Cannabis – God’s Gift to Humanity

Cannabis is not evil. Cannabis is a miraculous, non-toxic plant that many Christians have been mislead to fear and even hate.

The love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10).
It is that “love of money” that originally lead to cannabis prohibition; that “love of money” is the reason prohibition remains.

Big-pharma, big-oil, big-agriculture and big-money are the biggest reason cannabis is banned and demonized in our society. The church needs to wake up, and take a stand on this.

People, young and old, needlessly live in pain, and/or die, as a result of the senseless prohibition of this non-toxic plant that has miraculous healthful and medicinal properties.  Cannabis has proven to cure a plethora of physical (and psychological) maladies.
Proverbs 3:27 – Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do [it].

As a result of cannabis prohibition, toxic pharmaceuticals with terrible side-effects, are overly-prescribed.  The Greek word “pharmakeia” (#5332 in Strong’s Concordance) is translated into English as “sorcery.”  “Pharmaceutic” comes from the word “pharmakeuin,” meaning to practice witchcraft, or use medicine (made by pharmaceutical formula.)
“For by thy sorceries (pharmaceia) were all nations deceived (Rev. 18:23)

Unlike most pharmaceuticals (and over-the counter medicines), cannabis is non-toxic. Cannabis delivers health benefits, and nutrition, without toxins.

Prohibition of cannabis is a relatively recent phenomenon in historical perspective. There is record of this nation’s founding fathers cultivating and utilizing both hemp (low THC-content cannabis) and higher THC content cannabis.  Drafts for this nation’s Constitution were written on hemp, the common paper of the day.

In the 1910’s, the prohibitionist movement came into full swing.  In 1911, Massachusetts was the first state to prohibit cannabis. Cannabis, however, was still an active ingredient in many medications well into the 1930’s.  In 1936 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics urged federal control over cannabis,  as aspirin, morphine, and then other opiod drugs, all helped to replace cannabis in the treatment of pain and other medical conditions in this country.  In 1936 the propaganda film Refer Madness was released (originally titled “Tell Your Children”) was released to instill irrational fear of cannabis, and scare the living bejeezes out of every parent. Cannabis was removed from US Pharmacopeia in 1942.

In 1961, the United Nations Convention on Narcotic Drugs established the following rule: “The use of cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-five years…”

It was in 1970 that the Controlled Substances Act was passed by US Congress, listing “marijuana” as a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance (which means it is said to have absolutely no medical applications, and a high propensity of abuse.)  Thus it has been federally criminalized a mere 45 years.  It is time we re-examine this prohibition.

Hemp, a highly renewable resource, could save our forests, while fueling our world. Clothing, paper, fuel, plastic-like products, building materials, all can be made from hemp.  God placed man as a steward over this earth (Genesis 2:15); man’s directive was not to waste, pillage and destroy it.  With all the talk about fossil fuels causing pollution and damage to our planet, hemp would largely halt the pollution that over-reliance on fossil fuels has caused.  Big oil wouldn’t like that.

Freeing the cannabis plant (fully legalizing it) would utterly revolutionize our economy, and heal many ailments effectively and economically.  “Lovers of money” hate like that idea; but they also realize legalization is inevitable, at least to some extent.  The scientific evidence of medicinal uses of cannabis are now overwhelming; it truly is a miraculous plant.  That is why the lovers of money” are jockeying for position to profit from restricting its legalization, and limiting who can reap the benefits.

The question now is “HOW will it be legalized?”  Will “we the people” be given free access to this non-toxic, highly utilitarian weed? or, as in Colorado and Washington State, will the corporate profiteers be able keep their thumb over it?  Full, unrestricted, legalization of cannabis would put self-sufficiency of food, fuel, and medicine freely into the hands of average Joe, instead of money into the hands of the greedy.

We Christians should not continue to allow “lovers of money” to dictate how this God- given miraculous plant is utilized.   The US federal government holds the patent #6630507 for “cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants” citing specific medicinal applications.   At the same time, the federal government continues to arrest millions of citizens for possession of this miraculous, non-toxic, medicinal, plant that is a Class 1 Controlled substance (said to have zero medicl applications.)  Something is seriously wrong here, and we Christians need to examine it in light of Scripture.

Federal government patent #6630507 on cannabis is a slap in the face to “we the people,” as our friends and family DIE of cancer and carcinogens.  Big-pharma creates customers, not cures (that love of money, again.)  Chemotherapy (chemical toxins) and radiation therapy (radioactive toxins) are considered “medicinal” treatment………..Chemo and radiation KILL.  Chemo and radiation kill not only cancer, they kill healthy tissue, and they have been known to kill people!  If any treatment or substance should be prohibited, THOSE “medicinal practices” should be!

There is nary a cancer that exists that cannabis has not been proven to cure (numerous examples have been documented.)  Yet people are being thrown into prison for attempting to treat themselves, due to public policy, established for/by “lovers of money.” We as a people have either not educated ourselves about this, or simply haven’t bothered to care to overturn these unjust laws.

The US government continues to categorize cannabis a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance (the most strictly controlled substances, that are said to have ZERO recognized medicinal benefits,) as it holds the patent on cannaboids for medicinal purposes.  THAT is utterly OUTRAGEOUS!  The church needs to take notice, and take a Scriptural stance on this!  WHY is the church allowing prohibition of this God-given food and medicine?

DO NOT be fooled by proposals that uses the term “Marijuana” in their title. Any measure with “marijuana” in its title is a quasi-legalization proposal, intended to make a few people very wealthy, at the expense of “we the people.”  This plant should be ubiquitous.  It is more nutritious than flax seed.  It is safer than carrots (you can overdose on vitamin A, which is fat soluble), safer than nutmeg (you can hallucinate from a mere 2 Tablespoons, and die), safer than sugar (which feeds cancer, messes up glucose levels, and can kill you.) God created cannabis, with its numerous miraculous unique utilitarian and healing qualities, for humanity.  It is a weed that is intended to be ubiquitous.

