1. Take Action 2. Get Involved 3. Give a Gift
About | Contact | Home

Posts Tagged ‘fathers’ rights’

Author Louis de Bernieres: ‘Deep, Bitter Anger at Being Treated so Outrageously’ by Family Court

Thursday, August 19th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Remember the old saying “A conservative is a liberal who just got robbed at gunpoint” ? There was another one that countered with what a liberal is, but I don’t remember what it was. The point of each though, was that one’s political persuasion has a lot to do with one’s experiences.

I imagine that British novelist Louis de Bernieres understands the concept all too well. After all, he’s a staunch advocate for fathers’ parental rights. So that must mean he’s had an experience with family court that educated him to its realities.

And sure enough, that’s just what happened. Read about it here (Daily Mail, 8/16/10). He and his partner, Cathy Gill, had a couple of kids, separated and guess what. She got custody and the court “allowed” him to see them once every two weeks, i.e. the standard order that is laughingly called “joint custody.” The result?

‘It was really dreadful,’ he said.

‘The worst thing, practically, was finding the house so quiet, because it was always so full of laughter and rampaging and stampeding. There was always a lot of noise and fun, and it suddenly went quiet.

‘The emotional desolation is hard to describe. There were many times when I felt suicidal. One of the most extreme things you feel is a fantastically deep, bitter, anger at being treated so outrageously.’

De Bernieres is a high-profile writer. He’s the author of the critically and popularly acclaimed Captain Corelli’s Mandolin among others. As such, he’s uniquely well placed to further the rights of children to a strong relationship with their dads after separation or divorce.

That “deep bitter anger at being treated so outrageously” is what countless other fathers have felt and will continue to feel as long as courts adopt the policy that it’s OK for a child to lose its father when the parents divorce. It’s the same “deep, bitter anger” that will fuel the fathers’ rights movement until legislative and judicial bodies bring law and public policy into line with the science that teaches one and all that children need both their parents, whether married or not. It’s the same “deep, bitter anger” that demands that fathers be treated equally and honorably by courts, that they be accorded the same due process rights enjoyed by every other class of people including the most heinous criminals.

As de Bernieres has learned, it’s past time to stop thinking of fathers as just a wallet. Fathers are more than that to children and it’s time courts acknowledged the fact in the orders they issue.

But more important is the fact that the standard “visitation” order, even if honored by the mother (which few courts require them to do), effectively removes the father from the child’s life. There’s a great deal of reputable social science on that. Given that keeping fathers in children’s lives post-divorce promotes the child’s sense of stability in an otherwise uncertain and frightening situation, the wholesale refusal of courts to seriously make that effort itself constitutes a form of child abuse. Face it, in the vast majority of cases (that of de Bernieres is one) courts can order equally shared parenting if they choose. But they rarely do, not because the value of fathers to children isn’t well known, but because of the rampant anti-father sentiment that pervades public discourse, law and public policy.

Equally shared parenting is good for children, it’s good for fathers and, yes, it’s good for mothers. By taking half of the onus of childcare off of mothers, equally shared parenting opens the door to them to greater career opportunities, higher earnings, more promotions and higher rates of savings for retirement. Advocates of equally shared parenting seek to promote a work-life balance that optimizes career and family for both sexes. Into the bargain, it seeks to create the best possible environment for kids.

And the problem with that is what?

I deeply empathize with Louis de Bernieres, a thoroughly decent man who has largely lost the children he loves so much. I am heartily sorry for the loss he feels so acutely. But I welcome him to the fold.

MI Man not the Dad, but Owes the State Welfare Reimbursement Anyway

Thursday, July 29th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

One of my first jaw-dropping experiences in the fathers’ rights arena came back in 1999. I was researching the phenomenon of men who had learned after the fact - and sometimes long after the fact - that they’d fathered a child. I was interested in what happened to their parental rights if a mother kept a man’s child secret from him. I was astonished to learn that the rights of such a dad could vanish into thin air. The rule in many states was that, since he hadn’t actively cared for the child, he had no more claim to it. The fact that the mother had intentionally deprived him of the ability to do that often made no difference to courts.

