Conflict of Interest: When Responsible Fatherhood meets Obtaining Custody by Fraud
When it does, which one wins? I mean, typically, the Fatherhood movement would jump right in and switch custody to the Dad and put Mom in jail if she, say, stole the kids or interfered with custody. Defrauding her or bending the law would be a non-issue (happened to me, I should know).
Or, say, he committed some horrible crime and was in jail. The custody would go, obviously, if Mom was not available (or if he’d had custody at time of the crime), even perhaps, to the PATERNAL grandparents, i.e., whoever raised the criminal.
But what, pray tell are they going to do when the custody by fraud is HER parents and the real Dad wants his kid, and the fraud was discovered?
This is exactly a case for the Father’s Rights’ movement — they certainly have clout and representatives in all states. In California, it’s boasted they even have a full-time lobbyist at the capitol. This young man could sure use their help. Let’s see how the case went:
A woman called 17 News regarding a custody battle involving her grandson. A brutal three-year long court battle is brewing over custody of 3-year-old Kadyn Riley
The Rileys have used the legal system, in my opinion, to steal a child that is not theirs to make up for the failed parenting of their own daughter,” Shattuck’s attorney Michael Kilpatrick said.
According to court documents, after Kadyn was born in 2007 the Rileys had Shattuck and another man’s DNA tested to find out who was the father.
Records show after they DNA results were available online, showing Shattuck was the dad, they went to court to get custody of Kadyn, and on at least seven occasions stated that the “father was unknown.”
They were granted sole custody of the boy.
“I’m completely shocked,” Shattuck said. “They are correctional officers so they are supposed to uphold the law and tell the truth,” Shattuck said
Shattuck must not have been raised in the inner city.
For more on that myth, well, I wasn’t raised in the inner city, and learned the hard way who the law is and isn’t for. It’s definitely context-specific. When it’s a father vs. a mother, well, if you ask the father’s rights or the mothers’ rights groups, you’ll get a different answer. For the truth, one lead is my blog — I track the programs aimed at getting Dads BACK in kids lives, for which you (USA) guys (if you’re an employee and don’t have a LOT of deductibles or some loopholes around), are paying taxes; you are enablers. Granted, not enabling once you know might involve unpleasant adversaries, like, the IRS, or various government agency representatives, etc.
A separate court later ruled Kadyn should be with his father, because of the Riley’s “omission” and “half-truths” about the father’s identity. Years later, Kadyn is still with the Riley family. Now there is another custody case, which keeps Kadyn in limbo.
Since when are OMISSIONS and HALF-TRUTHS an obstacle to a forcible custody switch? It must be because of what they were about. Presumably the father initiated that case in another jurisdiction, or court? What “separate court”? (news articles sure leave some important details out in the quest for readership . . .. Makes our job harder, to find out which end is up and safely navigate life. For example, I would personally like to know which trumps which — fraud in a courtroom, parent/child biology, or criminality.)
READERS’ QUIZ: Give this news story your own unique title
Time’s up. Here’s mine:
“Where’s the Mom”?
Here’s the only clue I had that she existed, there’s a beautiful baby girl (ALL baby girls and boys are beautiful by definition.), because the artificial womb hasn’t been invented yet — surrogates, yes. Fake wombs — not in the headlines yet. Ergo, conscious or unconscious, nursing aftrer or not, some woman somewhere gave birth. In fact, the grandparent’s daughter gave birth, which presumably included some labor. Here, nice to know might have been Mom’s age — was she a teenager?
Oh, and this clue, which I didn’t pick up even on the first read. That Mom in general appears to be a real non-entity, which is administration policy, these days:
the failed parenting of their own daughter
Did she run away (I might have, with parents that controlling)? Is she in rehab? Did she die? Is she at college or technical school? WHY was paternity testing going on (maybe something else going on in the household?) Was it needed to get custody; what does that court order read initially granting them custody — on the basis of abandonment? This happens a lot – a parent will move to a new state, file for full custody, saying they “can’t” locate the other parent. Sometimes, rarely, a kid gets tracked down and returned.
