Fathers seize child agency office

Expatica ^ | 20 November 2003 | Novum Nieuws

[RogerFGay]

Fathers seize child agency office

20 November 2003

AMSTERDAM — A group of angry fathers, who are involved in custody battles over their children, took over an office of the Dutch child protection agency Kinderbescherming on Thursday, the International Day of the Child.

Between 15 and 20 men seized control of the building in Zutphen and effectively imprisoned five staff members, Kinderbescherming spokeswoman Annette van der Hoorn said.

The men, who have been denied visitation to their children, said they had taken the drastic action on World Child Day to highlight the injustice of their situations.

They have not allowed anyone in or out of the offices and hung banners from the window of the offices.

The men have demanded the child protection agency only give advice on how custody arrangements should be made. Present legislation means that parents who breach an imposed custody arrangement forfeit their custodial rights.

The fathers have also demanded a meeting with Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner, the mayor of Zutphen and Kinderbescherming director H. Pasman.

Van der Hoorn said the agency's staff members who were being held in the building did not appear to be in any direct danger. Staff were continuing with their work and the police were not called to the scene.

The UN designated 20 November as the International Day of the Child after the signing of an official convention on the rights of children in 1989.

[thoughtomator]

If the term "interstate commerce" is construed broadly enough to include infanticide, then what one is really saying is that there is no limit whatsoever to the definition of "interstate commerce" and therefore to the power of the federal government.

I think "interstate commerce" means exactly that - interstate commerce, not activity that takes place entirely within the confines of a single state.

If one can rationalize murder to be "interstate commerce", what is there that couldn't be defined as commerce? It would be no less incoherent to say that eating and breathing are interstate commerce and that the government should have the power to tell the states exactly how people may eat and breathe.

[Jotmo]

Bumpity, bump.

[bc2]

ping!

(sorry)

[Spirited]

Now, there you go, confusing people with facts rather than theories.

[m1-lightning]

I think "interstate commerce" means exactly that - interstate commerce, not activity that takes place entirely within the confines of a single state.

See, now that's where I question it also. I do believe the states have power over commerce in their own state but when it comes to leaving your state to go to another state where that good or service is not banned, then what's the point of the original state even banning it? Fireworks is an example I use in Illinois. The law in Illinois prohibits the sale of fireworks though they end up being bought in Indiana and used in Illinois. The state law intended to stop private fireworks usage is really a plate of jello. Same goes for any state ban on abortion. If your state bans it, just come to Illinois, we'll hook ya up. Your state won't let you get married as a gay couple? Just go to Massachusettes and they'll hook ya up. In the manner you argue for, the FDA could only regulate food LEAVING the state and couldn't regulate food being sold in the same state is was produced. If we passed a constitutional amendment for every area of commerce, it would really soil it worse than simply allowing the federal government to regulate commerce across the states through the CFR.

[cupcakes]

So what to do? The courts obviously need to change because women won't because it is a firm belief of mine that this stuff goes very deep and is beyond scorning a spouse. Women are fiercly protective AND possessive of their children. Even when they know children would do better adopted(in single mother situations) or in their father's care(in divorced situation), women will hold tight to the kids. I'm generalizing here of course and not referring to the sleazeballs that use the kids to manipulate dad or the mothers who really deserve the care of the kids over the fathers.

[cupcakes]

The perfect situation is for the both parents to work on the marriage to keep an intact family for the kids.

And keep the wife barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where she belongs?
___________

And just how does working on one's marriage keep one barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

[CyberCowboy777]

By her standard on the lack of a fully develop skull I guess it is alright for me to kill my 3 week old daughter - as her skull is not fully develop yet (as is the case with all newborns, the soft spot).

[cupcakes]

Agree with you bike! That is my biggest argument against abortion is that we now have so many effective choices of birth control PRIOR to conception that abortion should be obsolete and even more barbaric in the eyes of the public than it once was. If women deem to want complete control over their womb then they need to behave as if they have control over it and protect it from unwanted pregnancies BEFORE they get pregnant. I have some serious health issues myself that dictate that this 3rd pregnancy will be my last and I am taking charge of my womb by having my tubes tied so I don't ever have to make a horrible decision between my life and my baby's. There are many less permanent ways for women to protect their womb without going to such extremes, the first thing women need to understand is how their cycles work and when they are most fertile. I am convinced that the majority of women who are single do not even have a firm grasp on how their cycles work. Having this knowledge would maybe at least propel some women to use birth control measures during their most fertile times.

[mlmr]

Better question: why did the court let her move? What are dad's supposed to do, sell our homes and be forced to find new jobs every couple of years whenever the ex decides to look for greener pastures?



Unfortunately, yes. For the children's sake....

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I don't know how to change this.

I think, as a woman, I would rather DIE than lose custody of my children. I cannot imagine the pain that I would endure without them.

But, intellectually, I would KNOW they would be fine with their father. He loves them as much as I do, and truly does parent them equally. But, in a divorce situation, I could see the sparks fly and a battle ensue, because both of us would NEED the children.

Perhaps, as time passes, and more families experience the joy of parenting equally, the focus will shift. I truly believe that children need both parents. And, should I ever be in this situation, I would hope I remember how much he loves his children, and how much they love him.

Can't promise that, though... the jealousy would raise it's ugly head, I am certain!

[Jonx6]

"And keep the wife barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where she belongs?"

Do you think it's wrong for a women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? If so, why?

[Pedantic_Lady]

Do you think it's wrong for a women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

Only if it's all she does.

[Jonx6]

"Only if it's all she does."

Why would that be wrong even if that's "all she does"?

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Actually, children are generally better off being with their father rather than with their mother. I don't, however, think this fact should be used to always award full custody to the dad. I think the process should be based on presumptive joint custody and that best interests of the children should mean just that, not best interests of the woman.

[Pedantic_Lady]

Actually, children are generally better off being with their father rather than with their mother. I don't, however, think this fact should be used to always award full custody to the dad. I think the process should be based on presumptive joint custody and that best interests of the children should mean just that, not best interests of the woman.

Interesting. Why are children generally better off with their fathers? I know I wouldn't have been.

[Yeti]

My ex "gave up" and negotiated a "joint" agreement with low child support, which she never paid, and liberal visitaion, which she rarely used.

The judge hated to do it, and in the ruling he granted a trial de novo to either party, should either of us change our mind. I was scared to use it, for fear that I would lose the de facto custody that I already had. He put it in there for her, because he didn't want to give me custody.

There was a period of about a year, in 1978 or 79, after my parents were divorced, when all three of us kids were living with dad, and mom was living with the first guy she met after they were seperated, while dad was paying mom $300 per child every month(that's $900/month) in child support.

Knowledge of that, and my judge's very vocal bias against paternal custody, combined with other factors, led me to accept the agreement.

[JustPiper]

The men, who have been denied visitation to their children, said they had taken the drastic action

That says it all M1

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Why are children generally better off with their fathers? I know I wouldn't have been.

I didn't say that children would be better off every time with their dad, just that, in general--i.e., most--are. One reason I've heard as to why is that dads are generally better off financially. I would assume that a big reason is that the man is often more psychologically stable.

[RogerFGay]

Wow, this article got a big response.