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:11-12

Alcohol is an intoxicant (root word being “toxin”.)  In contrast, cannabis is non-toxic. The effects of cannabis are not “intoxicating” by definition.  A side-effect of THC in cannabis is a “euphoric” feeling; some people enjoy that side-effect, others do not. But, unlike alcohol and most pharmaceuticals, cannabis in and of itself, is not lethal, a HUGE factor our society and governing bodies (and the church) are failing to consider with regard to its prohibition.

The “love of money” is unjustly keeping the well-documented miraculous medical applications of cannabis from people who desperately need it.  Maintaining cannabis as a Category 1 Controlled Substance (same category as LSD and methamphetamine) is absolutely ludicrous at this point.  Cocaine is not even considered Schedule 1, as cocaine (which can be highly lethal) has government acknowledged “medicinal purposes.”  Big Pharma has invested many millions of dollars into lobbying legislators to continue this prohibition.

This is wrong; we need Christians to become educated and take a stand for what is right, in light of all that Scripture has to say.

The ONLY evidence of cannabis being toxic is from one abused monkey forced to inhale cannabis with every breath for a day, decades ago.  The scientist document that monkey’s death was the result of cannabis, but in reality, that poor monkey died of oxygen deprivation. That is the only incident of any living being dying from cannabis.  Cannabis is utterly NON-TOXIC.

Cannabis is a miracle plant with SO many medicinal and industrially useful properties, that the corporate profiteers feared its abundance in the hands of the people; hence the propaganda campaigns to demonize and prohibit it.

There is an abundance of highly toxic substances any minor child can purchase at your local store, which aren’t controlled at all (eg. bleach, turmeric, tylenol, aspirin, rat poison, radiator fluid.)  These substances can KILL you, yet they aren’t even on the Controlled Substance registry!

It is disingenuous, misguided, and frankly hypocritical for Christians to advocate the prohibition and criminalization of cannabis, while imbibing in alcohol is considered socially acceptable, despite numerous warning in Scripture against over-consumption of alcohol.  Christ’s first miracle was turning water into wine, yet numerous Scripture verses admonish over indulgence in alcohol.  Similarly, sobriety and moderation apply to the use of cannabis as well; but remember, cannabis is non-toxic, unlike alcohol.

Christians for Cannabis are not advocating over-indulgence in ANY substance.
1 Peter 5:8 – Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

You can begin to be part of the needed societal change to free the plant, and free the people, by not referring to cannabis as “marijuana,” and politely correcting those who use that term.

The word “marijuana” increased substantially in the United States in the 1930’s, in the context of the debate over its use. “Marijuana” was a more exotic sounding alternative to the familiar words “hemp” and “cannabis,” in referring to the plant as a vice.

William Randolph Hearst (a newspaper tycoon who owned 28 newspapers by the mid-1920s) dropped the words “cannabis” and “hemp” from his publications in the 1930’s, fueling the propaganda campaign against “marijuana.” Hearst owned significant woodland for paper production, and part of his motivation was to eliminate his competition’s access to cheap, hemp paper. (Romans 6:10.)

Please, join me in this campaign to reach the church about the desperate need to decriminalize and fully legalize the miracle non-toxic plant cannabis;
“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:21

Parents teach your children:
This is a non-toxic plant/weed at our disposal with numerous medicinal and nutritious properties, which should be used, not abused.
One can overdose on sugar (which can kill you).
One can hallucinate and become deathly ill from too much nutmeg.
Be ye sober-minded, maintain your faculties.
Do not abuse cannabis; do not abuse anything.
Titus 2:6 – Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.
Titus 2:12 – Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.
1 Peter 5:8 – Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

Legalizing cannabis is about liberty, it is about our Constitutional rights, and a plant God provided to us, to heal sickness, and heal this nation;
it’s nutritional qualities are higher than flax seed. This plant should be ubiquitous. It heals the soil (from toxins, far better than straw for animal bedding, or clean up of toxins,) it is exceedingly renewable.

We as Christians cannot let the “lovers of money” continue to distort righteousness, and determine what non-toxic plants we-the-people have, or have not, a right to.

Join me on FB at Missouri Christians for Cannabis.

Be careful of which petition you sign, as there are 2 petitions circulating in Missouri regarding the legalization of cannabis.  If “Marijuana” in the title, it is the corporate profiteering initiative, which is quasi legalization keeping the money flowing to big money in the industry.   These “lovers of money” KNOW legalization is coming.  The Missouri measure promoting an age restriction was clearly written by such corporate-profiteers.

The federal gov’t can’t continue the racket of keeping cannabis a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance much longer with the OVERWHELMING evidence to its medicinal benefits.  The question is HOW will it be legalized?  Fully, or for the benefit of the greedy?

I encourage you to support FULL legalization.
Support the “Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act “(MO Petition 2016-013),

Any questions, comments, or suggestions, please contact me at:
Join me on Facebook:  Missouri Christians for Cannabis

Posted in industrial, medical, political | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Oppose 2014 Missouri Amendment 1 (so-called Right to Farm)

The big winners with A1, besides Monsanto and CAFOS, will be the Bar Association. I dont’ see how it won’t pass, with its wording so blatantly in favor of its passage it is ridiculous, and in violation of MO Stat 116.155(2)) and Monsanto’s sales-pitch that this is in some way gonna help the independent farmer (that Monsanto wishes to gobble up), and if you oppose it you must a liberal vegetarian in alignment with PETA and HSUS (quite the effective pitch…..I’m amazed at how many conservative farmers have bought the lie, but they tend to be too busy tending their farms in mid summer to really research what this is about.) Gotta hand it to Monsanto for technique and mastering deception.

Potentially, the way this is so vaguely worded, big ag could claim they are free from abiding any and all state regulation. At the same time, most local governing bodies have no, or few, specific agricultural ordinances. Big ag will be able to do whatever the heck they want, and so sad, too bad, if your organic farm is anywhere near a Monsanto farm, because they will be unrestrained in suing you for your farm, for their GM crops cross-pollinating yours……………and which side is gonna have a crew of attorneys, and judges in their hip pocket? I’m guessin’ not the independent farmer.

Bad, bad, BAD.
But I give Monsanto credit for knowing how to play and rig the game.
My $.02

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Michelle Obama’s Food Labeling Law

So Michelle Obama is somehow responsible for new laws that will change food labels.
How does SHE (who was NEVER elected) get to enact policy?