Or did parents want that kid, without daughter, and find someone to label her a bad parent (what would that make the — if they raised her…) The article barely mentions her. Even if she’s not an actor in the current story (actually, by definition she was — she had a baby and somehow “failed parenting.” Had she not had a baby, or passed “parenting” — this story wouldn’t have been.
One dialogue on this post regarding CA Penal Code 278.5 relates to a young man who was taken to Texas, and finally found, after several years. He felt bad that so little punishment (jail time) resulted, given what he’d gone through. Oh yes, and he was taken by his father….
“the failed parenting of their own daughter”
Either family court terminology really has drifted down to general use, or (speculating here), some court professional was hauled in to handle the case by the parenting, in which case it would be a piece of cake (particularly if the father wasn’t told he had a child) to discredit the Mom and nab the children.
I’m going to open up and again share something that some of us mothers who have actually gone to jail, or gone homeless, or spent as long as our kids have been alive, or are having their wages garnished to pay for batterers who managed to get custody — because they were biologically what Shattuck, above, was, i.e., the father
— what some of us are thinking about, and I’m not quite sure how seriously:
We are saying women should boycott having children.
Not because we don’t value them or want careers more, but because we DO value them, and we have learned to respect ourselves enough to realize how much personal hell we can or cannot take. 20 years or more is a lot.
If you have children, the labor is the least of it, and soon over. Having my daughters, with whom I did, both made and broke my life. It made my life because of what motherhood is naturally, it’s a joy, it lets you see children growing up, sides of them teachers don’t always get to see, if not parents. It made my life because my daughters are terrific.
And it made my life hell because their very wonderfulness brought the customers in like windowshoppers at an estate sale. They ignored the domestic violence and my saying HELP! and asking for resources, referrals, anything, while raising them, and working, and dodging or recovering from incidents. Where I said, Help, stop it, please talk to the batterer (or had obvious signs of this taking place), it was read as “babies for sale, cheap, in a few years…”
This goes on to this day. My ex still at times calls and taunts me about what they are doing out of my grasp and tries to “bargain” his way back in on a religious basis. Like this court system, there is no rational “reasoning” behind it unless you get the operating principle which is:
A mother’s worth is measured by the amount of federal programs it takes to get her kids away from her and keep them there, that is, if her marriage isn’t “healthy.”
It is measured by the federal $$ that can be drawn towards the children, while she goes to work to support the government, or her ex. Alternately, if out of work, she can be a cog in the wheel of the welfare system.
Sometimes the ROI is questionable. Time will tell, when they are older adults.
WARNING TO FUTURE MOMS:
Think about this seriously, please. Because sooner or later the artificial womb WILL be invented, and you WILL be superfluous, at least in this part of humanity which you are doing something else no man can do. Dannie DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger even had to fake it, that movie was a comedy and was fiction, but fiction is OFTEN foretelling the truth of something in the works, and comedy is often quite serious. This incessant need to put women out of the home working, and men back in it, nurturing, or at jobs (and keeping chid-care workers and scholars IN jobs)is not male external equipment envy, it’s female INternal equipment envy, and more than that, envy also of the grounding and power we can get from it.
Unless you really enjoy being used to give birth, and do the labor, but not enjoy the results of it (would you like to work a job with no pay?), think about this, I pray).
INCIDENTALLY, THIS JUST IN. . ..