So I had lengthy conversations with a number of those dads, one of whom lived in Lompoc, California. He’d had a one-night stand with a woman 16 years previously. They both lived in the same community, but she decided he didn’t need to know about it when she became pregnant and gave birth to his daughter. Then she started receiving AFDC payments (now TANF) from the state which were required to be reimbursed by the father. Fifteen years later, the dad received a letter from the State of California saying (a) he had a daughter and (b) he owed the state over $40,000. This was shortly after he’d gotten married. He had to get a second mortgage on his house to pay off the state.

This case is very much the same, but in fact much worse (WXYZ, 7/8/10). This time it’s the State of Michigan that’s suing Gary Harper for AFDC payments made to a woman named Dorothy Hoose. She had a son in 1988 and named Harper as the dad. There’s just one problem, though; he’s not.

But the State of Michigan isn’t interested in technicalities like who the actual father is. It’s known for many years that Harper is not the dad and, as far as I can tell, lifted nary a finger to find out who is. That’s because it’s got Harper on its line and the hook is set. Why go after another fish when you’ve already got one reeled in?

You see, when Hoose named Harper as the dad, he was in prison. According to Michigan law, the state has to pay for a DNA test for any inmate for whom it seeks to establish paternity. The state knew Harper was in the joint because a Friend of the Court sent correspondence there about his case. But it never offered him the genetic testing.

After he got out, he didn’t have the $500 it would have taken at the time to determine whether he was the dad or not. He didn’t do the test until years later, when he had the money. That test proved he wasn’t the dad, but it was too late. His window of opportunity for disproving his paternity had closed. That’s one of those technicalities the state is interested in.

So as of now, Harper’s on the hook for $22,500, down from the $50,000 the state claimed at first. He’s got an attorney, Susan Pushman, who says that the state’s failure to provide DNA testing when Harper was inside means it can’t complain that he didn’t do it on his own when he got out. If Michigan had done what it was obligated to do, it would have known Harper isn’t the father, is her argument. The case is pending.

The “child” in question is now 22 years old. Perhaps oddly, he and Harper have gotten to know and like each other pretty well. That’s a positive development in an otherwise tawdry affair.

It’s worth asking why the State of Michigan has expended such effort in trying to bankrupt a man it knows has no responsibility for Hoose’s son. After all, Harper has been trying to get his life back together after his time in prison, and he’s done a pretty good job of that. But if the state has its way, it’ll tear down whatever he’s built. Nice.

What truly escapes me is why state welfare authorities don’t just ask Hoose who the father is, do DNA testing on him and, if she’s right this time, demand payment. What’s the problem with getting the right man and letting the wrong one go? What state interest is served by soaking a man who’s not the father and letting the man who is go free? One of the points of child support is that he who fathers a child should be financially responsible for it. In Harper’s case, the State of Michigan has it exactly backwards.

Thanks to Jeff for the heads-up.

European Court of Human Rights: German Custody Law Discriminates Against Single Dads

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

At least in Germany they admit it.

In 2003, Harshad, a British citizen of Indian descent, had a baby daughter with his German girlfriend. Knowing nothing of Germany’s idiosyncratic custody laws, Harshad went along with his girlfriend’s suggestion that they skip the laborious process of registering joint custody.

It wasn’t until the couple split that Harshad discovered the enormity of that choice.

“I had no idea it would cause so many problems,” said Harshad, a 44-year-old IT professional. “My ex-girlfriend had said, ‘It’s nothing to worry about; from the paperwork point of view, it’s far easier not to do it, and I said, ‘Okay,’ not really understanding the situation.”

What it meant was that, after the separation, Harshad, who asked that his name be changed, had no claim to be the legal guardian of his daughter. Even if his former girlfriend were to die, custody would pass not to Harshad but to the mother’s parents.

In short, in Germany, single fathers have no parental rights without the consent of their child’s mother. In order to establish their rights, they have to file documents with the state and they can’t do that if the mother doesn’t agree. Apparently, she has to file along with him. If she doesn’t, it’s his tough luck.

This article tells us about German custody law and points out something I hadn’t thought of (The Local, 7/2/10). The law gives single mothers such total control over the parental rights of the fathers of their children that they can convert it into cash. As one single father said,

“I give (my ex-girlfriend) the regular child support and … then on the side, I pay her extra to keep things nice. I realised that I have to be nice because I’ve got no cards. I have nothing. There is no piece of paper saying I have any rights.”

