I learned something today.

I like to try to learn something new every day--my father taught me that was the mark of an intelligent being--but what I learned this evening almost makes me wish I hadn't: There are countries with actual laws against fathers demanding custody just because they are fathers.

We all know, of course, that there are unwritten laws against fathers in pretty much any country where women aren't treated like pets...but an article in The Nation News (Barbados), "Fathers using DNA testing as a delay tactic," just opened my eyes to the fact this small Caribbean tourist mecca has actual written statutes against fathers even applying for custody. The only way a man can apply to the magistrate for custody of his children is to wait until after the mother makes an application for child support. At that point, according to Magistrate Faith Marshall-Harris, the father may ask for custody instead of paying child support. (But the rest of her comments in this article don't hold out much hope he'll get it, of course.)

Hmmm. I think I'm going to reconsider taking my vacation in Barbados....

---JXS (21-07-07)

Fred Musante, Editor of the Stratford Star in Connecticut (USA), started out his editorial this pre-Fathers Day week this way: 'When I saw an article entitled "Who Needs Males, Anyway?", the first thing I did was check to see if my ex-wife wrote it.'

That's what journalists call a good lead. It certainly got my attention long enough to get me to read the second paragraph, which in these days of 2-second attention spans is what it's all about.

Mr Musante goes on to explain that no, his ex did not write the article, a woman named Sharon Begley did, and that it was about parthenogensis, the process of asexual reproduction peculiar to some species. 'In a parthenogenic world, every Sunday is Mother's Day. Father's Day just doesn't happen,' he says.

According to Ms Begley's article, a lot of species are able to reproduce without the aid of males: aquatic snails, crayfish, pythons, many insects, crustaceans and reptiles. Even dinosaurs. Remember Jurassic Park?

The list goes on to add hammerhead sharks, Komodo dragons, ants, flatworms, grasshoppers and Australian whiptail lizards to the parthenogenic family. But, notes Mr Musante, mammals aren't on that list yet, in spite of continuing research to find a way for women to reproduce without men's aid. In Italy, scientists succeeded last year in coaxing an egg cell to develop into an embryo without being fertilised in the usual way.

Still, Mr Musante is sanguine about the future of Fathers Day: 'Mammalian parthenogenesis isn't so easy,' he writes. 'It turns out a hundred genes from both the mommy and the daddy are turned off [when egg & sperm combine], but not the same ones, so when you put them together one parent usually fills in what the other one lacks. Scientists in Japan disabled the "off" switches in a mouse egg and produced a fatherless mouse in 2004, but the best laid plans of mice aren't necessarily as good for men, so don't expect this procedure to turn up soon at the neighborhood fertility clinic.

'Parthenogenesis may work for flatworms,' he says, 'but for humans, Fathers Day is here to stay.'

Well, that's a relief. I thought for a moment I wasn't going to have an official day to remind me what I used to be.

---JXS (07-06-07)

We try not to run every story about a corrupt judge on the Union's website, because our focus isn't on judicial corruption per se so much as it is on family court systemic bias. But where the judge in question sat in the family court, we feel it's appropriate, for obvious reasons. In April, I wrote about former Brooklyn (NY) Supreme Court Judge Gerald P. Garson and his troubles. That story can be found in the previous issue of The News Browser by going to our archives page and clicking on the April 21 edition.

Usually, justice takes its own sweet time, but in this case it's been rather speedy. An article running on Law.com (republished from the New York Law Journal) tells of the judge's conviction and sentencing to 3 to 10 years in prison, in spite of his attorney's pleas that such a sentence would be, in effect, a 'death-sentence' for the 74-year-old, who is suffering from alcoholism and bladder cancer. Acting Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey A. Berry wasn't impressed.

'Berry agreed with Washor that, but for the fact that Garson had been a judge, the case would have been "a slam dunk" for probation,' reads the article by Law Journal reporter Daniel Wise. 'But he said a judge must be like "the lone ranger" and "as pure as snow." Garson, he added, had been "suckered" by Siminovsky into crossing the line into criminality.'

This story is important enough to men (because Garson took a bribe to fix a divorce case in favour of the husband), that we are running it in its entirety on the News Page. I'm only running it here as well so I can add my own comments.

Let's see...how do I say 'thanks a lot for improving men's image, you jerk' politely?

---JXS (06-06-07)

News has reached us from Marc Angelucci, president of Union Affiliate NCFM-LA (National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles), that a company in Phoenix, AZ, Chromosomal Laboratories, is hyping its Fathers Day Special Give Away promotion with a quote from NCFM-LA's website. 'I guess this company saw our website and decided to quote us. That's a first,' wrote Marc.

The 'offer' turns out to be a drawing for a DNA test. According to the press release Marc sent along with his letter,

'Chromosomal Laboratories, Inc., a leading DNA testing laboratory, has announced that it will repeat its hugely popular offer of five free paternity tests, a $2000 value, to fathers and alleged fathers as a special promotion to celebrate the upcoming Father’s Day holiday. Interested parties should contact Chromosomal Laboratories by June 14th to be entered into the drawing. Five fathers will be chosen at random to receive a free home paternity test kit.'

