Full and Equal, Liberty and Opportunity for Fathers - Questions to Be Posed to Federal And State Supreme Courts

FIRST VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND OF SDP OF THE 14

TH
AMENDMENT
I William H. Basinger, November 11, 2013, duly submit the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia:
.that until such a time, that fathers (or non-custodial parents* ) during the temporary period, as a matter of
rebuttable presumption, are given the Full and Equal, Liberty and Opportunity (equivalent parenting time, place and
situation) alongside mothers (custodial) to demonstrate their Parental and Child Rearing Skills during the temporary
period or pendency (now coined observation period **) of a Contested Divorce with Minor Children, a period in
which both parents parental rights are still retained in full force because they have not yet been adjudicated, that the
Domestic Relations Proceedings with regards to Temporary Assignment of Custody (currently based on judicial
discretion) during the pendency, in Cobb County Georgia, are not in the best interest of the child, and are
Unconstitutional - violating the equal protection clause of the 14
th
amendment and the Substantive Due Process
granted by the 14
th
amendment (fundamental right to parent children without state interference) because the father,
as a matter of what should be a rebuttal presumption, is administratively excluded from participating fully and
equally (equivalent time, place and situation - e.g. alternate weeks of visitation) as the mother in the education,
instruction and rearing of the minor children during the pendency, or what has become an extended period of highly
repugnant and invasive observation, interrogation and re-programming of the fathers and/or non-custodial parent*
by the state; notwithstanding the obvious exceptions where circumstance has rendered one parent absent or pre-
determined proven unfit as a matter of law to participate. The participation of the father in the pendency currently
lies at the Courts discretion which it thoroughly abused the moment it began instructing all new mediators, ad litems,
judges and attorneys in entry training that there would be no consideration given to joint custody in the pendency (in
fact the Judge outright forbids equal sharing of the child during the temporary period or pendency) which is used,
albeit unjustly, as the template for the final custody arrangement wherein lies hidden root of gender bias.
Consider now, a Father, not given the opportunity as a result of unspoken and discriminating rules, to equally and fully
demonstrate his Parental and Child Rearing Skills in the pendency along with the Mother - especially during the time of
the year school is in session; for what now is there left for equal comparison that the court (ad litem) may judge a
mans performance as a parent on but the mounting frustration of the Father at being cut out of the most important
winner-take-all competition in his life because of his gender and not his abilities. I would submit that the pendency or
observation period that exceeds more than three months, in absence of men being given Full and Equal, Liberty and
Opportunity, allows for the observation period itself to become the thief that silently steals away the bond forged
between even the most dutiful of loving fathers and his child and furthermore bestows it upon the mother as a
unearned reward. It becomes gross negligence of the court when the pendency itself is guilty of devouring a
significant portion of a childs minor life and/or parental bonds- the court itself becomes guilty via dereliction of duty
when whether, by order or omission, it should cause the striking of the bond between father and child at such time
neither the court nor the proceeding are any longer in the best interest of the child and reparations must be made to
that effect before proceeding. The woeful standard visitation of two weekends, or 4 days, per month that is currently
allotted to a man during the nine month school year is not only unfair - it is a disgrace to any modern Father who has
in good faith invested the majority his time with his children upon the hope that he may enjoy the fruits of his labor of
love, the love of his children, in return. One can imagine that the most violent and passionate of all custody battles
that could take place is between two heavily vested parents who love and value their time with their children- is where
one, the dutiful mother, has been given as matter of antiquated rule the ultimate advantage of having >85% of the
time with the children during the observation period, while the equally or perhaps less or more dutiful father has been
given <15% of the time with the children during the same period (school and weekly activities not included)-- the
intelligent father will realize that regardless of what the announcer, who always calls the race at neck-andneck, is
saying --- he simply is no longer in the same race, or on the same track for that matter, competing for the winner-take-
all trophy of the children being offered up by the courts, but rather for the consolation bag full of coupons to be
redeemed on holidays and weekends a true father will put voice to his grievances for what he now knows is a gender
biased and unjust court --for his efforts he will be soundly examined and upon finding no defect the court will punished
him with contempt for his cries of despair at being deceived. The fathers contempt will be presented to the world as
the official reason for his loss.

* Greater than 90% of the time the father is the non-custodial parent during the pendency or temporary period.
1,2

** The observation period is an extended period of invasive parental observation, interrogation and re-programming
forced on fathers and/or non-custodial parent* by the state that is commonly referred to as the temporary period or
pendency (it is anything but temporary, routinely lasting 2-3 years).