There was a time that would have been called extortion, but apparently where fathers and children are concerned, it’s perfectly alright.

In the U.S. we’re far less candid about placing the rights of fathers, particularly single fathers, in the hands of mothers. We do it, but require subterfuges far more subtle than the one employed by “Harshad’s” ex. Here, in order for a mother to deprive a single father of his rights, she has to lie to him, avoid him, place the child secretly for adoption, lie to the court, etc. If they’re divorced or separated, she has to deny him visitation over a long period of time. Or, if the two are married and she has a child by another man, she has to convince her husband the child is his. That is, she’s got to jump through some hoops in order to deny the child the care of its father.

Now, for the most part, those hoops are perfectly acceptable to state legislatures and family courts. No state has passed a law that requires a mother to tell the father about his child. If she doesn’t, he’ll at best have real problems getting access to his child, if he ever learns about it. Again, his rights are in her hands. Does she commit perjury in family court for the purpose of denying the child to its father and the father to his child? For the most part, that goes entirely unpunished, as does the denial of visitation.

Up to now, German law has been far more frank about the matter of the rights of single fathers; they don’t have any without the mother’s say-so. That’s simple and easy to understand.

It’s also illegal - as of last December.

In December, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that German custody law discriminates against unmarried fathers by denying them custody without the mother’s consent. The government is now reviewing the law, with a bill expected this year.

“German law has to change and will change,” said Thomas Meysen of the German Institute for Youth Human Services and Family Law, which is conducting research for the government on international comparisons of child custody law.

“There should be a possibility for fathers to get into joint custody without having to rely on the mother’s consent. In that sense, the law is deficient at the moment.”

If Germany wants to change its laws, it has plenty of examples from which to choose that would allow it to continue discriminating against single fathers and still pass legal muster. Basically, it just has to create the fiction, like the U.S. does, that giving primary custody to mothers and “visitation rights” to fathers (a) is equitable, (b) likely keeps both parents in their children’s lives and (c) is good for children. Then Germany can dress the whole thing up with a nice pink ribbon called “joint custody,” and it all looks pretty good.

It looks good, that is, if you don’t examine it very closely. If you do that, you notice that our wonderful system harms children, denies fathers meaningful parental rights, enriches lawyers and enrages anyone with even a minimal sense of justice. It’s not really something to emulate.

I know Herr Meysen said that the law must and will change, but he may have been optimistic. It seems the government doesn’t agree.

Thorsten Bauer, spokesman for the Federal Justice Ministry, which has oversight of custody law, denied there was systemic discrimination in the courts…

Of course, as a member of the government, it may be difficult for Bauer to admit that “yes, we discriminate.” So his statement may just be posturing for the press. After all, when the law allows a woman complete power to grant or deny rights to a man, how can it not be said to discriminate? It’s the very definition of discrimination.

And then there’s this from Meysen:

“The mother’s rights or the father’s rights are not the most important questions,” he said. “In family conflicts, usually one parent feels they are the loser. The one that does might blame the authorities, in this case the Jugendamt.

“In break-ups … people’s feelings get hurt and most of the time, they’re fighting about something else, not the custody. Then they make it an issue of rights: ‘I have a right to the child and the mother - or the father - does not.’ Where are the child’s interests in that?”

Isn’t it funny how the concept of parental rights all of a sudden becomes suspect when fathers look like they’re about to get more of them? We see this frequently. When fathers agitate for more time with their kids or even equal consideration as parents, then and only then do certain people call into question the very idea of parental rights. I’ve never seen anyone talking about mothers’ parental rights make that claim.

And reading what Meysen said, you’d think that parental rights in some way excluded children’s interests. No, actually it’s one of the major reasons for increasing and enforcing fathers’ rights; children do better with two parents in their lives. “Where are the child’s interests in that?” They’re right there beside fathers’ interests hand in hand. Children need their fathers; they tend to do better with fathers involved in their lives than without. We know this. Meysen pretends we don’t.

But if Meysen is so dismissive of parental rights, I propose the Germans just reverse things. Give all single dads sole custody of their children and complete control over mother’s rights. If the dad says she can see the child, fine; if not too bad for her. Of course Germans are never going to even consider such a thing and in truth I wouldn’t want them too. After all, I’m serious about this two-parent thing. But still it’d be entertaining to see, if the positions of the sexes reversed, how quickly people like Meysen decided that parental rights weren’t such a bad idea after all.