The press release goes on: 'Approximately 30% of the over 300,000 paternity tests performed annually in the United States result in exclusion of the alleged individual as the biological father. The LA Chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men estimates that there are over 7 million children in the United States that are unknowingly calling the wrong person, Dad.'

The contact number for Chromosomal Labs is 623-434-0292. Good luck (not that we hope you need it...).

--JXS (30-05-07)

If you'll think back a few months, you might remember the story about John Charman, head of the international insurance conglomerate AXA, who was so foolish as to let his wife of 29 years, Beverly, divorce him. The court awarded the ex-Mrs. Charman something in serious excess of a blue million--£48 million, to be exact--and he, somewhat understandably, went to the appeals court to get that reduced to something reasonable.

Well, poor Mr Charman has lost again. CNN reports in Tycoon loses $97M divorce appeal that although he thought the award was 'grotesque and unfair,' the Court of Appeal disagreed.

'"Neither in its method nor in its result do we regard the judge's treatment of the husband's special contribution as vulnerable to appeal," said Sir Mark Potter, president of the High Court Family Division, who gave the ruling.'

The award is the largest contested divorce settlement in British history, and it is, as one might expect, getting the rapt attention of divorce lawyers with high-income clients. 'The Court of Appeal's ruling will be closely studied for guidance in other big cases, including former Beatle Paul McCartney's split with his second wife, Heather Mills McCartney,' reported CNN.

But the good news is, Mr Charman won't be standing in line at the soup kitchen anytime soon. The judge remarked that the award only represented 37 percent of his assets. So I guess it's okay, then, isn't it?

---JXS (24-05-07)

Now here's a story which makes me cheer and cringe at the same time: Ex-Brooklyn Judge Is Jailed for Not Paying $250,000 Child Support.

Even though there's a certain amount of satisfaction in seeing a corrupt judge on the receiving end of the justice system for a change (Yay!), there's not much I like less than a man with money scamming out on his child support (Jerk!). Guys like that just make it all the easier for the rest of us to be tarred as deadbeats. So I cringe when highly visible characters like Reynold Mason, a disgraced former judge from Brooklyn, New York, get caught in the limelight, even though I want to cheer because he did get caught.

But the facts about Mason aren't all in this piece from Law.com. A quick Google search of Ex-Judge Mason's name turned up the proceedings of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct on his case. From reading the conclusions of fact in this document, it appears Mason is nothing less than a world-class finagler. The Commission found that Mason (a former landlord-tennant lawyer) not only tried to cheat his landlord by fraudulently installing his brother-in-law (yes, his now ex-wife's brother) as sub-lessor into his rent-stabilised apartment, he collected over $15-grand in 'rent' from the brother in law while never paying the landlord.

But wait! There's more! According to news reports in the New York press, it turns out that his ex-wife, Tessa Abrams-Mason, was not only his secretary and para-legal assistant before he was elected to the judgeship, she also functioned as his campaign manager for a time. And she later claimed that Mason spent 'nearly $100,000--some of it bribe money--to boost [his] legal career,' and that he dipped into his escrow account for some of that.

The backstory on all this is that there's a major, ongoing State investigation into what's characteristed as a judgeship-selling scheme allegedly operated by 'King of Brooklyn' Democratic Party head Clarence Norman, an ex-State Assemblyman who is up on numerous charges. It's a classic, good-old-back-room-boys, dripping-with-dirt, New Yawk political scandal...and everybody up to the governor's pals seems to be involved. The child support thing turns out to be more of an add-on than anything else.

In sum, nobody has anything nice to say about Mason except a few toilet-mouthed bloggers on Google-groups' soc.men, not exactly a source of reliable information. And what defense of himself Mason has managed to put forward hasn't exactly been sterling or credible, to say the least. He really does look from here like a spherical jerk. That he's also charged with scamming out of his child support seems pretty credible, and shouldn't even come as a surprise.

Guys like that give all men a bad name, as we all know. But here's the problem I'm having with this whole story: If Mason's behaviour makes men in general look like deadbeats and jerks, why doesn't it also make judges in general look like deadbeats and jerks? Or, to be somewhat abstruse about it, let me re-state Russell's Paradox: "Is the class of all classes a class in itself or a member of itself?"

Let me know if you figure that one out, will you?

---JXS (29-05-07)

Now this isn't news; it's just confirmation of something we've all suspected for years.

Game Shout, a website with which I haven't until now made any acquaintance, reports in Shark Fathers Need Not Apply, that some species of sharks can reproduce without any need for male intervention. 'In a joint research project with the U.S. and Ireland,' says the article, 'researchers found that some species of female sharks can fertilize their own eggs and give birth without sperm from males.' The study was based on the birth of a baby shark in Omaha, Nebraska, in 2001, to one of three female hammerhead sharks kept in a tank with no males.

'Unfortunately,' says the article, 'the baby shark was killed within hours of its birth by a stingray that was housed in the same tank. An analysis of its DNA found no trace of any chromosomal contribution from a male partner.' Well, perhaps it's just as well the baby died. After all, since the baby had no father, who'd have paid the child support?

