Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers

FatherMag.com ^ | August 22, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers

August 22, 2002
By Roger F. Gay

---

America's Most Wanted put it like this:

Catalino Morales is wanted for the attempted homicide of five deputy sheriff’s in Allentown, Pennsylvania and for failure to pay back child support.

On Saturday, morning, December 9, 2000, eight deputies in Lehigh county Pennsylvania broke into Catalino Morales' home to serve an arrest warrant charging him with failure to make child support payments. According to the deputies, Morales barricaded himself in a second-floor bedroom and fired two shots through a closed door. He then shot out a back window, jumped onto a flat roof, and onto the ground where it is alleged that he shot at a deputy. The deputy returned fire but no one was injured. Morales escaped the immediate area.

Police say Morales then entered a house in the neighborhood and held a family of four hostage for several hours. The standoff ended when one of the residents managed to wrestle the gun out of Morales’ hands and Morales fled the scene. A massive hunt ensued, including search dogs, helicopters, and Allentown police; to no avail.

On the night of June 20, 2001 a SWAT team in Hartford, Connecticut surrounded Morales in a housing complex and shots were fired. No policepersons were injured in the encounters. Morales was hit by three of 25 police bullets, permanently damaging his hand and his leg and endangering the lives of the nearby residents.

He is a father. He is a man. He is allegedly behind in making "child support" payments.

It is unlikely that the child support system will be put on trial in defense of Catalino Morales, but it should be. Under heavy influence from a profit-driven collection industry the process of determining the amount of child support ordered and enforcement practices have changed dramatically within the past fifteen years. Political corruption is rampant and obvious not only to those who have studied the system closely but to many fathers who have been forced into subjugation by it.

Millions of men are treated arbitrarily and unfairly to a degree that compromises or destroys their chance to maintain themselves, let alone get on with a normal life. Many cannot do what the system requires them to do. Add to that years of harassment and threats from a long list of strangers, including half-witted pimple-faced high school drop-outs trying to collect to make a commission and female bureaucrats, possibly former welfare mothers, who revel in the opportunity to emasculate men. There is no escape, no reason. Every politician says so. Men and women with more power than moral character constantly remind them that this is what fatherhood is all about.

Then other strangers arrive with guns and invade their homes with the intent of taking them prisoner. They are experiencing the horror of a dictatorial police state.

Catalino Morales is one of many canaries in the child support coal mines. Year after year we watch the canaries die yet the workers are not allowed to leave. Those among us who have the opportunity to communicate are morally obligated to pass the word. This system must be abandoned as quickly as possible whether the masters wish it or not.

In the early 1990s, millions of fathers first experienced the suspension of constitutional law in domestic relations courts and the transition to enforcement of arbitrary en masse central political decisions. The new system seems designed to ruin men's lives. Decisions are arbitrarily based on statistical projections that have no basis in reality. State governments are encouraged to take as much from fathers as possible in order to increase the amount of federal funds they receive. "Public-private partnerships" formed with private collection agencies that benefit from higher child support awards and greater debt. Industry representatives control much of the policy making process, including the design of most formulae used in setting child support amounts.

With so many people involved, there has been a predictable variation in reaction to the change. The early 1990s saw the rise of the fathers rights movement, class-action lawsuits, a surge in the number of appeals filed against child support orders, and new national conferences on fathers issues. State and federal politicians were lobbied constantly to fix or abandon the new laws. Members of the Washington State Legislature received thousands of pairs of baby shoes from fathers trying to make a point.

There were also reports of increases in suicide and violence. The early 1990s saw news reports of the first of the early morning raids on communities to round-up hundreds of dads to cart them off to jail. It saw shootings in courtrooms, lawyers and judges taken bloody to ambulances, and fathers barricaded in their homes surrounded by police.

In Dallas, a lawyer representing himself in a divorce case pulled a semi-automatic weapon from his briefcase and opened fire. While one father was barricaded in his home threatening suicide if police came too close, he was telephoned by a reporter who wanted to turn the conversation over to a police negotiator. Feminist groups protested, saying the government must not negotiate with terrorists. News coverage on such incidents ended. Billions of dollars were spent increasing security in courthouses.