Thanks to Paul for the heads-up.

Ohio Supreme Court: Rights of Biological Parents ‘Precious and Fundamental’

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

This case out of the Ohio Supreme Court does little but suggests much (Leagle, 7/22/10). Reading the court’s dicta, i.e. the verbal embroidery with which it decorates its actual holding, fathers’ rights in adoption cases just got a huge boost.

Back in July 2005, Susan Tuttle gave birth to a child. She was married to Jeremy Tuttle at the time and his name was placed on the birth certificate. The court’s recitation of facts leaves us to guess at just how and why certain events transpired, but, a month later, DNA testing on the baby had been performed. It showed that Tuttle was not the child’s father; Gary Otten was. Just who asked for the testing to be done is anyone’s guess. Whether Otten requested the testing or whether he even knew it had been done, the court doesn’t tell us.

Whatever the case, not surprisingly, Jeremy Tuttle divorced Susan in November of that year. A little over a year later, Gary Otten filed a suit to establish his paternity rights and presumably to get some sort of a custodial order. But then Susan married another man, Kevin Crooks, who filed a petition to adopt the child who was then almost two years old. In order for Crooks to adopt the child, Otten’s parental rights would have had to be terminated by the probate court.

At this point, it’s a good idea to recognize an important fact. There are two types of adoptions - stranger adoptions and non-stranger adoptions. Stranger adoptions are the kind most people tend to think about when they think about adoption. They’re the ones in which a couple adopts a child they don’t know, a child, in other words, who is a stranger to them.

Crooks wanted to do the other type of adoption. He knew Susan Tuttle’s child; he was married to Tuttle and wanted to formally recognize his parental relationship with her child and tie himself legally to the child should the pair ever divorce. That’s a non-stranger adoption.

In the United States, there are about 125,000 adoptions completed each year. Of those, about 75,000 are stranger adoptions and about 50,000 are the non-stranger variety.

Why does it matter what kind of adoption this was? If a stranger adoption doesn’t go through, it may well be that the child will have no parents at all, or at best a single parent. The child may sit unnoticed in an orphanage. If a non-stranger adoption doesn’t go through because the biological father asserts his rights, the child will still have two parents - a mother and a father - the same as if it had gone through. From the child’s standpoint, then, nothing is lost by allowing the dad to assert his rights.

When it comes to terminating fathers’ rights, the adoption industry often likes to pretend that all adoptions are alike, and therefore that if we allow the biological dad to prevail, the child will miss out on having two parents. That can be true in a stranger adoption case, but not in a non-stranger one. It’s an important distinction that those who make money off of completed adoptions often prefer to overlook.

Back to the case. The Ohio Supreme Court held that, because Otten is the biological father, Crooks can’t adopt the child (and terminate Otten’s rights) unless he can show that Otten is unfit.

One important thing about that holding is that Otten had never registered with the Ohio Putative Father Registry. So according to that law, he wasn’t entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding. The Court of Appeals held that his failure to register foreclosed his paternity suit. The Supreme Court said that’s not so. Essentially, a biological father who’s asserting his parental rights can stop the adoption of his child whether he’s filed with the Putative Father Registry or not.

It’s hard to overemphasize the importance of the court’s language in this case. First, it focuses on core principles of parental rights - principles long acknowledged but often ignored. For many years now, I’ve written of my astonishment at the U.S. Supreme Court’s calling parental rights “far more precious than property rights” and then approving the most bald-faced deprivations of due process in cases construing the rights of fathers. Significantly, those are often in cases involving putative father registries.

Here’s some of the court’s dicta:

[T]he right of a natural parent to the care and custody of his children is one of the most precious and fundamental in law…

Few consequences of judicial action are so grave as the severance of natural family ties…

[W]e have held that any exception to the requirement of parental consent (to adoption) must be strictly construed so as to protect the right of natural parents to raise and nurture their children.

Finally! Here’s a court that sees the obvious - that the rights of biological fathers have legal importance, and that courts and legislatures must respect them for the welfare of all concerned. Not only that, as important as parental rights are, in termination proceedings, states’ rights are virtually nil until a parent has been proven to be unfit.

the parent’s interest is fundamental but the State has no legitimate interest in termination unless the parent is unfit, and finding that the State’s interest in finding the best home for the child does not arise until the parent has been found unfit.

