Posted on 09/25/2003 9:32:18 AM PDT by RogerFGay
MND Roundtable Discussion on
Fathers' Rights and the Marriage Movement
A four round discussion between experts and advocates; September 29, October 2, October 6, and October 9.
A roundtable is a special form of discussion in which all participants are equal. There will be no discussion leader, and no predetermined questions; just the purest thoughts of leading experts and advocates on chosen subjects. Whether you are looking for an orientation to the most important issues of the day, or an advanced look at relationships between issues, you'll find it worthwhile to follow the MND Roundtable Discussions. Watch the upper left corner of the MensNewsDaily front page starting Monday, October 29.
Fathers' Rights and the Marriage Movement
Fathers' rights advocates are generally not opposed to marriage. Some would see an anti-father component in a pro-marriage position as contradictory. Nonetheless, in the broad spectrum of political debate, there have been occasional rubs between those who want government to promote marriage and analysts and advocates who have focused on fathers' rights.
In an effort to sort things out, MND has invited four of the most involved minds to participate in a roundtable discussion on Fathers' Rights and the Marriage Movement. The event promises to provide readers with greater insight into fathers' rights and marriage movement issues and how discussion participants see their relationship.
Rebecca O'Neill, family policy researcher with the independent think-tank Civitas: The Institute for the Study of Civil Society in London has analyzed 30 years of data on changing trends in family life, concluding that the traditional family is best. Civitas' suggestion that the UK government should do more to encourage people to live in traditional family units drew national attention.
Stephen Baskerville is a professor in the Political Science Department at Howard University and a well known fathers' rights advocate. He organized the first national conferences on fatherhood held in the United States. His articles related to fatherhood have appeared in newspapers, magazines, and journals in several countries. He gives a weekly radio address in Washington D.C. and has appeared on such programs as The O'Reilly Factor.
Tom Sylvester is an affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values and co-editor of Father Facts, 4th Edition, published by the National Fatherhood Initiative, a government sponsored activity that is not connected to the grass-roots fathers' rights movement. He is also a regular commenter at MarriageMovement.org.
Roger F. Gay is well known for his research on and critisism of child support guidelines and child support policy as well as his reporting, analysis, and commentary at MensNewsDaily. He contributed expert testimony in a federal case on child support guidelines, has submitted testimony to Congress on child support numerous times over the past decade, and has advised child support guideline review committee members in several states.
It's encouraging to see courts are finally recognizing fathers are an intregal part of a child's life and possibly more nurturing and responsible than the mother. I envy those children whose fathers care enough to risk everything in order to be with them.
Given that your own situation was this:
My son's father never did.
The Internet is geeting this subject out into the open like nothing else could have.
While my son would have benefitted from having his father around while he was growing up, he turned out to be a well-adjusted, loving adult. He never missed his dad because he never knew him.
I still would like them to get to know each other, but neither is willing to make the first move. It's awkward for them both. I can't push too hard or they'll both stop taking my phone calls :)
Not in Florida. At least not in Brevard County.
Even though "Rotating Custody" is in the Florida Statues, my attorney tells me that the court usually will not grant "rotating custody" or equal-parenting arrangements.
I'm told that the statute was put in to "appease certain groups" and that the courts "usually ignore it".
Lovely, no?
Doesn't look like this guy or any of his vaunted "scholars" have ever been on the receiving end of the industry whose very existance he questions. They would likely have a better understanding of just which rights are ignored if it ever happened to them. But then, a lot of the sheep in this country don't think anything like this could ever happen to them...that is, until it does. A thousand plagues upon their houses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.