NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/dadsrig/3465

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-23 | 3.3 KB

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3465 soc.men:23141 soc.women:22991 misc.legal:23175
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Path: sparky!uunet!walter!att-out!cbnewsl!cbnewsk!noraa
From: [e-mail] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:24:16 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 65

David Garrod writes in soc.men:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Bob Clarke) writes:
>>  ....
>> Does anybody know what percentage of fathers get custody.  Both nation wide
>> and for the state of Ct would be helpful.  My child is 4 1/2 and I have been
>> told "not a chance".
>
>
>>From a survey of Indiana Court Orders, August 1992:
>
>Sole custody to mother  82.6%
>Sole custody to father   9.6%
>Joint legal custody      2.8%
>Split custody            5.0%   (Split custody is each parent getting
>sole custody of at least one child.)
>
>For Connecticut statstics, I would suggest you contact one of the
>father`s groups there.  The Children`s Rights Council used to have
>a CT chapter: 44 Franklin St., Trumbull, CT 06611, [phone]
>
>David Garrod

In 1974 a man in Columbus, Ohio named Dave Jordan filed a suit against
the Franklin Country Domestic Relations Court for sexual
discrimination.  He named specific parties to the suit--judges and
referees.  At that time the law in this state said that judges and
referees were to award custody to parents without any gender bias.
Amazingly, the judges and referees were awarding custody to women in
well over 90% of all cases--and there was no such thing as any form of
joint custody.

This case took about six years to come to loggerheads.  During the
case, it was submitted to the US Supreme Court on appeals.  The US
Supreme Court considered this a domestic relations case and refused to
take it, sending it back down for review at the Ohio Appellate Court
level with some direction.  The Ohio Appellate Court, in the end,
recommended that the defendents settle--otherwise they may lose and the
case would have far-reaching consequences, establishing a precedent
which could sweep the nation and cause widespread legal reform.  And NO
ONE wanted that.

Yet, here we see a state, Indiana, much like every other state in the
US, discriminating against men with total disregard for gender
fairness.  If women could illustrate that they were being discriminated
against with such disregard, and so unjustly, they would surely be
filing sexual discrimination charges against all parties involved.
And, they would win these cases.

So, what I am asking, or suggesting is this:  Why don't we look at this
avenue of approach for correcting the injustices in the system?  Any
precedent establishing case could inspire reform throughout the
country, and, at the very least, it could garner much needed attention
on the plight of oppressed, divorcing or divorced fathers.

Is it unreasonable to incorporate such a goal into the mission of
divorced fathers' rights groups?  If 52 class-action lawsuits  were
filed simultaneously in the states and territories, the courts and the
media would have to sit up and take notice.  And maybe, at last, the
charade would be exposed for what it is:  sexual discrimination.

Comments, anyone?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
[e-mail]