Second, I believe that the Ohio Supreme Court is signalling a change of direction in adoption matters. That’s because in two instances it cites, not the majority in U.S. Supreme Court cases, but dissents. That suggests to me that Ohio court is ready to break with the past. I believe that it is ready to turn away from the notion, clung to for so long by so many jurisdictions, that any adoption is a good adoption even though it’s unnecessary. When a fit father wants to be a parent to his child, there is no legitimate state interest in denying him his parental rights.

This case can be viewed as extremely limited and many will argue for that reading of it. But courts often prefer to obscure the full impact of important cases. Judges fear being tagged “judicial activist.” Given the language of the case, I would not be surprised to find it holding unconstitutional Ohio’s Putative Father Registry law at some time in the not too distant future. Either that or so limiting its scope as to render it all but impotent.

And let’s not forget that, just last month, right next door in Kentucky the state Supreme Court ruled that biological parents rights were “inherent and equitable.” Here’s my piece on that case. It too suggested a significant expansion of parental rights based solely on biology.

It’s important to understand what this case does not do. Somehow, Otten learned about his child and was able to assert his rights. Thus the case deals only with a father who was able to make a timely claim. This case does little or nothing to protect a father from whom a mother successfully keeps his child. What if Otten had found out he was the father, not a year later, but five years later? Could he have asserted his rights then? The case doesn’t say because that’s not what happened.

Some day, that case will come before the court and it will have an opportunity to decide whether a father’s rights can be prejudiced by the fraud of the mother. That happens frequently in adoption cases as I’ve reported on before. But this is a court that says it respects the rights of biological parents. We’ll see how far that goes.

But remember that Kentucky case. That’s exactly the issue it ruled on and it held that a father who’d been kept in the dark about his paternity until the child was three years old, could not be denied his parental rights.

As Bob Dylan once said, “the times they are a-changin.’”

Trial Court Declares Florida’s Putative Father Registry Unconstitutional

Monday, May 24th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

This case out of Florida offers a tantalizing hint of what may be to come. The appellate case itself is almost meaningless, but what the trial court did is promising.

The trial court overturned Florida’s Putative Father Registry as violating the father’s rights to due process of law and his right to privacy. For those of you who don’t slavishly read every word of GlennSacks.com (are there such people?), putative father registries are handy-dandy devices whereby states get around single fathers’ parental rights in adoption cases. The laws of the 29 or so states with PFRs require single fathers to inform the state just in case a woman with whom they have intercourse becomes pregnant, carries the child to term and places it for adoption. In that event, the court handling the adoption will check with the state’s PFR to see if the dad has registered. If he hasn’t, then the adoption can proceed without notice to him.

Now, in most states, PFRs are closely guarded secrets. Few states do anything to publicize them with the result that very few fathers sign up. Last year I linked to a great article by a young paralegal student in Ohio who’d heard about the state’s PFR in class. His adventures in attempting to locate the PFR and find out how to register made for both amusing and enraging reading.

So, with dads out of the loop, adoptions are easier to finalize. One of the major problems with the whole concept is that good qualified dads are tossed aside along with all the others. That means that, by bypassing those good dads, states are forcing adoption on children who don’t need it. In the process, they’re denying adoptive parents to those children in foster care and orphanages who desperately do need parents. Thus do PFRs accomplish the opposite of what they’re meant to.

I’ve read countless cases in which PFRs were used to deny their children to highly qualified and motivated dads. Often enough, it’s because the mother refused to tell him about his child, and the case linked to is no exception. In it the mother and the father had a brief fling while she was involved with another man. When she turned up pregnant, she told the long-term boyfriend the child was his. The “fling” was in the Navy, had shipped out and knew nothing of the pregnancy.

Although the judges writing the opinion are far too tactful to mention such tawdry matters, I suspect what happened was that, once the child was born, the man who thought he was the dad said something like “that kid doesn’t look like me,” and out spilled the beans. In any case, they did genetic testing and sure enough, the child was the Naval petty officer’s. Shortly thereafter, he and mom got married.

