Letters to the Editor:
Need Laws to Protect Men, Children

MassNews Staff
April 9, 2002

It is refreshing to see issues that affect men and fathers receiving more public attention in the press lately.

Yet, one can still readily notice, upon an opportunity to observe the Massachusetts Family Court in action, that we have much more progress to make, and why "we the people" need fairer laws to protect the rights of men and their children in this Commonwealth.

It is also easy to identify why more discourse, like this week's shared parenting forums in Holyoke, Pittsfield and Lowell with the audience of State Senator Michael Knapik, Representative Peter Larkin and Gubernatorial Candidate Carla Howell, respectively, are essential public forums for helping to educate our citizenry.

During each event, legislation such as House Bill 2546, sponsored by Representative Scott Brown, Wrenthem, will be highlighted and emphasized. H2546 is a bill for shared parenting that will force the court apparatus to treat men, women and children more fairly, and will drastically limit incentives for judges to use complex practices, sophistry and politics to extort precious resources, including children, from decent people and their families.

After having supported numerous men in several Family Courts from county to county, and one legislative session to the next, it only strengthens our resolve to fulfill the need of advocacy for these men. Many civil rights organizations such as ours will continue to work diligently to promote initiatives, which espouse fairness in the adjudication of family law.

One father, who was experiencing cultural shock and trauma before a presiding Family Court justice last week made his point very simply when he said, "Your honor, why is this so difficult? All I'm asking is to have a little more time with my child."

-- Mike Franco
State Co-Chair
The Fatherhood Coalition
www.fatherhoodcoalition.org
Holyoke

Restraining Orders Are Ineffective

The reports for 2001's restraining orders issued are now totaled. There are more protective orders than ever.

Yet another woman is shotgunned down in the street last week. How can this be? Restraining orders are a useless item of politically correct "feel-good" legislation.

No piece of paper like a restraining order has ever stopped a knife, gun, baseball bat or whatever the weapon of choice happens to be. The order primarily inflames the situation and irritates the recipient. As it is inflammatory, it should be used for its real value, as a fire-starter.

Why are they so ignored? Primarily because everybody knows the judges give them out like bubble-gum pieces to any woman who wants a divorce and knows how to lie. The only documents issued by the state more frequently are parking tickets. Yes, occasionally the judge gives an order to a person who really needs some protection.

Is it any wonder every cop ignores the 55,000 orders issued everywhere in the state? The liberals of Massachusetts have created a way for women to cry "Wolf" and caused the person with a real need to be ignored. RO's are just flies on horse manure. They are contaminated and they stink.

Now my ex-wife got one, and I have never threatened her, struck her, or used any sort of physical violence. All it does is irritate and slander me. And for that I have fought it in every court possible. She has now spent well over $100,000 trying to make it stick. Few women are senior managers at a large company like EMC and can afford this. But she is determined to invoke this RO for improper and unlegislated purposes. With the support of the cowardly judges in Probate and Family court who can't say no, she is able to do so.

The answer is simple. If you want people to take restraining orders seriously, quit issuing them like parking tickets. Then a RO issued will have a real meaning and not just be a favored divorce tool used by a bitter ex-wife to get the furniture and child custody.

- Bill Wright
Markham, VA,
formerly of Harvard, MA and a life beneficiary of a Mass. RO