Full and Equal, Liberty and Opportunity for Fathers - Questions to Be Posed to Federal And State Supreme Courts

SECOND VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14
TH
AMENDMENT
This governmental oversight, which strictly regulates the role of non-custodial parents in the post-divorce state,
contrasts quite significantly with government's oversight of intact families. Cynthia L. Ewing, Senior Policy Analyst
with the Children's Rights Council, vividly describes what can happen when parents divorce and the state steps in
to enforce prescribed parental responsibilities:
I have a husband and children and our family is intact. My husband becomes involuntarily unemployed and may go
many, many months without a job. He is not able to support our children and may not be able to for a long time.
How would each of you characterize this situation? Unfortunate or sad? What will you call my husband? A dead-
beat? How is my government going to interfere in our family relationships? Will my government interfere with his
ability to find a new job by revoking his driver's license or trade license? Will he be thrown in jail for not supporting
our kids? Of course not! But, if my husband and I legally separate or divorce, everything is different. If he loses his
job and cannot support our children, the government intrudes into our lives in a major way. I will likely be awarded
custody of our children, he will be allowed to "visit" them per a schedule and he will be ordered to provide financial
support. If he does not support our children, regardless of the fact that he has lost his job, he will be labeled a
"deadbeat," have his trade license and driver's license revoked, and he may even be thrown in jail.
My (William Basinger) analysis. Divorced parents (dads especially) are treated differently than parents who are
not divorced: The Current Child Support Laws Prima Facie and as Applied are a Violation of the Equal Protection
(EP) Clause of the 14
th
Amendment and therefore violate the Constitutional Rights of the Divorced Parent (Dad)
and the Possible Loss of Visitation with the Children Violates the Parent Child Fundamental Right and is
Fundamentally Unfair since Dad may have been divorced without any say and through no fault of his own.

CAUSE
EFFECT ON PARENT (DAd)
Married Parent (Dad)
(Intact Family)
Divorced Parent (Dad)
(Separated Family)
Dad loses Job for many
months and cannot
provide support for the
children.
1) No government
intrusion into the lives
of the Dad or the
Children.
2) Family may apply for
government aid.
3) Dad receives tax credit
regardless of whether
he pays support
payments.
4) Basically No effect

1) Extreme government intrusion
into Dads life.
2) Dad labelled deadbeat Dad
suffers humiliation- possible
adverse affect on dad & children
3) Possible loss of visitation with
children adverse affect on dad
and children.
4) Possible incarceration for not
being able to make child support
payments he can even be jailed
for paying only partial child
support.
5) Possible loss of trade and/or
drivers license.
6) Amount of Court ordered
Support most likely unchanged
despite being unemployed, on
unemployment or being re-
employed at a lower pay.
7) Even with new job arrears
payments very difficult to make
without Dad having to live below
poverty level.
8) No Tax Credit for Child Support
Paid regardless of whether he has
a job or not.


Full and Equal, Liberty and Opportunity for Fathers - Questions to Be Posed to Federal And State Supreme Courts


1. MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, GENDER BIAS STUDY OF THE COURT
SYSTEM IN MASSACHUSETTS (1989), reprinted in 24 NEW. ENG. L. REV. 745, 745 (1990)
[hereinafter MASSACHUSETTS STUDY].The study reported that the survey of family law attorneys
showed 12,000 divorces involving dependent children in two years, and 2100 cases in five years in which
fathers sought custody. See id. at 831 n.54. It concluded, without elucidation or citation to authority, that
the percentage of fathers seeking custody "increased recently" and that half, instead of two-fifths, of the
cases in which fathers sought custody occurred in the most recent two years. See id. Accordingly, even
accepting these unsupported assumptions, the total number of divorces in the five-year period studied
would be 24,000, meaning fathers sought custody in 8.75% (2100) of them. See id. Of these 2100 cases,
the study reported that fathers received primary custody in 29% (609) of the cases and joint physical
custody in "an additional 65%" (969). Id. at 831. Thus, of 24,000 divorces in a five-year period
involving dependent children, mothers received custody in 93.4% (22,422) of the cases, fathers
received primary custody in 2.5% (609), and joint physical residency was awarded in 4% (969) of the
cases.;
2. Stephen J. Bahr et al., Trends in Child Custody Awards: Has the Removal of Maternal Preference Made a
Difference?, 28 FAM. L.Q. 247, 255 (1994) ("Some have argued that the number of fathers gaining
sole custody has increased in recent years but these data indicate that only a small percentage of
fathers are awarded sole custody while mothers continue to be awarded sole custody in a large
majority of custody cases." (footnote omitted)).Bahr et al., noted that a recent Census Bureau study
found that 90% of fathers with joint legal custody paid child support, compared to 79% of fathers with
visitation privileges and 45% of fathers who had neither joint custody nor visitation privileges)