SOME OF THE ACCESS VISITATION FUNDING AND/OR FATHERHOOD FUNDING APPEARS TO HAVE MOVED INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, NONE OF WHICH INDICATE A MOTHER BEING WITH HER BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN IF THERE ISN’T A MAN IN THE HOUSE:
- EARLY CHILDHOOD (HEAD START),
- FOSTER CARE
- ADOPTION ASSISTANCE
- CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY
HOW YOU CAN CHECK:
Go to Taggs.hhs.gov and advanced search, of awards, I believe the one with abstracts allows you to tailor which field the results come up on. This is the default, but you should select more columns for this experiment:
Select Columns for Report
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
RIGHT COLUMN: -Select all fields, because I am going to have you select ONLY one (or two) CFDA numbers and want to see where you also get different codes coming up than what you selected. And you should see what the Award Activity Type is (i.e. what is the money used for) Presumably that’s relevant, right? Award Class and Action Type, I forget which is which but one of them shows whether it’s NEW, CONTINUING or (which is significant) NON-COMPETING.
In the middle, because one might as well select Opdiv ACF (They come up mostly ACF any), more the check from Operating Div (the larger category) to Program Office (smaller category, i.e., subset of an OpDiv.). I’d also suggest Award Number (to get an abstract of an individual award, if you’re further curious and one exists) (some listed under the category “Abstracts” have nothing — at all — written under “notes.” Some of them give you a flavor of the thinking behind the designer family mentality — every aspect of being a human being in motion and all conceivable interactions with said human being with other human beings, or their environment, probably has an award dedicated to its study, and sometimes over a good part of that human’s lifespan. . . . .
There seems to be a particular interest in sexual activity partners, and of course transitioning to fatherhood (if a definition of fatherhood exists, please post it in the comments, I don’t think there’s a consensus yet. In fact, if there WERE, then all we’d need to do is publicize it, and Order people to imitate it. Of course this wouldn’t be constitutionally justifiable, but I”m not sure the progressive income tax that made all these studies possible in part is, either. )
Regarding the fascination with the sexual activities of certain categories of humans (in this OPDIV, meaning, Administration for Children and Families, as opposed to, say, National Institute of Health, where I could see it might be more useful for medical and safety reasons), PERHAPS it’s because the people doing all these studies are in front of databases, and computers, and in the books so much, they aren’t getting enough?
Speaking of which (habit), let me finish how to do this search, and maybe we can reach a consensus (without taking tax dollars for it) on whether tax dollars and contributions from private foundations to support
(1) Marriage/Fatherhood (of Bush origin, continued by Clinton)
alternately (1a), the “New, Improved”** Fatherhood/Marriage (Obama)
[**New Improved smacks of a new brand of cereal; the correct grants-getting term is ‘Innovative,” which explains why for over 15 years prominent men can keep showing up in new places claiming that fathers have been ignored in the social service delivery systems, and the courts^^ are biased against them as a gender, so they need more nurturing from “us” so they can learn how to be more “nurturing” of what are called, in these circles, “OUR” children. ][[^^never mind who designed those systems…]
(2) Access/Visitation funding ––
which is to help NCP’s (Noncustodial parents, meaning — for purposes of the funding — fathers) get better access to the children. The fact that this process and the above one has also created a whole population of FEMALE NCPs (a.k.a. mothers) doesn’t seem to slow down the process much, nor can they access this same service and get help to see their own children after the custody switch. SEE MY POST ON “Who submitted testimony for H.R. 2979” which has the names, or links to them. I believe Mothers of Lost Children (or, one out of Indiana area) has related the experience.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here are those two for California, showing only county. This should show WHO is getting the access visitation funding — the child support agency. Through the Judicial Council, Grantee Institution. So now, go tell me child support and custody are not related, when in court? Yet, they are often heard separately. Different departments, different judges. BUT, to help a parent, an NCP (Dad) get more time with his kids, the outreach agency (which works with subcontractors, or most certainly could) is the CHILD support agency.
While this chart will be unreadable (because of width), it’ll give an idea of how the results. After that, I’m going to show the state where I thought the change was showing up in the grants searched:
@ @ @ @NOTE: Blog author posting several days after initial drafts. There may not be a mixup of the A/V funding, however, I’m going to leave the examples up here to encourage others to at least start some searches and asking some questions. These are good to know about.
Well, possibly not for your peace of mind, but I still say, it’s good to be aware, and know how to do some of the search and selects.