How to end the war against divorced dads

National Post ^ | March 28, 2000 | Donna Laframboise

[Billy_bob_bob]

Thank you for your well reasoned reply.

[William Terrell]

Hey, Roger, how about posting the whole article. The prohibition was only against articles from the LAT and WP.

[RogerFGay]

Hey, Roger, how about posting the whole article. The prohibition was only against articles from the LAT and WP.

I've posted at least a dozen MND articles, probably more. (I haven't kept count.) The editor at MND doesn't seem to have any problem with it, but I think MND deserves to get a few more hits. I thought I'd try posting an intro and a link a few times just to see what happens.

[RogerFGay]

Oops. Actually, this thread isn't connected to an MND article. I did the same thing with at least one MND article lately.

[RogerFGay]

The Dark Side of Feminism

[William Terrell]

Well, I know that people who go to the trouble to put up web sites with original articles ought to get response for their efforts. But, the problem with this forum is that each article is archived and people (me included) often go to those archives to find an old article thread, many times because the article from a site has been archived or pulled completely.

With more and more linkages being posted instead of articles, more and more archived threads are wastes of space. Sometimes, maybe many times, moronic statements in source articles are changed and the article replaced, other times just pulled.

[RogerFGay]

The sources I've linked to have been extremely stable.

[Looking for Diogenes]

a rule in politics to never reverse policies that have funding attached

True. I'm not sure what that has to do with divorce and marriage though.

[RogerFGay]

True. I'm not sure what that has to do with divorce and marriage though.

We now have federal (ly funded) divorce policy. That's why problems related to divorce today are much worse then ever before. The fed got involved starting in 1975, and they've ramped up big time every presidential election year, with embellishments during mid-term election years.

[Looking for Diogenes]

The fed got involved starting in 1975

What happened in 1975? I searched Google for 'divorce 1975' but couldn't find anything. Was a law passed?

[RogerFGay]

It was an amendment to the social security act that established the US Office of Child Support Enforcement. The welfare establishment was not for it. It showed up as an amendment to more popular social services legislation, introduced by Senator Russell Long, the son of the notorious Louisianna politician and organized crime figure Huey "Kingfish" Long. When signing the bill, President Ford said that it took the federal government too far into domestic relations and promised to submit corrective legislation later. He left office and not much happened during the Carter years. When Ronald Reagan, who as governor led the national transformation to no-fault divorce and one of the few people who spoke in favor of the 1975 legislation, took office, pretty much all hell broke loose. Major legislation was passed in 1984 and 1988 building the agency into a bureacratic goliath with a multi-billion dollar annual budget and power more intrusive than the IRS and more destructive than al Qaeda.

I've written a lot about the subject. How much do you want to read?

[Looking for Diogenes]

I've written a lot about the subject. How much do you want to read?

So I discovered. While searching I came across your website.

Surprising to hear about a bureaucracy that Reagan encouraged. I guess he had personal experience, being the only divorced president. However, there will always be problems as long as there is divorce, especially when children are involved. If churches held the quasi-governmental role that they had 200 years ago they could manage the problem (come to think of it, they did- no divorce allowed). In today's society it seems inevitable the government will get involved. The issue is how to minimize that involvement and make it serve the people.

Do you have any broad suggestions?

[paul51]

When there is a problem with divorced couples my rough estimate that about 25% of the time it is the father; about 25% of the time it is the mother; and, about 50% of the time there is some blame to go around

I would say that 50% should be blamed on the system.

[Looking for Diogenes]

No need to move: we are becoming a socialist country. Day care is increasingly subsidized.

[RogerFGay]

Do you have any broad suggestions?

Yes. The federal government should be forced out of domestic relations completely. The US Office of Child Support Enforcement should be shut down, and all funding for the program discontinued. Divorce and children are first and foremost a private issue. To the extent that government is sometimes needed, the states were doing just fine before the federal government got involved. All of the problems, issues, and hopes cited in promotion of the federal role have proven false. What has developed is a gargantuan federally funded organized crime ring collectively known as "the divorce industry." It has had such a corrupting influence on the courts that we simply no longer have an independent judiciary serving its proper role in checks and balances. Taxpayers are paying around $4.5 billion annually now to keep it afloat. It's not just a useless waste of money for taxpayers, it's a very destructive force.

[Cyber Liberty]

I was a divorced dad, and let me tell you...the article's right on the money. "MONEY" being the key word. How 'bout "walkaway wives" to go with the "deadbeat dads?"

[Looking for Diogenes]

I'm all for reducing or eliminating federal functions and transferring them to state or local governments. $4.5 billion is a lot of money. But what happens when a parent moves across state lines? It would seem like there is a federal role in locating out-of-state parents. Apparently a large portion of suuport is paid in the form of income witholding, whether from salaries or tax rebates. Again, I can see a federal role there. Still $4.5 billion seems like far too much money.