---JXS (23-05-07)

One might think that fathers rights organisations have already been blamed by radical feminists and their supporters for almost all the ills of the world, but this BBC News story adds a new one to the list: Terrorist bombings.

"Fathers' protest inspired 21/7" relates that Yassin Omar, the so-called Warren Street Bomber who is currently on trial at Woolrich Crown Court for the Tube bombings in July of 2005, claims he was inspired by the purple flour-throwing incident in the Commons in 2004, staged by Fathers 4 Justice. BBC quotes Mr Omar as saying, 'I was thinking of some way to get the government's attention. The best example was Fathers 4 Justice and I thought I would try something like that,' he said. 'Since Fathers 4 Justice used flour we decided we were going to use flour as well - that's where the idea came from.'

I suppose that in a backhanded way, this could be considered a nod to the marketing genius of F4J founder Matt O'Connor, but one can doubt he'll appreciate it much. The Beeb, at least, didn't ask him for comment.

--JTS (03-05-07)

In brief, there's an administrative law judge in Washington, D.C., who thinks his pants are worth $65 million dollars. No, that's not a typo; Judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. is suing a Korean couple and their son (who run a dry-cleaning business in his neighbourhood) for $65 million, for allegedly losing his pants. The cleaners found the pants a few days after the initial complaint, but the judge now claims they aren't his.

Among the various theories the judge has advanced to support his claim are that, because he no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, he asked for $15,000, the cost of renting a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another cleaners. To get up to 65 million dollars, the judge claims compensation according to a Washington consumer protection statute, which 'imposes fines of $1,500 per violation, per day. Pearson counted 12 violations over 1,200 days, then multiplied that by three defendants,' according to CNN.

Both the American Tort Reform Association and the former chief adminstrative law judge with the National Labour Relations Board have called for Judge Pearson's removal from the bench and disbarrment. Judge Pearson is representing himself in the lawsuit; which begs the question as to whether he has had some difficulty in finding an attorney willing to take the case....

--JXS (03-05-07)

It's very refreshing to read a well-known journalist criticising the media for failing in its journalistic duty. John Stossel, a veteran US broadcaster, writes this week on the ABC News website about fathers getting the shaft from the media, one of the subjects he tackles in his new book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, which will be coming out in paperback on May 1.

Somewhat predictably, Mr Stossel takes as his departure the current flap over Alec Baldwin's voice-mail boil-over. In Alec Baldwin: Monster or Alienated Parent?, Mr Stossel writes, 'You shouldn't swear at an 11-year-old, no matter what,but stories I've done on divorce help me understand why a parent could react with that kind of frustration. Fathers often get a bad deal in the courts, often exacerbated by credulous reporting of bad studies by liberal reporters.' From there on, it's a good exposé of the way big media often ignores facts in favour of flashy but faulty 'research' that happens to paint men as 'inviting, politically correct targets.'

Mr Stossel writes: 'For years, I heard bad things about deadbeat dads. They were living it up, while their ex-wives and children had to scrape by. It's a recurring story, and the media regurgitates it regularly. It's also group slander.'

He illustrates his point by exposing the story of the infamous1985 Lenore Weitzman/Harvard report which claimed, among other things, that '[m]en's standard of living rose 42 percent after divorce, while women's declined by 73 percent.' Ms Weitzman later admitted her figures were wrong, the result of a serious mathematical error...but, says Mr Stossel, no reporter ever questioned her statements, they just ran them as headlines, horrifying the populace and degrading even further the image of fathers.

He writes: '[G]et the shovel: The stories didn't deserve the airtime or the headlines. A little reportorial digging would have burst the sanctimonious bubble.' But when the digging was finally done, it was not done by the media. It took Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver, to do that. Apparently as horrified as everyone else by the media reports of the Harvard study, he set out to find the reasons for its allegations. But what he found was that men and women come out 'almost exactly equally.' Weitzman's figures weren't even close.

Mr Stossel also went to Washington, D.C., to verify how father-damning US Census Bureau figures about child support had been collected. He interviewed Dan Weinberg, the Bureau's head of data collection:

STOSSEL: So the Census worker says, how much in child support payments were you supposed to receive this year? And the woman remembers…

DAN WEINBERG: Yes.

STOSSEL: I just have a hard time believing that these people, many of whom are angry, are going to give honest answers.

DAN WEINBERG: Actually -- well, the anger may help them remember what they're supposed to receive.

STOSSEL: Why not go to the man and ask, is it true?

DAN WEINBERG: We would be violating the confidentiality of the custodial mother.

STOSSEL: Is there any cross-check?

DAN WEINBERG: No. We don't check any of it.

STOSSEL: But wouldn't they lie just because they're mad at the man?

DAN WEINBERG: People are basically honest.

We can't help but agree with Mr Stossel when he says, 'As often happens to me in Washington, I felt I was in another world....'

--JTS (with thanks to Marc Angelucci of NCFM-LA)(29-04-07)

The Father's News Browser is updated as interesting stories come in. For older News Browser editions, please see the Archives Page.