1. The new labels must now have more realistic serving sizes (eh, no big difference there – if anyone cares enough to look at the label, we can look at the serving size listed and modify it to our needs.)
2. The new labels also have to use measurements like teaspoons instead of grams (well, that makes the label less internationally marketable (making the FTA’s even more deadly to our economy), and anyone who cared to look at the label probably cared enough to figure it out. Most health advice is actually given in grams, like how many grams of protein a person should eat per day, and how many grams of fiber, but hey, Michelle doesn’t think WE need to know THAT.)
3. The new labels must be larger (nice idea, but does that REALLY need a federal government mandate?) We have an aging society (baby boomers needing granny glasses) why not let the free market prevail in this regard?

RESULT of Michelle’s new food labeling laws:
It cost the food industry billions of dollars – guess who is gonna pay for THAT?
Just what we need – higher food prices, (as they inflate the dollar) for the same GM/processed crap we are served. Yet another way to raise food prices EVEN MORE, without accomplishing a single meaningful thing. Well, it actually might make USA produced foods less competitive globally and otherwise.

Where is the labeling of Genetically Modified ingredients? Numerous nations have outright BANNED GM foods out of concern for their effect on health, and the USA won’t even bleepin’ LABEL them, thanks to the likes of Monsanto lobbyists!
My $.02

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Wizard of Oz: Exposing the Federal Reserve

The Symbolism Hidden Within “THE WIZARD of OZ”
~ author unknown

The “Wizard of Oz”, written by L. Frank Baum, is not a mere child’s story.

What is “Oz” a symbol for? Ounces.

What is measured in ounces? Gold.

What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.

The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious, ALL CAPS, legal fiction – a PERSON, the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your birth name.

Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A Brain! No juristic person – legal fiction – paper corporation has a brain because he/she has no breath of life.

What did he get in place of a brain? A certificate: a Birth Certificate for a new legal creation.

He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a certificate in place of a grain of common sense.

Now, what about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) recall anything to mind? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul.

He’s the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as though he were already dead. He’s the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke. These days, his task masters just oil him nightly with beer and place him in front of a hypnotic television until his very existence no longer has any meaning or value. His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotion or feeling that might arise.

The Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he. (Have you ever noticed how bullies are really the biggest cowards? They act as though they have great courage, but, in reality, have none at all. They roar, but with no teeth of authority to back them up.) When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of “official” recognition. Now, although remaining a coward, his official status allowed him to be a bully, but with officially recognized authority. (He’s not unlike the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.) et al ad infinitum.

What about the trip through the field of poppies? Did you notice how this had no narcotic effect on the Straw Man (no brain) or the Tin Man (no heart or soul)? They weren’t real people, so drugs could not influence them.

The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged?

The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries.

Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars.

The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?

What was the Emerald City? The Federal Reserve System.

Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was?

Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means “in total, all together; Latin in toto.”

What was it that the witch wanted after she alleged that the little dog had bitten her? TOTO. … everything. Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard’s theatrics, yet he was so small in size, compared to the Wizard, that no one seemed to notice him?

The smoke, flames and holographic images of Oz were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard commanded.

Toto simply padded over, looked behind the curtain (the COURT, etc.), saw it was a scam, started barking until others paid attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about. Who was behind the curtain?

Just an ORDINARY PERSON controlling the levers that created the illusion of the Great Wizard’s power and authority.

When Toto pulled back the curtain and completely exposed him, the charade was at an end. (The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed.)

The Wizard’s game was UP. What was he after all? … a con-man. A FRAUD.

We can see, in this tale, just how loud the bark from a little dog can be.

How about YOUR bark? How big is it?

Most of us remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, by our legal master.

Let us not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What perfect mythical creatures to represent the Bar Association Attorneys who attack and control the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz: GOLD!

How, finally, was the evil witch destroyed? …. pure, clean water LIQUIDATION!

How, at last, did Dorothy get home? She simply clicked her heels. She always had the power, and SO DO WE!

What would it take to expose the Wizard for what he is, tearing away his veils?

We each need only a brain, a heart and soul — and COURAGE.

Then, and perhaps of the greatest importance, we need to learn HOW to WORK TOGETHER.

Only “in TOTO,” WORKING TOGETHER as ONE Body of the King of Kings, (whatever name or form that may take for each of us), can we have the freedom given under God’s Law.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

2012 Presidential election, sad Recommendation

I don’t have to have a degree in finance (which I do) to know that political policy (for the last few administrations, minimally) have defied the best interest of this nation economically.
Personally, I know numerous small business owners who have closed up shop in the last several years, as national policies are making it absolutely cost-prohibitive to have employees. Those same jobs are readily absorbed by the global market, thanks to the “Free Trade Agreements” that are ANYTHING but free, at least to this nation. Our own national policies are making it cost-prohibitive for the private sector to be competitive in any type of manufacturing – period.
The goal of most political policy (and this is via both Republican and Democratic administrations) passed with bi-partisan approval, has been to the detriment, and sincerely I suggest, with the goal of the collapse of our own national economy.
Romney is blabbing about the failures of the last 3-1/2 years, yet his plan (in print, not per his lips) has no intention of balancing the budget for another 27 years. Obama’s plan is virtually identical. Economic collapse appears to be the goal – and the Republicrats are united in this.
I’m so tired of those who have been hoodwinked into believing there is any significant difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Any meaningful difference is merely cosmetic. Their core policies are positively the same. The biggest difference is which one’s buddies will get the cushy (to the detriment of the US citizen) contracts!