And it was that marriage that stopped the adoption that the mother and the other man had started. Likewise, it was that marriage that allowed the appellate court to avoid addressing the constitutional arguments the trial court had made.

Still,

the trial court ruled that [the Putative Father Registry statute] could not be applied constitutionally in [the biological father's] case, opining that “to find that [the father] had given up all rights to his child under these circumstances would be a violation of his due process and privacy rights.” In reaching this conclusion, the trial court reasoned that the “right to have a relationship with one’s own child is too important a legal right to forfeit” based on a statutory presumption that unmarried men who engage in sexual relations are on notice of the obligation to file a claim of paternity with the Registry in order to protect their paternal rights.

Many of us have been arguing the same things for years. It’s only a trial court and it’s only in one state, so by itself the case doesn’t mean much. But there are far more out-of-wedlock pregnancies now than when the first PFR passed constitutional muster back in 1979. That, together with the fact that PFRs make a mockery of the concept of due process of law, just might get courts to rethink their past acceptance of statutory schemes that deny fathers their rights and deny parents to children who need them.

In Finland a Familiar Story: Child Welfare Agencies Choose Foster Care over Father Care

Monday, May 10th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

In case anyone thought that fathers have it better somewhere else, consider this article out of Finland (Helsingin Sanomat, 4/30/10). It seems that in that country, fathers are battling child welfare agencies to get custody of their children. They’re having to battle because - surprise, surprise - the child welfare agencies prefer foster care to father care. (Where have I seen that phrase before? Oh that’s right, I’ve written it myself countless times.)

Veli-Matti Korhonen is not the only one to be in such a predicament. Helsingin Sanomat has examined the situations of two other fathers.

Although they live in different parts of the country, they share the experience that officials often only listen to the mother. Fathers are ignored. In spite of a joint custody agreement, the children are placed outside the home.

Sound familiar? It should. In this country, studies show that child protective agencies routinely ignore fathers as a placement alternative when children are taken from mothers. Indeed, the Urban Institute has shown that that happens in well over half the cases even though the father is known in 88%. The discrimination aganist fathers by CPS agencies has grown so bad and so pervasive that lawsuits against them are cropping up. One California case found the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the lower court decision that a father could sue the child welfare organization under federal civil rights statutes because it had failed to give him the opportunity at custody.

Apparently dads in Finland have no such recourse. Their situation is actually worse than here.

Many fathers around Finland are fighting to keep children who are in foster care, even though they have joint custody agreements with the mothers.

These kinds of situations arise in divorce cases in which the a joint custody arrangement exists, but the mother suddenly decides that she does not want to let the father keep the children when she is rendered unable to do so.

Such conflicts can last for years. The children in such cases suffer the most, even though everyone involved is ostensibly acting in their best interest. Municipal costs for child protective services have quadrupled in the past decade.

So, even as we’ve seen so often in the U.S., child welfare agencies bypass dads in favor of foster care. That’s at no small cost to the children, to the fathers and to the taxpayers, but they do it anyway.

And it looks like it’s all up to the mother. That too looks familiar. The situations in which fathers’ rights are placed firmly in the hands of mothers are many, and foster care is one of them. For a mother, the words “I don’t know who the father is” go a long way toward deciding whether he gets to see his child or not.

But if the article is accurate, in Finland, if “the mother suddenly decides that she does not want to let the father keep the children” then it’s off to foster care for them and off to court for him. Somehow, someone must think some portion of that makes sense, but I can’t imagine who or how. Fathers should have enforceable (by fathers) rights to children; children should have enforceable rights to fathers. Public policy and law that recognize those two things would save tax money. The only “downside” is that mothers would have to cease to be the sole arbiters of children’s and fathers’ rights.

“The law requires that the parents should be treated even-handedly, but in practice, mothers get support, and fathers are left on their own”, says one father. “A father who cares for his children is in a weak position.”

The sense of agony is also something that the men share. “This is hell on earth. A weaker person would have given up already.”

Again, as we’ve seen before, the law may be gender neutral, but if judges and agency personnel want it to be pro-mother, it is. That’s why lawsuits can be so effective at accomplishing what laws alone do not. Experience teaches that, while CPS agencies may be staffed by people with an anti-dad mindset, juries seldom are. Dads should quit going hat in hand to agencies that have proven time and again to disdain them.