Despite the best efforts of ordinary citizens, the system got worse. Fathers rights advocates were largely cut off from making their appeals through traditional media that continued an enormous propaganda effort against the so-called "deadbeat dads." By the mid-1990s politicians were confident that the public couldn't get enough. Child support was on the political agenda in every election year. Politicians in both parties continually promised to make life tougher for fathers and passed law after law to do so.

By the late 1990s life had become so desperate for a few divorced men (in more than one country) suffering psychologically from the loss of their children and constant harassment that they took guns into day-care centers and held children hostage. Do you now understand how it feels, they asked before being gunned down by police snipers.

Due to the enormous weight of one-sided reporting on the child support issue, many people are still quite unfamiliar with the problem. It is easy to find people who believe that errors can be corrected and orders adjusted to circumstances by a quick visit with a family court judge or through some simple administrative process. They have been brainwashed into believing that men generally avoid what are presumed to be fair and reasonable obligations to their children. It is difficult for them to understand that millions of ordinary citizens are fighting for their survival in the midst of a constitutional crisis.

The Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the states define a system of checks and balances. Unreasonable orders are to be corrected on appeal. Unconstitutional laws are to be overturned by the judiciary. These are necessary safeguards against harmful, intrusive, and corrupt government behavior. But during the past twelve years the system has not functioned as designed. Everyone in government connected with child support, including judges, receive financial rewards for maintaining the centrally planned system and courts and prosecutors have cooperated to an amazing degree. This has created a situation in which no legal remedy for arbitrary and oppressive orders and overly zealous enforcement measures exists.

Some orders are so high as to be life threatening. They do not leave the person who is ordered to pay with sufficient income to support himself. Lives have been lost. But to create the order is not enough. Once bound, the system constantly threatens and harasses fathers who are unable to meet their arbitrarily assigned "obligations." Just give the situation more than two seconds thought. If you do not think that the system caused Catalino Morales to fire a gun and run for his life you do not pass elementary applied probability. You do not understand humans.

Unless the corruption in the system is dealt with and those abusing power and influence arrested and jailed, there will be more gunfights and more men brought down in the war against fathers. Some will no longer have the compassion for life that Catalino Morales displayed. Their instinct to fight when threatened will win out over flight. They will aim at police before firing and not relinquish their weapons to hostages. We will all be guilty if we do not hold those responsible for the child support system as we know it today guilty of conspiracy.

Copyright © 2002 Roger F. Gay

---

Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst and director of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology. He has also been an intensive political observer for many years culminating in a well-developed sense of honest cynicism. Other articles by Roger F. Gay can be found at Fathering Magazine and Men's News Daily.

[Brytani]

"Partly we do and partly no. I don't think that NCPs or CPs should be penalized just because they don't contribute. But that the circumstances should be addressed. If their non-contribution is just temporary and with very good reason, I'd rather help them get past the situation keeping them from being able to support than punish. If their non-support is because they simply don't try, don't care, or don't want to, I have no qualms about punishment. "

Which brings us right back to my original point in this conversation, the fact that there is only one group of people in the US who are allowed, by law, to contribute nothing to the financial needs of a child - and that is a custodial parent. While I believe both parents should be equally responsible for the financial needs of a child, I can not support a system that turns 50% of the equation into criminals while the other 50% isn't even breaking the law.

As to supporting Morales, read my first post on this topic - which btw, was directed at you. I hardly support, in anyway the actions of Morales nor do I support groups/people who try and defend what he did.

To: RogerFGay

Since I'm becoming known on FR for being pro-fathers rights and debate child support/fathers issues quite a bit, I have to respond to this article.

I can not condone in anyway violent acts made by even the most desperate men. Though I have seen men stripped of their homes, their possessions, 60%+ of their earnings, their tax returns, their credit standing, their children and their freedom, using violence as a means to an end does nothing to further the cause of fathers rights. It does however give the fathers rights movement a black eye when such behavior takes place.