So what is a concerned citizen to do?
My suggestion – vote for a valid write-in candidate. But, NOTE it MUST be someone pre-registered as a write in candidate. In that manner, your “vote of protest” will be counted. Voting for Mickey Mouse, or Ron Paul (depending on your state) WILL NOT COUNT. You won’t be any hero by voting for either, if they are not registered in your state – you might as well take your ballot home with you, because IT WON’T BE COUNTED. The whole idea of a “protest vote” is to have it be counted.
Furthermore, you should understand, even if a 3rd Party candidate MIRACULOULY won the election, if they did not obtain a majority (over 50%), the House of Representatives would then elect the next President from the top 3 vote-getting candidates (the Senate electing the VP in similar fashion.) It sounds crazy, but that is what the US Constitution declares.
The voting equipment has been proven to be readily and easily hacked – the tabulators contaminating the vote count data base. While 98% of poll workers are ethical, it just takes one messed-with tabulator to spoil an entire data base.
So, in conclusion, I suggest, the most productive “protest vote” is to write-in a VALID (pre-registered) write-in candidate for the office of the Presidency. If nothing else, it will be cause to physically examine the ballots, and somewhat compare the tallies with the tabulation reports.

That’s my solemn, and sad, recommendation for this Presidential election.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Data & Studies Supporting the Need for Equal Parenting

(originally composed in 1996)

Compiled and written back in 1996, out of frustration with the existing family court system, and its lack of true concern for the children of divorce and paternity cases. We have been studying family court guidelines, rulings, and legislative proposals pertaining to the family court guidelines for a few years now, and see a desperate need for real changes.

We are here to proclaim that the judicial system, with its sweeping discretion, is grossly failing Wisconsin’s children.

The family court system, operating under the “best interest of the child standard”, has become a forum for tug-o-war, where the children are the financial and emotional trophy to be “won”. Consequently, thousands of children are unnecessarily deprived the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent.

Many legislators, and much of the public, are unaware of the magnitude of the problems arising from the discretionary decisions being made by the judiciary, operating under the “best interest of the child” standard of the current family court guidelines.

In today’s troubled world, when children of divorce, or paternity cases, have two fit parents who want to remain significantly involved in their children’s lives, we should be delighted! Such children should be considered, very fortunate; however, they are generally not, as a result of family court discretion.

In a deluded attempt to reduce conflict, the courts are overwhelmingly reducing one parent, usually the father, to the role of an occasional visitor/baby sitter; as if empowering one parent as the superior, supposedly will cease conflict. Yes, one parent will have the upper hand to finalize disputes, however, in reality, such arrangements actually increase conflict, as they merely cause the problems to fester.

Part of the tragedy is that, in reality, these courts have neither the time, nor the expertise to determine which parent is the truly “better parent”. Yet the role of one parent is officially deemed to be of little significance, and their main parental role is only permitted to be financial. The frequent, and logical, result of this arrangement is that the “non-custodial parent” (typically the father) tends to have progressively decreasing involvement with the child, as time goes on, until that parent ends up being nothing but a paycheck and a periodic baby sitter.

The following data outlines the clear predominance of sole custody awards, and some of the many resulting harmful effects. As the data reveals, this inflicts significant, harmful, long term effects on these children which could, and should, be prevented in thousands of cases, through the enactment of a presumption of equal-parenting laws.

The courts, media, and legislature must start to understand that a child’s best interest is a whole lot more than financial. We need our elected officials to take a stand to stop this tragedy that is affecting our society as a whole. There needs to be legal recognition of both parents equal rights, equal value placed on their respective roles, and equal opportunity to develop in those roles.

Mutual respect and cooperation between parents is best accomplished when both parties are acknowledged for their status as equals. The evidence reveals, the true “best interest of the child” in family court, is to take children out of their current position as financial and emotional trophies, and to presume that both parents, providing they are fit, should have maximum/equal opportunity to parent them. The courts need to stop declaring a “winner” and a “loser” with regard to child placement decisions. They need to take away the incentive, and the ability, for parents to battle over the children.

Furthermore, children need the opportunity to benefit from, and internalize both parents methods, input, and morals. And this all requires significant parenting time. Each parent needs the autonomy to develop a personal style and method of child rearing, with minimal interference from the other parent or the state.

We ask – who are judges, court commissioners, you, or I, to involuntarily deny a fit parent from an equal opportunity to care for, and nurture, their child?

And more importantly who are we to deny that child that opportunity of equal access to that parent?

When children have two fit, interested parents, they deserve the opportunity for a full/equal relationship with both parents. We are calling for the enactment a presumption of equal-parenting laws (eg. LRB1834, ready for introduction) to limit the discretion of the judiciary to cases that exhibit evidence of abuse or neglect. Opposing such a presumption, condones that children are of tokens to be fought over, and is truly child abuse at the hand of the legislature.

Note: Take into serious consideration that attorneys, court commissioners, and others employed by the system, who object to a presumption of equal parenting opportunities, have a vested interest in the status quo. (i.e. their criticism is often voice out of concern for personal job security).


1. The proportion of children living with just one parent rose from 9% in 1960 to 25% in 1990.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Family Life Today…And How it has Changed” SB/92-13 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office: November 1992)

2. In 1993, 27% of children under 18 years old lived with only one parent, up from 12% in 1970.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Gap Narrows Between Children Living with a Divorced or Single Parent, Census Bureau Finds,” by Arlene Saluter (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, July 20, 1994)

3. More than 90% of litigated divorces result in an award of sole custody to the mother.
Source: 1991 Census Bureau

4. The number of children living only with mother grew from 8% (5.1 million) in 1960 to 23.3% (15.6 million) in 1993. Source: U.S. Congress, Committee on Ways and Means, “The Green Book” (Washington D.C., 1993); see also U.S. department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1993”, by Arlene Saluter, Current Population Reports: Population Characteristics P20-478 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1994).

5. The chances that a child born around 1980 will not be living with both biological parents at age 17 have increased to over 50%.
Source: Donald J. Hernandez, “America’s Children: Resources from Family, Government, and the Economy (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1993).

6. About 40% of the children who live in fatherless households haven’t seen their fathers in at least a year. Of the remaining 60%, only 20% sleep even one night per month in the father’s home. Only one in six sees their father an average of once or more per week.
Source: Frank F. Furstenberg Jr. and Christing Winquist Nord, “Parenting Apart: Patterns of Child Rearing After Marital Disruption,” Journal of Marriage and the Family (November 1985), p.896.

7. In disrupted families, only one child in six, on average, saw his or her father as often as once a week in the past year. Close to half did not see their father at all in the past year. As time goes on, contact becomes even more infrequent. Ten years after a marriage breaks up, more than two- thirds of children report not having seen their father for a year.
Source: National Commission on Children, “Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents” (Washington, D.C., 1991).

