Welcome

PRESS RELEASE: Berkshire Fatherhood Coal. endorses Scott Brown for Mass. Senate

Sunday, January 10, 2010

PRESS RELEASE: The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition has announced that it will endorse Scott Brown for the United States Senate for the January 19th special election in Massachusetts. The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition is a father's rights group based in Berkshire County which has endorsed many candidates from both parties, including Democrat gubernatorial candidate Shannon O'Brien. The endorsement of the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition was made by a vote of its officers. Because the organization is not a 501(c)(3) organization, it is free to endorse candidates.

The endorsement by the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition was sent to its e-mail list that contains about 2,000 recipients.
"The endorsement is more of one of education rather than ‘vote for Brown because we said so.'" It is an effort to educate the differences between the two candidates.

There are three principle reasons why the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition supports Scott Brown.

1. BROWN'S UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT OF SHARED PARENTING AS A STATE SENATOR: While both a state representative and a state senator for Massachusetts, Scott Brown has been an unflagging supporter of shared parenting and has sponsored numerous shared parenting bills. His support of shared parenting was a contributing factor in his defeat over Angus McQuilkin when he ran for State Senate. (You can read more HERE.)

2. MARTHA COALKLEY'S CONDUCT IN THE AMIRAULT CASE: Gerald and Cheryl Amirault, and their mother Violet Amirault were all targets of a now infamous witch hunt involving allegations of child sexual abuse while they rand a daycare center. Martha Coakley continued in the persecution of the Amirault family long after it became clear that they were innocent, encouraging a denial of probation to one of the family members. One reason political columnist/humorist Howie Carr for the Boston Herald wrote that people should not vote for Martha Coakley because, "Martha Coakley never apologized to Tookie Amirault."

For more information, click on this article by Mark Rosenthol entitled Martha Coakley's Chappaquiddick HERE and this article on the Glenn Sacks website by Attorney Robert Franklin, Esq. HERE, and also HERE. Click HERE for an excellent article along with a video by John Stossel of ABC.

3. THE INCREASED FEDERALIZATION OF FAMILY LAW ISSUES TO WHICH MARTHA COAKLY WILL PROBABLY BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ISSUE: If the members of the public think family law is only a state issue, they are woefully wrong. While family law is traditionally a state issue, and while the United States Constitution does not grant the federal congress power under its limited enumerated powers to involve itself in family law matters, it has increasingly done so. Here are a few examples of the federalizing of family law in the United States:

• The gender biased Violence Against Women Act (you can read criticism of the act HERE).

• The Bradley Amendment which ended retroactive modification of child support when it became clear that judicially based child support orders based upon projected future earnings were erroneous.

• Federal legislation under 42 U.S.C. § 652(k) to repeal passports for merely having a child support debt when the right to travel and leave your country are fundamental rights protected by Article 13 of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (you can read about 42 U.S.C. § 652(k) in this Wikipedia article HERE and about the right of freedom of movement HERE) .

• Completely eliminating bankruptcy protection for those who cannot meet child support obligation, driving many fathers into despair sometimes suicide without getting the "fresh start" bankruptcy offers. (You can read more HERE.)

•  Granting ridiculously limited protections against garnishment for child support under the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act resulting in many fathers literally not being able to keep a roof over their heads and feed themselves. States can still garnish up to 65% of one's available income. (You can read an article on that HERE.)

• Federal incentives to grant sole custody and for courts to issue high child support awards by granting federal aid based upon the amount of child support awarded and collected. Simply put, the higher a state charges and collects child support, the more federal money it receives. You can read Phyllis Schlafley's article about it HERE. Schlafley notes, "The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds." Under federal law, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) computes and pays the State an "incentive payment" based on the "efficiency and effectiveness of the State's child support enforcement program"-i.e., how much they charged and collected in child support. The Due Process concerns of paying states for certain desired outcomes in state courts civil trials (high child support awards) is too obvious for extended explanation.

• At one point, Democrats even were trying to pass a law that unpaid child support would be considered "income" under the Child Support Enforcement Act." You can read about that HERE at Glenn Sacks website with an article co-written by Dianna Thompson that was first published in the Sacromento Bee on 8/1/2002. 

• Under, 42 U.S.C. 666, massive interference in state child support laws by the federal government has been mandated by federal law, stomping on all sense of federalism.

Notes Del Gallo, "There are many issues in a race for Senate. But for most fathers, their loss of custody of their child far surpasses issues such as the economy or health care. For most children, their loss of a father is the greatest traumatic even in their lives. As a United States Senator, the elected official will be called upon to make many decisions that affect family law, even if it would seem that such issue should be left to the states under our system of federalism."