Aside from being pro-fathers, I am also pro-life. My pro-life position follows the same as my pro-fathers, I can not condone in anyway bombing of abortion clinics or the murder of abortion doctors. While I realize those incidents are actually rare compared to the number of clinics and doctors performing abortions, it does and has happend. In the end all it does is give ammunition to those who look for any reason to call pro-life people/groups nutcases and violent people. The same for fathers who use violence to protest the current unjust, unconstitutional and highly biased family court/child support system.



243 posted on 8/22/02 9:29 PM Eastern by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/737476/posts

[Brytani]

State legislatures set the laws governing standard visitation and family law for their state, State judges decide the amount of time over and above the minimum visitation allowed to the NCP or approves agreements between both parties when it comes to visitation/support, these legal documents are signed off by the judge, filed with the clerk of the court and any change to the custody agreement has to be approved and signed off by a state judge.

But of course, the state has nothing to do with turning a parent into a visitor.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

Which brings us right back to my original point in this conversation, the fact that there is only one group of people in the US who are allowed, by law, to contribute nothing to the financial needs of a child - and that is a custodial parent. While I believe both parents should be equally responsible for the financial needs of a child, I can not support a system that turns 50% of the equation into criminals while the other 50% isn't even breaking the law.

And yet you would propose to criminalize it period or punish as many CPs as you could to somehow makeup for NCPs...or at least it is how you come across. If not, then what are your suggestions?

State legislatures set the laws governing standard visitation and family law for their state, State judges decide the amount of time over and above the minimum visitation allowed to the NCP or approves agreements between both parties when it comes to visitation/support, these legal documents are signed off by the judge, filed with the clerk of the court and any change to the custody agreement has to be approved and signed off by a state judge.

Truly? Wasn't done in my case. What now?

[Brytani]

Simply put, until the laws change where punishment is dolled out on both sides, CS laws in this country should be abondened. Take a read of the 14th amendment one day to see why.

As to a divorce which includes a custody agreement not being filed in a court of law, there is no divorce and no custody agreement. Unless you live in Saudi where the man can say "I divorce you" three times and it's law.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

"As to a divorce which includes a custody agreement not being filed in a court of law" does not equate to "State judges decide the amount of time over and above the minimum visitation allowed to the NCP". Unless you think that when someone else chooses their amount of time, that the judge deciding to leave their time open even when they don't take any time is the same as the judge deciding their time. I don't see how anyone could conclude those two are even similar though. And I know the 14th amendment thanks.

[RogerFGay]

Nope. I understand exactly what I support. I neither support the way the government handles it, nor the way you'd like to see it not handled at all. Does that tell you anything?

Other than that you like to argue against things, no.

[RogerFGay]

I never said anything even remotely close to that.

Beg to differ, but by stating that child support was around when no one was getting it means you either don't believe they didn't get it or you're lying about it having been around. So which one would it be?

I didn't say that "child support was around when no one was getting it." I am sure that women received child support long before the federal government got involved in 1975. The rate of compliance with child support orders has not increased since then, it's decreased. And there has been no increase in the offset to welfare payments through child support in that time either. That's decreased too. That's what the real data says. That's what's happening in real life.

[RogerFGay]

ping

[Brytani]

Again, ALL custody agreements put into a legal agreement through a judge either during a divorce proceding or hearing to decide visitation are approved by a Judge by his/her signature. The judge sets the minimum amount of visitation for the NCP based on the laws passed by the legislature of the states. Any change to the state minimum is approved of or set by the judge.

As for you knowing the 14th amendment I would say you don't understand it, since you support a system who takes two people displaying the exact same behavior that turns one into a criminal but has no criminal penalties for the other.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

Sorry Roger, I'm having discussions with Americans ok? Since we're discussing the US child support issues, I find it only appropriate. ;-)

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

Calling in your buddies for backup? Go back and read the references.

You said CS has existed more than 200 years and admitted to not saying anything even close to single parents back then who didn't get support as being ficticious. That means you believe there WERE single parents who didn't get support in a time when you say CS existed. Oops, you're spinning Rog. Ping RobRoy again. You need the help.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

Define reasonable visitation. Explain how it relates to you statement "The judge sets the minimum amount of visitation for the NCP...". Explain it was decided by a judge when the NCP had already decided it.

Ooopsie.