8. With increasing numbers of children living with only their mothers, many children have tenuous or nonexistent relationships with their fathers. In a 1990 survey, only one-third of children in female-headed families reported seeing their fathers at least once a week. Nearly one in five children in female-headed families had not seen their fathers for five years.
Source: National Commission on Children, “Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents (Washington, 1991).

9. The United States is now the world’s leader in fatherless families. In 1986, the United States took over first place, when 24% of America’s families were headed by a single parent, and today nearly 30% of families in the United States are headed by a single parent.
Source: Alisa Burns, “Mother Headed Families: An International Perspective and the Case of Australia,” Social Policy Report 6 (Spring 1992).

10. America has the highest divorce rate in the world. At present rates, approximately half of all U.S. marriages can be expected to end in divorce.
Source: National Commission on Children, “Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent Information on America’s Children and Their Families” (Washington D.C., 1993).

11. 55% of all white children, and 75% of all black children born in the last two decades are likely to live some portion of their childhood with an absent father.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Divorce, Child Custody, and Child Support,” Current Population Reports Ser p-23 No. 84 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979); and L.L Bumpass and J.A. Sweet, “Children’s Experience in Single-Parent Families: Implications of Cohabitation and Marital Transitions,” Family Planning Perspectives 21 (1989), pp.256-260.

12. During the last three decades, the percentage of children living with a step-parent has climbed from 6.7% to 11.3%. More than 9 out of 10 step-children live with their biological mother and a stepfather.
Source: David Popenoe, “The Evolution of Marriage and the Problem of Stepfamilies: A Biosocial Perspective,” paper presented at the National Symposium on Stepfamilies at the Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA, October 14, 1993.


1. The continued involvement of the non-custodial parent in the child’s life appears crucial in preventing an intense sense of loss in the child… The importance of the relationship with the non-custodial parent may also have implications for the legal issues of custodial arrangements and visitation. The results of this study indicate that arrangements where both parents are equally involved with the child are optimal. When this type of arrangement is not possible, the child’s continued relationship with the non-custodial parent remains essential.
Source: Young Adult Children of Divorced Parents: Depression and the Perception of Loss, Rebecca L. Drill, P.h.D., Harvard University. Journal of Divorce, V.10, #1/2, Fall/Winter 1986.

2. “Parental divorce and father loss has been associated with difficulties in school adjustment (e.g. Felner, Ginter, Boike, & CowenJ), social adjustment (e.g. Fry & Grover) and personal adjustment (e.g. Covell & Turnbull)…” “The results of the present study suggest that father loss through divorce is associated with diminished self-concepts in children…at least for this sample from the midwestern United States.”
Source: Children’s Self Concepts: Are They Affected by Parental Divorce and Remarriage; Thomas S. Parish, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1987, V.2, #4, 559-562.

3. “It is ironic, and of some interest, that we have subjected joint custody to a level and intensity of scrutiny that was never directed towards the traditional post-divorce arrangement (sole legal and physical custody to the mother and two weekends each month of visiting to the father). Developmental and relationship theory should have alerted the mental health field to the potential immediate and long range consequences for the child of only seeing a parent for four days each month. And yet until recently, there was no particular challenge to this traditional post-divorce parenting arrangement, despite growing evidence that such post-divorce relationships were not sufficiently nurturing or stabilizing for many children and parents.”

4. “There is some evidence that in our well-meaning efforts to save children in the immediate post-separation period from anxiety, confusion, and the normative divorce-engendered conflict, we have set the stage in the longer run for the more ominous symptoms of anger, depression, and a deep sense of loss by depriving the child of the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent.”
Source: Examining Resistance to Joint Custody, Monograph by Joan Kelly, P.h.D. (associate of Judith Wallerstein, P.h.D.) From the 1991 Book Joint Custody and Shared Parenting, second edition, Guilford Press, 1991.

5. Nunan compared 20 joint custody children (ages 7-11) with 20 age-matched children in sole maternal custody. All families were at least two years after separation or divorce. Joint custody children were found to have higher ego strengths, superego strengths and self-esteem than the single custody children. The joint custody children were also found to be less excitable and less impatient than their sole custody counterparts.
Source: S.A. Nunan, “Joint Custody vs. Single Custody Effects on Child Development”, Doctoral thesis 1980. California School of Professional Psychology, Berkeley, UMI No. 81-10142

6. Welsh-Osga compared children intact families with joint custody and single custody families. Age range 4.5 to 10 years old. Children from joint custody were found to be more satisfied with the time spent with both parents. Parents in joint custody were found to be more involved with their children. (Joint custody parents found to be less overburdened by parenting responsibilities than sole custody parents).
Source: B. Welsh-Osga, “The Effects of Custody Arrangements on Children of Divorce.” Doctoral thesis, 1981. University of South Dakota, UMI No.82-6914.

7. Cowan compared 20 joint custody and 20 sole (maternal) custody families. Children in joint custody were rated as better adjusted by their mothers compared with children of sole custody mothers. The children’s perceptions in sole custody situations correlated with the amount of time spent with their father! The more time children from sole maternal custody spent with their fathers, the more accepting BOTH parents were perceived to be, and the more well-adjusted were the children.
Source: D.B. Cowan, “Mother Custody vs. Joint Custody: Children’s Parental Relationship and Adjustment.” Doctoral Thesis, 1982. University of Washington. UMI No. 82-18213

8. Pojman compared children in the age range 5 to 13 years old. Boys in joint custody were significantly better adjusted than boys in sole maternal custody. Comparing boys in all groups, boys in joint custody compared very similarly to boys from happy families.
Source: E.G. Pojman. “Emotional Adjustment of Boys in Sole and Joint Custody Compared with Adjustment of Boys in Happy and Unhappy Marriages.” Doctoral thesis 1982. California Graduate Institute. UMI No. ? Source of similar finding: V. Shiller. “Joint and Maternal Custody: The Outcome for Boys aged 6-11 and Their Parents.” Doctoral thesis 1984. University of Deleware. UMI No. 85-11219. Source of similar finding: J. Schaub, “Joint Custody After Divorce: Views and Attitudes of Mental Health Professionals and Writers.” Rutgers University,Doctoral Thesis, 1986. No. 86-14559

9. 90 fathers were questioned regarding how unequal recognition of parental rights might encourage conflict. Joint legal custody was found to encourage parental cooperation and discourage self-interest. Sole custody in both custodial AND non-custodial status encouraged punishment-oriented persuasion strategies. Unequal custody power was perceived as inhibiting parental cooperation by BOTH parents.
Source: M.R. Patrician. “The Effects of Legal Child-Custody Status on Persuasion Strategy Choices and Communication Goals of Fathers.” Doctoral thesis 1984. University of San Francisco. UMI No. 85-14995.

