Dear Gentlemen,
I have a lot of respect for anyone making the type of changes in the
system as David Levy has, however I have to agree with Daniel Lee and Victor
Smith. In reference to our Constitution, Dr. Chuck Smith, (no relation to Victor
Smith), at West Virginia State College teaches that the Constitution was written
to protect the parents and it wasn't until here in the last 30 years or so that
the Federal Government started extending children's rights to a level higher
than the rights of their parents. This is troublesome for me.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I saw a
federal court decision about three years ago that said child support enforcement
was unconstitutional, but because it was child support, the states had their
permission to violate our constitutional rights! I'm thinking that came out of a
state in the mid-west somewhere. Now, I have two ex's and was awarded sole
custody both times and have my field of study was political science. Needless to
say that decision made me cringe, to think they could violate anyone's
Constitutional Rights to the extent that they are.
Where do we draw the line when it comes to children's rights. Allow me to
toss a few of the more extreme arguments I've heard at you. Under the
presumption of children's rights being greater than the parents, very few of us
would be parents, if biological parents at all. IE. I'm poor, my child would be
better off in the custody of the state due to the state being able
to put my child through college or to give my child better medical coverage. I'm
a single parent, children do better with two parental figures, therefore the
state should take my child and put her with a family where there are two
parental figures. My child is gifted and needs to go to better schools than I
can afford, the state can afford to put her in more challenging schools.
My child's IQ is higher than mine, my child should be raised by parents that can
challenge my child's intellect. Or the government might outlaw sex, it would be
in the child's best interest to be genetically engineered, that way they would
be perfectly healthy and have the highest intelligence possible. Some people
would even argue that it is in the child's best interest to enslave fathers, so
that all of the father's income would go to the child; that way the child would
have more money to meet more of their financial needs. Again, where do we draw
the line.
I think it's safe to say we all agree that fathers want to and should
spend more time with their children. It is the method used to get there that we
passionately disagree on. For me, personally I feel that parents should be
strongly supported by the Constitution and that it should be up to the parents
to extend whatever rights the parents of a child feel the child should have to
that child. And I feel strongly that it should be the parents that decide what's
in their child's best interest, not the state. The government has no business
trying to be parents to my child or any other child. Nobody knows a child better
than their own parents.
Can anyone here say they haven't violated their child's right to freedom
of choice? I for one can't and will not say that. To support my argument I can
only give you a little information on my daughter as an example. (I know it's a
sin for us to bring our own personal stories into these arguments. You will just
have to condemn me later). My daughter hasn't seen her mother since she was 9
months old. That is her mother's choice, not mine. My daughter is 11 years old
now, in the gifted program in middle school, is on the student council, in
cheerleading, plays basket ball for a church team, does volunteer work as an
associate member for the County Republican Executive Committee where we live,
(she is actually an active member of the party at age 11), and we just got back
from Kentucky where she represented WV and Ky. in a individualized basketball
competition in a district tournament, and still maintains a 3.5 GPA. I wonder if
you can tell I am very proud of her. That's enough bragging. My point is, do you
think she'd be doing so well if I was letting her or the state decide what was
in
her best interest? We live in WV, can you honestly say my daughter would be
better off if she spent 50% of her time in TX with her mother? Trust me, you
would never be able to convince me differently. I will add that my daughter can
argue politics and father custody with the best of people.
As for my son's mother, she had ample visitation, but yet she took him and
ran with him 8 times, she took me back to court 70 some times trying to get
custody of him, she undermined everything I tried to teach him, she even taught
him that taking out the trash at age 14 was child abuse. She finally got custody
of him at age 15. As an adult he suffers from severe emotional problems, is
non-functional, and is doing very poorly. The good news is that he is finally
back under my care and is getting the help he needs. In his case, his mother
should have never had visitation.
If you are determined to argue my cases are rare...... I will tell you
that I've been involved in this movement for 22 years and while my daughter is
an exceptional case. My son is the perfect example of what a bad mother can do
to a child. I hear story after story about children being raised by their
mothers that end up like this as adults.
You might find it interesting to know that now that my son lost a custody
fight, my son's mother and the guy she left me for lobby with me at the state
legislature for the Bills I write and they are two of my best campaign
volunteers during election years.
In 1999 I was on the Governors Task Force for Visitation Enforcement. The
task force did a study where we sent out a questionnaire to several hundred
custodial mothers. 40% of the mothers returning the questionnaires stated they
routinely jerked the father around on visitation just to be vindictive and they
claimed ownership of the children. The results matched
federal studies. In West Virginia Chapter 61-2-14 a thru d of The WV State Code,
refusal of visitation is a felony. They arrest fathers every day for not
returning children, but in the last 22 years, I've only ever seen them sign an
arrest warrant for one mother. Gentlemen, I ask you, do you really think joint
custody will work as long as society in general believes
ownership of the children belongs to the mother and turns a blind eye on
fathers?
It's late, I'm tired, and as my daughter would say, I'm getting cranky.
And with everything being said, I pray some of you will carefully consider my
arguments and will stand with me by Victor Smith and argue father custody is in
the best interest of fathers and our children. "Father's Day" needs to be
focused on fathers every bit as much as "Mother's Day is focused on mothers, it
is the only way we can convince society in general that fathers are good parents
too.
The women's rights movement destroyed father custody back about the turn
of the century. In the 80's just as fathers started getting their rights back
along comes children's rights groups and clouded the issues to where we get very
little accomplished. So, for those of you that refuse to consider father custody
and argue in favor of joint custody and children's rights..... you are one of
the leading causes of the very thing that is destroying fatherhood along with
our children. Leave us alone to do our jobs and you too will be happy with the
end results.
Good night Gentlemen,
Bill Henry, Director
Dads Against Discrimination, WV.