Governments are expendable / ··cultures are irreplaceable.
In 1994, Our colleague, K.P. attended a series of adoption seminars. And, amongst the examples of disturbing truths learned, these were a few key concerns. 1) it is very difficult for a single male to adopt a child.
2) sickeningly, males are forbidden from adopting female children.
3) A single mother may place her child for adoption without consent from the child's father. (if the partners never legally married). This seems incomprehensible .
4) In cases when mothers cannot care for their children, CPS will often take custody without consenting the father.
4b) When a mother is either incapacitated (due to illness, drug addiction, etc.), her relatives often seek custody. And, although the outcome often works to the father's favor, it serves as an example of bias social attitudes.
5) Court orders favorable to males are largely ignored, and unenforced. For example: The Judge grants longer visitation for father, yet, the mother fails to comply.
5b) This issue spawns more serious examples, as well: In cases when mother is deceased or unable, relatives often assume initial custody. And, even though the courts demand their surrendering of custody to the father, they disregard any legal orders. Afterward, when he is eventually given full custody, there is no legal retribution against the dissidents. Although, the father does not expect such legal revenge, it's worth mentioning that men are highly penalized for trivial reasons. For example: if he exceeds the allotted visitation time.
7) International cases strike a fierce blow against men. Mothers are allowed to kidnap children with full support of their native government.
8) Also worth mentioning: there are countries with equal parenting laws, yet it's rarely enforced.. There are no committees or agencies insuring these laws be carried out. Plus, the concept is largely ignored by the female populous. For example: the Philippines established Equal Rights for Fathers. Yet, in reality, this concept is never taken seriously by women. And, they refuse to acknowledge any such guidelines.
9) Here's a mind boggling fact, from the adoption agencies. BOYS represent over 60% of all children abandoned by their mothers. (in the continental USA). More astonishingly, it transcended all racial groups. For example: 60% of children abandoned by Caucasian mothers were male. 60% of Asian-American children abandoned were also male. (NOT false info). 60+% of African-American Children given up for adoption were male. 60+% of Latino Children given up for adoption were male. 60+% of deceased children from orphanages were male. It's an incredible statistical trend. And they wouldn't have revealed these facts, if they had known Mr KP was a member of mensrightsmovement.
IN FACT, this segment actually got quite a few laughs from the audience. They found the statistics amusing. Here's a trivial incident which took place during that seminar. They were speaking about so-called "gender equality". And how, more and more women are choosing to keep their maiden names after marriage. Thus, when a married couple adopts a child, their new arrival will quickly assume the mothers surname.
The adoption seminar was being dictated by staunch hippie activists. And, not surprisingly, they mixed a great deal of "Gender politics" into the discussion. Plus, a heavy dosage of racial dogma, as well.
Yet, oddly enough, those same activists found it amusing after learning that mothers hold the final decisions in these matters. Yup, it's hard to believe, but, the same lobbyist who spoke about "Modern Marriages" & "maiden namesake", also revealed the stats regarding abandoned sons. You heard that correctly. both contrasting issues derived from the same source.
Now, with all said, it's not necessary to disclose every detail. Yes, we already know that fathers are required to provide all travel arrangements for the child.
And, mothers can notify the courts if the father allegedly violates their agreement. And, she can take him into court, just for the sake of utter annoyance, and purely wasting his time.
And, during Divorce-Proceedings, Judges refuse to accept any terms involving joint custody. The man is expected to provide financial support, even though he could easily be given full parenting rights.
And, we already know that fathers who share custody are often expected to pay support, nonetheless.
Usually, when a man seeks custody, the courts pretend that he's merely trying to escape support obligations. However, this stands to prove that it's more profitable to receive payments, rather than sharing custody. Let's also consider, that most courts are insanely rude toward fathers. Almost to the point where it could legally be defined as "Abuse".
Okay, these points have already been emphasized by Mensrightsmovement in detailed articles.
Let's backtrack to case #4 raised by Mr. KP, in 1994. He stated that unwed mothers can bring their child up for adoption, without consenting the father. This rule also applies to placing children into orphanages, and special homes, as well.
Sadly, 16 years later, we received a letter from a distraught father experiencing the same situation.
dated: 2/22/2010 5:29 PM to Men's Rights: Social Awareness.
Do you know what a Putative Father Registry is?
Neither did I, my name is Jxxxxxxx Sxxxxx. My son was placed for adoption by his mother without my consent. Turns out, this is actually legal because I was neither married to her nor registered as the Putative Father. At the time I had no Idea what a putative father was and when I asked around neither did anyone else. So I’ve built a website dedicated to my son, our primary goals are to find my son and to inform men about the registries. Once we have developed a steady member base I hope to expand the site to include further fathers’ rights issues. The site officially opened on FEB 19 for Joseph’s birthday.
ALSO: did you know? When a woman gives up her child for adoption, she's given no financial obligations whatsoever.
This rule also applies when her child is placed into a foster home, or, an orphanage.
Also, Troubled kids are sent into special homes for children. And, once again, Mothers are not required to pay any support.
With all said, the most important lesson shows how Legal authorities mercilessly enforce unfair doctrine. So, for example: if a mother spitefully offers her child for adoption (merely as an act of revenge for , the courts should recognize the special circumstances. Yet, instead, they use the stale argument "The law is the law". Ironically, those are the same "hippies" (mentioned above: amusing fact) who claim to promote civil disobedience.
The following clips enforce this unsettling message. Ridiculous laws are stringently followed by legal authorities. and, according to regional laws, non-biological fathers face obligatory burdens. If he cares for a child while living under his residence, this automatically binds him to continued support.
And, not surprisingly, the judges claim that "WHETHER OR NOT OUR LAWS ARE FAIR, THEY MUST BE STRICTLY FOLLOWED".
IF laws must be followed, it shouldn't necessarily require financial support. Rather instead, male guardians could be given Joint custody. It leads to wonder why Courtrooms always steer toward monetary goals.