10. Self Esteem found higher in children of joint custody. Children in joint custody report significantly more positive experiences than children of sole maternal custody.
Source: S.A. Wolchik, S.L. Braver and I.N. Sandler. J. of Clinical Child Psychology. Vol. 14, p.5-10, 1985.

11. Age range of children 5 to 12 years, studying early period of separation or divorce. Boys and girls in sole custody situation had more negative involvement with their parents than in joint custody situations. There was an increase reported in sibling rivalry reported for sole custody children when visiting their father (non-custodial parent). Girls in joint custody reported to have significantly higher self-esteem than girls in sole custody.
Source: E.B. Karp. Children’s Adjustment in Joint and Single Custody: An Empirical Study. Doctoral thesis 1982. California school of professional psychology, Berkeley. UMI No. 83-6977.

12. Comparative study of children in mother sole custody, father sole custody, joint custody with mother primary, joint custody with father primary. Children in joint custody situations were found to be better adjusted than children in sole custody situations.
Source: J.A. Livingston. “Children After Divorce: A Psychosocial Analysis of the Effects of Custody on Self-esteem.” Doctoral thesis 1983. University of Vermont. UMI No. 83-26981.

13. Nationally, 19.1% of children from 3 to 17 years old, living only with their biological mother, and 23.6% of those living with their biological mother and stepfather, exhibit a significant emotional or behavioral problem. This compares to only 8.3% of children living with both biological parents.
Source: N. Zill and C. Schoenborn, “Developmental, Learning, and Emotional Problems: Health of our Nation’s Children”, National Center for Health Statistics, Advance Data, 190 (November 16, 1990).

14. Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent. Source: Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Family Matters: The Plight of America’s Children”, The Christian Century (July 1993), pp. 14-21.

15. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teenage pregnancy and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, “Survey on Child Health” (Washington, D.C., 1993).

16. Children who live apart from their fathers are 4.3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with their fathers in the home:
Source: Warren R. Stanton, Tian P.S. Oci, and Phil A. Silva, “Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adolescent Smokers,” The International Journal of the Addictions (1994), pp.913-925.


1. A 1988 study found that the proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not.
Source: Douglas A. Smith and G. Roger Jarjoura, “Social Structure and Criminal Victimization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25 (February 1988), pp.27-52.

2. “If you look at the one factor that most closely correlates with crime, it’s not poverty, it’s not unemployment, it’s not education. It’s the absence of the father in the family.”
Source: Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, 1994 30. “Children are the fastest growing segment of the criminal population in the United States.” Source: U.S. Department of Justice, 1992

3. 87% of Wisconsin juvenile delinquents are a product of father-absent homes.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, 1994

4. 72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers.
Source: Dewey Cornell, et. al., “Characteristics of Adolescents Charged with Homicide,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 5 (1987), pp.11-23. Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991

5. 60% of America’s rapists grew up in homes without fathers.
Source: Nicholas Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review (1990); see also Karl Zinsmeister, “Crime is Terrorizing Our Nation’s Kids,” Citizen (Pamona, CA: Focus on the Family, Aug. 20, 1990), p.12 Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991

6. The relationship (between family structure and crime) is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.”
Source: Elaine Kamarack and William Galston, “Putting Children First: A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990’s” (Washington D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute, September 1990).

7. 70% of the juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations.
Source: Allen Beck, Susan Kline, and Lawrence Greenfield, “Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987”, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 1988.

8. 70% of long-term prisoners grew up in father-absent homes.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice data, 1991


1. Almost half of all mothers see no value in the father’s continued contact with his children following separation or divorce, and up to 40% of mothers interfere with the dad’s relationship with his kids.
Source: Sanford Braver, a University of Arizona psychologist

2. Only half of divorced mothers value the absent father’s continued contact with his children. One-fifth saw no value in continued contact whatsoever, and “…actively tried to sabotage the meetings by sending the children away just before the father’s arrival, by insisting that the child was ill or had pressing homework to do, by making a scene, or by leaving the children with the husband and disappearing.”
Source: Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan Berlin Kelly P.h.D., “Surviving the Breakup:How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce” (New York: Basic Books, 1990), p.125.

3. Williams studied high-conflict, high-risk situations. He found that children in sole custody (typically but not exclusively maternal) much more likely to be subject to parental kidnapping and/or physical harm. He found that high-conflict families do better and are more likely to learn cooperative behavior when given highly detailed orders from the judge.
Source: F.S. Williams. “Child Custody and Parental Cooperation.” American Bar Association, Family Law, August 1987.

4. More than 50% of all children who don’t live with their father have never been in their father’s home.
Source: Frank Furstenberg and Andrew Cherlin, “Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).

5. Based on a national study following 13,000 14- to 21-year-olds beginning in 1975, it was found that, whereas 57% of unwed fathers with children no older than 2 years of age visited their children more than once a week, only 23% were in frequent contact with their children at age 2-1/2 years or older
Source: Robert Lerman and Theodora J. Ooms, “Young Unwed Fathers: Changing Roles and Emerging Policies” (Philadelphia: Temple, 1993), p.45.

6. When asked whether they felt their parents “really care” about them, 97% of children ages 10 to 17 living with both biological parents said “yes” for their fathers. Of children living in a stepfamily, only 71% said “yes” for their fathers. And of children living with only one parent, only 55% said “yes” for their fathers.
Source: The National Commission on Children, “Speaking of Kids: A National Survey of Children and Parents” (Washington, D.C.: 1991).