We can tackle the 14th amendment when we move past the obvious bias.

[RogerFGay]

Sorry Roger, I'm having discussions with Americans ok? Since we're discussing the US child support issues, I find it only appropriate. ;-)

I still don't see where you're discussing any issues. You've implied some general claims that faded like a bad dream when daylight came. But you keep coming back trying to relive it. You've been given more information about this issue than you've ever had before, even though you're trying to ignore it. Since you can no longer legitimately claim ignorance, life will never be the same.

[RogerFGay]

You paniced. RobRoy is just somebody who showed up in one of the threads and asked to be on the ping list. For all I know, he might be on your side. He announced that he's a custodial parent.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

Rog? You're still here man? Ok, but I figure you'd have already realized you accomplished nothing with your victimization of Morales by now. But keep thinking that your editorial has any merit. You're about the one that does. When will the daylight show up in your area? You're still in the dark.

[RogerFGay]

I think you'll look a lot more like a fathers advocate when you start saying that you do not condone the war that's being waged against fathers.

[RogerFGay]

You've been involved in discussion related to child support for quite some time now, and we're still trying to figure out what your position is. Are you saying that men should be gunned down in the streets if they don't pay as much to women as women want them to?

[Brytani]

The war that is being waged against fathers receives it's ammo from the laws currently on the books. Everything from unequal laws that turn one person into a criminal while allowing the same behavior for another. Unconstitutional debtors prison, arbitrary standards in deciding support awards. Forcing one group of people to pay for post-secondary education under penalty of law while not forcing another group of people to do the same. The list goes on and on.

Groups like NOW, MAFIA and private CS collection agencies have used their voice and resources to push for more laws and our politicians are to afraid of being called anti-children they go right along with it. Until the laws are changed, I will keep fighting for just that. Societal beliefs can not be legislated, laws can be enacted and changed to conform to the constitution and fairness. If you can't see that, then I'd say you are the one who isn't pro-father but pro the current child support system.

[RogerFGay]

Man surrenders after interview
September 09, 2002

A man who evaded police for a week after allegedly holding his ex-wife's lawyer hostage has surrendered to police - after conducting a media interview.

Warren Gordon McCarthy, 52, has been on the run since last Monday night when he allegedly used a rifle and knife to hold family lawyer Carol Webb, 57, and her husband Reg, 59, in their upmarket Perth home.

Police said McCarthy was arrested as he left the Seven network's Perth studios after giving an interview.

He was being questioned by police and was likely to be charged later today, a police spokesman said.

McCarthy rang veteran Seven network reporter Alison Fan early today saying he wanted to tell his side of the story.

Ms Fan said she interviewed McCarthy, who explained he was a crusader for men who have been treated badly by the family court.

It was not immediately known whether he considered himself affiliated with the controversial Black Shirts group, a militant men's group which stages neighbour campaigns against women involved with family court disputes

"He said that he doesn't think he should go to jail because he doesn't think he's done anything wrong," Ms Fan said.

McCarthy's arrest comes after the West Australian Law Society took the unprecedented step last week of applying to the Family Court to release publicly the procedural details of McCarthy's case.

Legally, personal details of Family Court matters cannot be published or broadcast unless special permission is gained from the court. It is done only rarely, and usually only in connection with missing children.

The constraints do not necessarily limit general comments by friends or relatives, and friends of McCarthy have told the media he is a loving and caring man who was merely tipped over the edge.

But the Law Society said last week that the effect of the public receiving one-sided information about the matter was to bring into question the integrity of the Family Court system.

Law Society President Clare Thompson said the application to make public the procedural details of the case was before the court today.

The society would pursue the application despite McCarthy's arrest, she said.

During the alleged incident last Monday night, Ms Webb and her husband were held at knife- and gunpoint, and Ms Webb allegedly was doused with petrol as the couple fled the house.

[Brytani]

All I can assume from your posts on this subject is you are quite ignorant of child support, collections of CS, state and federal laws governing CS, custody, visitation etc. Instead you use your pre-conceived belief that any person who goes against the status quo is a deadbeat-dad who has no justifiable argument.

If you ever educate yourself on this topic you might find your pre-conceived notions are wrong.