
select group of inmates are recorded reading bedtime books to their
children. The recordings and corresponding books are then mailed to the
offender’s children. This activity allows participants to remain active in
their children’s lives while in jail, reinforces positive parenting skills
and encourages reading and learning in their children.
Experts know that involved parents are more apt
to follow the straight and narrow path; dedicated dads are less likely to
return to prison. These same experts also know that children benefit from
exposure to books, not to mention a father’s involvement. Ms. Williamson
paints the mother, Janet M. Lawrence, in a most disparaging light. Don’t
these women know parental alienation is child abuse?
The rap sheet for Ms. Lawrence and Mr. Furey
provided by Ms. Williamson shows the typical manner in which criminal
justice for women is very different than for men. It’s a shame that civil
justice is often just as prejudiced against men.
Even though Ms. Williamson and Ms.
Lawrence may disagree, children need both parents.
Donald Mathis, Sherman, TX
Also in Massachusetts, the
August 18 issue of
the Lawrence
Eagle-Tribune
ran an article,
“Activist lawyer disbarred
- Barbara Johnson ran for governor in 2002”
http://www.eagletribune.com/local/local_story_230154535?page=0
. On August 23, they ran this letter:
Activist lawyer disbarred
Thank you
for publishing the article about activist lawyer Barbara Johnson. The nation
has heard about this woman - and we are listening.
It is
obvious to the layman that Johnson's activism and opinions are the thorn in
the saddle of Judge Francis Spina of the state Supreme Judicial Court.
Spina
wrote, "the judicial system and the public must be protected from her
repeated misconduct." Rather that protecting us from Johnson's free speech,
Spina seems to be trying to protect himself and the status quo.
Many people
close to Johnson have witnessed her cantankerous character. They also know
of her firm belief in her causes.
Her
champion cause, fighting discrimination against divorced dads, is one that
more lawyers - and judges - should vocalize. Single moms would have more
time for their career. Single dads would have more time with their kids. And
kids would have equal access to both parents.
As it is
now, Barbara Johnson loses. And we all lose. Especially the kids.
Don Mathis,
Sherman, TX
John Murtari, jailed since July for
contempt of court, brought his plight to the world’s attention with a hunger
strike as reported in the August 10 Syracuse, NY, Post-Standard,
http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1155215113167970.xml&coll=1
.
There were letters from both sides of
the Atlantic, both sides of the Mississippi in the August 22
Post-Standard,
http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-1/1156237838117070.xml&coll=1
Shared
parenting in divorce cases is the best solution for the children
To the
Editor:
My heart
goes out to that man on a hunger strike in Syracuse. There are a multitude
of injustices in the child-support industry, and John Murtari is the victim
of many.
Regardless
if both parents are fit, courts routinely assign primary custody to one,
usually the mother. Regardless if both parents work, courts usually order
fathers to pay child support.
And it goes
without saying that the "winner" in custody cases gets the child - and child
support. But the father is not the only loser in such court action. Kids
lose loving dads in practically every custody decision.
Many
believe the assumption that the mothers get the kids in custody cases may
account for many divorces. They could be right. More than 65 percent of
divorce cases are filed by women.
Laws need
to be changed to start off with a presumption of 50/50 shared parenting.
Then, if a mom or dad doesn't want their share, they can pay child support.
Fifty-fifty shared parenting is true child support.
Don Mathis,
Sherman, Texas
North Dakota is gearing up for a
Shared Parenting initiative in their upcoming election. Many opinions have
been presented in the Grand Forks, ND, Herald, both pro and con. Here
are two pro comments:
Money, not children, motivates
state
SHERMAN, Texas
- Regarding the viewpoint by Carol Olson, executive director of
the North Dakota Department of Human Services:
Olson spills the proverbial beans when
she writes, "To get federal funds for the child support enforcement and TANF
programs, the state has an ongoing duty to certify to the federal government
that it operates a child support enforcement program that conforms to
federal requirements."
If that is not clear enough, reread
the headline: "Family-law measures would lead to cutoff of federal funds."
The government is more concerned with money than with the well-being of
children of divorce.
The state's motivation for removing
fit and loving fathers from the lives of their children is obvious. "If the
measures pass, the state could not certify that its programs meet federal
requirements, and North Dakota would lose about $71 million in federal money
for those programs during the 2007-2009 biennium," the column states.
I guess if the state gets $71 million,
it feels justified in selling children down the river.
It is time for North Dakota voters no,
for all parents in America to realize the state's incentive for the
extraction of fathers from their children. It is time to realize children
are more important than money.
Children need both parents. Children
benefit from two loving parents. The state should learn to live without the
millions from the feds.
Don Mathis
State wants to protect revenue
stream - By Don Mathis
SHERMAN, Texas
- The forces that are lining up against North Dakota's Shared
Parenting Initiative have two things in common: lack of logic and lust for
lucre.
For example, Herald columnist Lloyd
Omdahl writes, "Dr. Diane Lye said that the single most important
determinant of a child's well-being after divorce is living in a household
with adequate income”. Does this mean if Dad makes more money than Mom, he
should have custody?
How about this one: "Father contact in
low-conflict families can be beneficial, but in high-conflict families, it
can be harmful." I guess if the ex-wife wants conflict, the ex-husband
should just drop out of his kid's life.
In fact, Omdahl and Carol Olson,
executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services and the
author of "Family-law measures would lead to cutoff of federal funds”, both
are singing the same tune. They are afraid this initiated measure would
jeopardize millions in federal Temporary Aid for Needy Families funds for
North Dakota.
The refrain of their song is Omdahl's:
"Many custodial parents have had to turn to the government and its Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program for help." Well, how many: Fifty
percent? Seventy percent?
No, 8 percent. According to Olson, the
state's child support enforcement program "serves about 60,000 children
monthly, and the TANF program ... each month helps financially support about
5,000 qualifying low-income children who live with single parents or other
relatives."
While 8 percent qualifies as "many" if
you happen to be in that category, there is a much bigger welfare recipient
that all of us should know about.
The federal government gives millions
of taxpayer dollars to each state so they may keep track of child support.
North Dakota's share is $71 million.
How far would those millions go if
they went directly to those 5,000 qualifying low-income children?
The North Dakota Department of Human
Services is trying to use children to justify its budget. We have child
labor laws to prevent exploitation of our children. DHS should be prevented
from using kids for cash as well.
Mathis is
editor of The Fourteen Percenter, a newsletter for noncustodial parents.
Regarding
the excellent article “Lost Children: Parental Alienation,”
http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cda/article/0,5507,s1-3---1942,00.html,
the September issue of BestLife ran this letter:
Although
this injury is not external, (parental alienation) is child abuse
nonetheless. I urge divorced dads to always take the high road and never put
down your former wife in front of your child. A child needs a safe haven -
and that should be Dad's house.
Don Mathis,
Sherman, TX
|