7. On average, single mothers spend roughly one-third less time each week than married mothers in primary child care activities such as dressing, feeding, chauffeuring,talking, playing or helping with homework.
Source: John P. Robinson, “How Americans Use Time: A Social Psychological Analysis of Everyday Behavior” (New York, Praeger, 1977), p.70; see also John P.Robinson, “Caring for Kids”, American Demographics (July 1989).

8. Even for fathers who maintain regular contact, the pattern of father-child relationships changes. Fathers behave more like relatives than like parents. Instead of helping with homework or carrying out a project with their children, nonresidential fathers are likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Insteadof providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become “treat” dads.
Source: Frank Furstenberg, Jr. and Andrew Cherlin, “Divided Families: What Happens to Children When Parents Part” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), p. 10.

9. Between 1971 and 1981, Judith S. Wallerstein conducted a study of 60 families who experience divorce. Included in the study were 131 children and 60 adolescents. Interviews were conducted periodically between 1971 and 1981. Wallerstein reached the following conclusions:

10 years after the divorce, children of divorce felt “less protected, less cared for, less comforted… these children (had) vivid, gut-wrenching memories of their parents’ separation.”

Many five- to eight-year-old boys showed “an intense longing for theirfathers” after the divorce, that seemed physically painful.

Many fathers who moved out of the house found it difficult to sustain a close and loving relationship with their children, especially if one or both parents remarried. Yet, children tenaciously held onto an internal image, sometimes a fantasy image, of their absent or even visiting father.

Not only did the children’s need for their father continue, it also tended to rise with new intensity at adolescence, especially when it was time for the children to leave home.

Source: Judith S. Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances: Men, Women, and Children a Decade After Divorce (New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1989)

10. The preponderance of research supports the presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of children.
Source: Children’s Rights Council Report (CRC) R-103A. 1987 Synopses of Sole and Joint Custody Studies.


1. 47. 55.5% of murder victims of domestic violence are male
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, “Murder in Families” July 1994

2. “One woman is battered every 15 seconds” is based on research by Strass and Gelles which indicate assaults by husbands or boyfriends on 1.8 million women every year. What is not generally mentioned is that the study further concluded “One man is battered every 14 seconds”
Source: Research by Murray Strauss and Richard Gelles as reported in “Women Are Responsible Too”, Judith Shervin, Ph.D. and Jim Sniechowski, Ph.D., Los Angeles Times. June 21,1994.

3. “54% of all violence termed ‘severe’ was perpetrated by women.”
Source: Research by Murray Strauss and Richard Gelles as reported in “Women Are Responsible Too”, Judith Shervin, Ph.D. and Jim Sniechowski, Ph.D., Los Angeles Times. June 21, 1994.

4. “Since society does not define abuse of men by women as a problem, official police data reflects a much more frequent response to abuse of women by men than of men by women. Therefore it is not surprising to find over 90% of the calls to police or to hotlines coming from women, not men.”
Source: “Spouse Abuse: A Two-Way Street”, Warren Farrell, Ph.D., USAToday, June 29, 1994.

5. Data from the states’ protective service agencies indicate that children have much more to fear from their mothers than from their fathers, with mothers abusing their children at a rate approaching or exceeding twice that of fathers. In New Jersey, for instance 70% of the confirmed parental child abuse is committed by mothers, not fathers, 66% in Alaska, 67% in Virginia, 68& in Texas, and 62% in Minnesota.
Source: A study of child abuse in Lansing, MI. Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay in Child Abuse and Neglect, Volume 8, 1984.

6. Preschoolers living without their biological father were 40 times more likely to be a victim of child abuse as compared to like-aged children living with their father.
Source: Wilson and Daley in Child Abuse and neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, 1987)

7. Premarital pregnancy, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and absent fathers are the most common predictors of child abuse.
Source: Smith, Hanson, and Noble, Child Abuse: Commission and Ommission, 1980.

8. 69% of victims of child sexual abuse came from homes where the biological father was absent.
Source: Gomes-Schwartz, Horowitz, and Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment, 1988.

9. Children are at particular risk. A 125 lb. woman is just as dangerous to a small child as is a 150 lb. man and the failure to admit that women can be violent has resulted in an increasingly tragic epidemic of child abuse.
Source: A study of child abuse in Lansing, MI. Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay in “Child Abuse and Neglect”, Volume 8, 1984.

10. Society’s failure to address abuse by women has some rather tragic results:

The cycle of family violence will not end until we are willing to treat not only men who initiate violent acts, but the women also. No adequate treatment programs for abusive women exist.

The man, generally being larger than the woman, is more likely to inflict physical injury when he responds to abuse from the woman, but the woman is more likely to overcome the size advantage by using a weapon.

Source: National Crime Survey, Census Bureau in “Spouse Abuse: A Two-Way Street”, Warren Farrell, Ph.D., USA Today. June 29, 1994/


1. Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 111% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages
Source: Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, “Single Mothers and Their Children” (Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1986).

2. Teenage girls who grow up without their fathers tend to have sex earlier. A 15-year-old who has lived with her mother only, for example, is three times as likely to lose her virginity before her sixteenth birthday as one who lived with both parents.
Source: Lee Smith, “The New Wave of Illegitimacy”, Fortune 18 (April 1994), pp. 81-94. Also see Susan Newcomer and J. Richard Udry, “Parental Marital Status Effects on Adolescent Sexual Behavior”, Journal of Marriage and the Family (May 1987), pp.235-240.

3. Adolescent females between the ages of 15 and 19 years reared in homes without fathers are significantly more likely to engage in premarital sex than adolescent females reared in homes with both a mother and a father.
Source: John O. G. Billy, Karin L. Brewster, and William R. Grady,”Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behavior of Adolescent Women”, Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994), pp. 381-404.

4. Girls from fatherless homes are 111% (over two times) more likely to have an unwed pregnancy.
Source: Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992; Hetherington, 1972

5. Girls from fatherless homes are 92% (nearly two times) more likely to divorce.
Source: Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992;Hetherington, 1972.


