|
Fathers' Rights Victory In Massachusetts
A determined father in Massachusetts has delivered
an early Father's Day gift to non-custodial
parents, the overwhelming majority of whom are
dads.
Dr. Henry M. Fassler has successfully contested
a 1998 Massachusetts law that requires a
non-custodial parent to have court certification as
a non-batterer on a yearly basis before he (or she)
is allowed access to their children's school
records. The school system currently views all
non-custodial parents as guilty of battery until
proven innocent. But all that is going to
change.
The specifics of Fassler's case: he wanted to
see the academic class list for his 17-year-old
daughter Lindsay, who had asked him for help. No
charge or complaint had ever been filed against
Fassler; he is on good terms with his ex-wife and
children.
When the school refused the class list, Fassler
not only got angry, he also got active. Last
October, he complained to the Family Policy
Compliance Office at the U.S. Department of
Education, challenging the statute as
discriminatory. On May 6, the DOE sent a letter to
Massachusetts' Education Commissioner David P.
Driscoll, which warned that "the commonwealth and
every school district in Massachusetts is in
violation of federal law, and has been for
years."
The letter explained, "non-custodial parents
cannot be denied access to school records unless
there is evidence those 'rights have been
specifically revoked'." The government cannot stand
between parent and child when no evidence of abuse
is present.
Father's rights advocates had fought against the
law since its passage. (Indeed, Fassler belongs to
Fathers and Families, a leading voice in that
battle.) Suddenly, however, with millions in
federal funding at stake, Driscoll has indicated
that a "new policy" will treat divorced parents
more fairly.
The struggle in Massachusetts for non-custodial
rights offers both hope and lessons to divorced
parents across North America.
One lesson is cautionary: even well-intended
laws can be hijacked and used for unintended
political purposes. This one fact alone should
prejudice reformers in favor of repealing bad laws
rather than stacking the new ones ever higher.
According to Fassler, the 1998 statute was first
pushed by father's advocates who wanted to clarify
their parental right to school records. Then,
anti-domestic violence groups -- especially a
Boston-based victims advocacy group, Jane Doe Inc.
(JDI) -- amended the measure to make a distinction
between custodial and non-custodial parents.
Fassler claims the changes converted the statute
into an "abuse-prevention bill" that discriminated
against the very fathers who suggested it.
JDI has a history of receiving large tax-funded
contracts to handle the training and other
assistance necessary to implement anti-abuse
programs in Massachusetts; it seems natural to
assume that JDI wielded influence over the
policy-makers with whom it has established a long
and remunerative partnership. Nancy Scannell of JDI
helped to draft the statute.
By contrast, the father's rights advocates
against whom JDI is often pitted consist almost
entirely of volunteers.
This is another lesson from the Massachusetts
struggle. Grassroots organizations and actions can
prevail over generously tax-funded agencies, but it
is crucial to "follow the money." The crusade
against the 1998 statute won out only when Fassler
called federal funding into question.
But following the money means more than this;
the tax-funding of JDI should be tracked and made
public. As taxpayers, fathers have a right to know
how such funds are dispensed and to expose any
political bias in the granting of contracts.
Moreover, any organization that will profit from
a legislative measure should be excluded from
drafting it. The exclusion is important. The
Boston Globe quotes Scannell as saying she
"will eagerly participate in any discussion to
rewrite the bill." If the "non-profit" JDI will
eagerly cash checks based on such a rewrite, then
JDI should not shape its language.
Yet, despite words of caution, the news from
Massachusetts is heartening. Non-custodial parents
will no longer be viewed as abusive until proven
innocent. Fathers can play a greater role in their
children's academic lives.
Radio host Glenn Sacks, who campaigned against
the 1998 statute, explains the importance of a
father's presence. "As a former high school
teacher...I could teach a class for a few weeks and
then have a pretty good idea which kids had fathers
in their lives and which ones didn't. I had few
discipline problems...but I always knew that there
was one truly effective way to get an errant boy to
change his ways--call his dad and explain...that he
needs to leave work and come to the school to talk
to me about his son's behavior. It was 100 percent
effective."
That option may now be available to all of
Massachusetts' teachers, parents, and children.
©2008, Wendy
McElroy
* * *
Wendy
McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com
and a research fellow for The Independent Institute
in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of
many books and articles, including her latest book,
Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the
21st Century. She lives with her husband in
Canada. E-Mail.
Also, see her daily blog at www.zetetics.com/mac
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