1. “In Summary, 30% of the children in the present study experienced a marked decrease in their academic performance following parental separation, and this was evident three years later. Access to both parents seemed to be the most protective factor, in that it was associated with better academic adjustment… Moreover, data revealed that non-custodial parents (mostly fathers) were very influential in their children’s development….These data also support the interpretation that the more time a child spends with the non-custodial parent, the better the overall adjustment of the child.
Source: Factors Associated with Academic Achievement in Children Following Separation, L. Bisnaire, P.h.D.; P. Firestone, P.h.D.; D. Rynard, MA Sc American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(1), January, 1990.

2. Children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and receive lower grades in school. Children in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of high school as children from two parent families.
Source: J.B. Stedman, L.H. Salganik, and C.A. Celebuski, “Dropping Out: The Educational Vulnerability of At-Risk Youth,” Congressional Research Service Report No. 88-417 EPW Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Library of Congress, 1988).

3. Students without fathers or with stepfathers were less likely to have peers who thought it important to behave well in school.
Source: Nicholas Zill and Christine Winquist Nord, “Running in Place: How American Families are Faring in a Changing Economy and An Individualistic Society” (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, Inc., 1994).

4. Children who exhibited violent misbehavior in school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers.
Source: Jonathan L. Sheline, Betty J. Skipper, and W. Eugene Broadhead, “Risk Factors for Violent Behavior in Elementary School Boys: Have You Hugged Your Child Today?” American Journal of Public Health 84 (1994), pp. 661-663.

5. Nationally, 15.3% of children living with a never married mother and 10.7% of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school ,compared with only 4.4% of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Well-Being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey,” Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (1991). 67. Children who were living with both biological parents were nearly two to four times less likely than other children to have been expelled or suspended from school (4%vs. 9-15%)
Source: L. Remez, “Children Who Don’t Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems,” Family Planning Perspectives (January/February 1992).


1. According to Census Bureau data, fathers with joint physical custody of their children, pay more of their child support – 90% – compared with 79% for fathers with visitation rights, and 44% for fathers with neither arrangement.
Source: Nicholas Zill, Analysis of Census Bureau Data, paper presented at the Children’s Rights Council National Conference, Bethesda, MD, April 1993.

2. 90% of fathers with joint custody pay all of their child support on time and in full.
Source: Current Population Report, issued September 1991; Child Support & Alimony: 1989 Series P60, No 173, pages 6 & 7 of the 1989 Census.

3. Where there is visitation, almost 80% of fathers pay all their support on time, and in full.
Source: 1991 Census Bureau; see also Current Population Report, issued September 1991; Child Support & Alimony: 1989 Series P60, No 173, pages 6 & 7 of the 1989 Census.

4. 51% of fathers paying no child support had annual incomes of less than $12,310.
Source: 1995 report to the Wisconsin Governor’s Commission on Families and Children.

5. 56% of fathers who owe support “cannot afford to pay the amount ordered”.
Source: 1992: The General Accounting Office.

6. 14% of fathers who owe child support are dead.
Source: 1992: The General Accounting Office.

7. A significant portion of unpaid child support is owed by fathers who are imprisoned.
Source: Steward A. Miller, senior legislative analyst for American Fathers Coalition in Washington D.C.

8. Almost 80% of custodial mothers receive a child support award.
Source: 1991 Federal Office of Income Security Policy.

9. Less than 30% of custodial fathers receive a child support award
Source: 1991 Federal Office of Income Security Policy

10. About 47% of those mothers ordered to pay child support totally default on their obligation.
Source: Steward A. Miller, senior legislative analyst for American Fathers Coalition in Washington D.C.

compiled 8/1/96 by co-founders of For Kids’ Sake

For Kids’ Sake
Patrick & Lynn Kempen

compiled 8/1/96 by co-founders of For Kids’ Sake

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Missouri Constitutional Amendment Proposal 2012

If you consider yourself Christian, please, re-consider Constitutional Amendment 2, on the 8/7/12 ballot. The Missouri Constitution already protects your right to freely exercise your religion; Amendment 2 offers no further protection. Moreover, most Christians have no clue of the Pandora’s Box passage of Amendment 2 really opens.

The abbreviated wording on the ballot sounds benign, but read the actual verbiage (HJR2) that the ballot proposition refers to, considering the religion protected may well be Islamic or occult. Perhaps then you will understand the danger of this Amendment.

Prayer is already invoked before political gatherings, school event dinners, and openly lead by students voluntarily before extracurricular competitions. The Constitution protects such; Amendment 2 adds nothing to the rights we already have, other than many words convoluting our Constitution.

If this Amendment passes, non-Christian religions, like Islam, will be given greater protection.  THAT is what this Amendment truly protects.

For example, public schools will be obliged to provide time and space for the Muslim call to prayer, potentially numerous times throughout the school day. As is, Students don’t have time to finish their lunch. Some poorly funded school districts already hold small classes in closets, for lack of sufficient space. Yet, this Amendment mandates that public schools accommodate the Muslim call to prayer.

Elementary schools in California (example, San Diego), have instituted extra recess periods allowing Muslim students to pray. In Michigan, Virginia, and Massachusetts, non-Muslim students were asked to observe Muslim rules in their prayer area of public schools (and I’m referencing info from 5 years ago!) If you don’t think such can happen here, think again! That is precisely what Constitutional Amendment 2 protects.

Satanist, Wiccan, and other occult religions will mandatorily be provided time, space, and a microphone, for their “religious expression.” Sadly, most people pushing for this Amendment may only understand this when a Muslim cleric, or “Church of Satan” Priest, invokes prayer over their local school sports team dinner, or our Missouri legislature, as a result of Amendment 2 passing.

While many pushing a vote in favor of this Amendment envision Kumbaya and Amazing Grace being sung at school lunch tables, the reality may be Wiccan covens singing songs glorifying Satan or Beelzebub, or presenting oral reports to the class on the variety and effectiveness of Wiccan spells; because, THAT is what is actually being protected by this Amendment.

Enforcement of our existing Constitution effectively protects our rights to exercise and express our religious beliefs.

The proposed Amendment does nothing to strengthen our already Constitutionally protected rights, and in fact, convolutes our Constitution.

Be careful what you wish for. Be even more careful with messing with our Constitution.  VOTE NO on Amendment 2.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments