Regent Law Family Restoration

Children Need the IRS to End the Targeting of Adoptive Famlies

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Fri, 24 May 2013 11:37:00 +0000

In the wake of the IRS scandal over targeting conservative and Christian organizations for audit (see the most recent USA Today story here at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/23/irs-lois-lerner-leave/2356065/), information is being exposed now to reveal that the federal government through the IRS was also working to actively challenge those who were making the herculean effort to provide a home and a family for a child who needed one.

Parents who chose to provide for needy children by building their families through adoption were targeted by the IRS for audit at a rate of 69-90%. Audits of adoptive families occurred nearly 70% of the time, and 90% of returns claiming the adoption tax credit were targeted for requests for additional information to determine if an audit was in order. Read the entire story by Rod Dreher of the American Conservative at http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-irs-vs-adoptive-families/.

The Taxpayer Advocate Service offers details about these facts and investigations at their website at http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/Full-Report/Most-Serious-Problems-Adoption-Credit-Delays.pdf. Of the audited adoptions, after an average of 126 days of investigation more than 55% ended with no evidence of flawed claims. Those that merited changes were minor, as most claims on average were due a refund of less than $15,000, the amount of the federal tax credit for adoption. (To learn more about this tax credit see our previous post on the law surrounding the Adoption Tax Credit at http://www.regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/2013/01/adoption-tax-credit-made-permanent-in.html.)

The stress, cost, and emotional trauma that an IRS audit or inquiry carries was an added unnecessary burden on families that had already been experiencing those pressures in working to provide a home for a child. This massive audit campaign yielded little income for the IRS while creating a severely damaging environment for future adoptive families. The result will only harm children who are in desperate need of homes.

Personal stories of adoptive families are chilling. David French and his wife were one of the couples audited by the IRS because they adopted a child. Read their story published by the National Review at http://www.nationalreview.com/node/349077. French explains, "As an adoptive family, it's sometimes difficult to describe the immense challenges in gathering paperwork, opening your lives to social workers for home studies, then expensive travel to sometimes-corrupt foreign locales to then launch a new life with a child you love immensely but who is also experiencing his or her own culture shock and adjustment. All of this places a great strain on family finances and emotions. To then face an audit on the other side? All so the IRS can collect a whopping 1 percent additional revenue? It's beyond the pale."

Family restoration of a broken world is reliant on adoption as a significant piece to the puzzle of providing for needy children. The stamina, personal sacrifice, and love that the adoption process requires are enormous. Harassment of these heroic adoptive families by government tax authorities for those good deeds is abhorrent, and extraordinarily destructive of the hope for a family that so many waiting children so urgently need.

ESPN, Wedding Cakes, and Religious Beliefs

noreply@blogger.com (Elizabeth O.) — Wed, 22 May 2013 15:00:00 +0000

In the wake of marriage expansion, people of faith can be maligned for holding to basic ideas of marriage.

Governors for both Delaware (see more) and Rhode Island (see more) have signed into law resolutions to expand marriage for same sex partners. Meanwhile, private individuals of faith are being coerced into support for marriage expansion, or denigrated for their support of marriage.

At the end of April, ESPN Reporter Chris Broussard came under attack for supporting marriage in an Outside the Lines piece. See commentary and a link to that segment here.

In Oregon a bakery owner who refused to provide a cake for a lesbian wedding is being investigated by the State for violations of Oregon's non-discrimination act. You can see the case here. This case is just in the beginning stages.

Meanwhile, a Seattle florist is also being sued for refusing to provide wedding flowers for a same sex wedding. You can see more about that story at here.

Regent alumna Anna Adams, now an attorney in Oregon, has written about these issues in her recent article published by the Regent Journal of Law and Public Policy, which can be accessed here.

Family restoration requires people of faith to be able to freely hold to their beliefs on marriage, enjoy First Amendment rights to speak about those beliefs in an appropriate time, place, and manner, and to continue to practice their faith by holding to their beliefs on marriage, as the United States Constitution guarantees.

Sports stories and wedding arrangement vendors should not be maligned for their views on marriage.

Foster Care and Adoption Lead to Family Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Elizabeth O.) — Thu, 16 May 2013 01:33:00 +0000

May is National Foster Care Awareness Month, and many organizations are taking the opportunity to make a difference for a child with foster care and adoption toward family restoration.

“Virginia Adopts: Campaign for 1,000,” is an initiative to match more than 1,000 children in foster care in Virginia with 1,000 adoptive families in an event that will be held at the Executive Mansion in Richmond, Virginia. Registration for the kick-off event at noon this Friday, May 17 can be found here. You can find out more about the Virginia Adopts Campaign on Facebook and on Twitter, or on YouTube. Learn more about the children in foster care in Virginia who are looking for a loving family and the adoption process at the Virginia Adopts website. One person can change the life of a child in foster care.

Families make such a tremendous difference in the lives of children who find themselves in foster care due to abuse or neglect. One family in Virginia is making a difference in the lives of eleven children by adopting them from state foster care and raising them in a Christian family. See about Team Steele from their 700 Club appearance here.

Currently more than 380,000 children wait in foster care for a family. See more about foster care at http://www.fostercaremonth.org/. Every child deserves the security and love that a family provides. Children need family restoration.

Gosnell Murder Convictions Illustrate Value for Women, Children and Future Families

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:52:00 +0000

Kermit Gosnell was convicted yesterday of 261 criminal counts in his work as an abortion doctor in downtown Philadelphia when he killed babies born alive and recklessly caused the death of a mother who was his patient.

The jury determined that Baby A, Baby B, and Baby C were intentionally murdered while alive, convicting Gosnell of first degree murder, a crime punishable by death in Pennsylvania. The Washington Post reported on the trial and the convictions on its website.

This was a horrifying abortion-related crime. The Times reported that media hesitated to cover it because it revealed the gruesome nature of abortion. They reported that the crimes illustrate the horrors of abortion, how poverty is exploited in abortion, and how race is a target of abortion. See that article here.

Regent University School of Law is producing lawyers who will bring about similar convictions of those who murder women and children. The Gosnell case proves that criminal laws and clinic regulations can work to protect women, children, and future families harmed by abortion. Indeed, the law is more than a profession - it's a calling.

Women and Children Deserve Protection: Toward Family Restoration in Abortion

noreply@blogger.com (Elizabeth O.) — Mon, 13 May 2013 11:30:00 +0000

Caution: This article contains graphic material.

Senator Mike Lee introduced a resolution last Monday that calls on local, state and federal governments to investigate unsanitary abortion conditions and illegal abortion practices, according to a May 7, 2013 article by Bethany Monk of CitizenLink, which is fully available at http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/05/07/take-action-support-resolution-calling-for-investigations-of-illegal-abortion-practices/. She writes:

“The Utah lawmaker is calling on the Senate to protect women and girls from “abusive, unsanitary, and illegal abortion practices.” Lee also condemned the deplorable practices uncovered at abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia abortion center. Gosnell is charged with murdering seven newborns and one pregnant woman. ‘The facts of the Gosnell case are disturbing and heartbreaking,’ Lee said. ‘The lack of oversight at abortions facilities puts women’s lives at risk and leads to the kind of unconscionable practices we have seen recently.’ A 2011 Grand Jury report says Gosnell delivered ‘live, viable babies in the third trimesters of pregnancy — then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors.’ It also documents that Gosnell’s clinic ‘reeked of animal urine,’ and that furniture and blankets ‘were stained of blood.’ Scattered throughout the center, ‘in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and plastic jugs, were fetal remains.’”

This is not how women and children ought to be treated in any medical facility. Federal action is not inappropriate in light of federal law that upholds protection for women and children even in abortion. Monk’s article continues:

“Lawmakers must protect women, girls, preborn babies and newborns from situations like this, the resolution explains. It calls any illegal or dangerous abortion practices ‘violations of law and human dignity.’ ‘Congress has the responsibility to investigate and conduct hearings on abortions performed near, at, or after viability in the United States, public policies regarding such, and evaluate the extent to which such abortions involve violations or the natural right to life of infants who are born alive or capable of being born alive, and entitled to equal protection under the law,’ the resolution states. Co-sponsors of the federal resolution include Sens. Patrick Toomey, Pennsylvania; Marco Rubio, Florida; Ted Cruz, Texas; James Inhofe, Oklahoma; Tim Scott, South Carolina; Roy Blunt, Missouri; Richard Burr, North Carolina; David Vitter, Louisiana; Mike Johanns, Nebraska; John Thune, South Dakota; and John Boozman, Arkansas. ‘The Senate should formally recognize that this is a problem in our country,’ Lee said. ‘We have a responsibility to investigate the causes, review the effects of certain public policies, and determine what we can do to prevent any woman from being subjected to the reprehensible practices again’.”

You may wish to Contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to support the Lee resolution and Congressional hearings into the abortion industry. You may also Read the full text of the resolution here.

Legal scholarship on abortion can focus on the protection of women and children, and you may access such work on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/author=183817.

Family restoration requires that women and children be protected, particularly in abortion.

Your Marriage, Family Restoration, and the Watching World

noreply@blogger.com (Elizabeth O.) — Thu, 09 May 2013 00:04:00 +0000

Last week the Governor of Rhode Island signed into law marriage for same-sex partners after majority approval by that state’s house of representatives. You can read about it and see the text of the bill here. This marriage decision is an important aspect of cultural change, but so is your marriage and mine, as those around us locally and around the world watch events unfold.

John Piper’s latest book on marriage, “This Momentary Marriage,” highlights how significant marriage is to culture, and yet how profoundly inadequate we can be in fulfilling our responsibilities as a husband or as a wife. The magnitude and significance of the union is often far beyond what we imagine. Piper’s book can be found at his ministry's Resource Library. Some of Piper’s positions trigger vigorous debate (such as remarriage after divorce), but he points out that we need to change how we think about marriage and realize it is not just about us. Others are watching our marriages.

Several top Christian scholars have noted the four most important things that you can do about the institution of marriage in our culture, and they all become personal very quickly:

1. Hold tight to the truths of the Scriptures. Do not grow weary.

2. Honor a biblical understanding of marriage by remaining faithful to your respective spouse.

3. Continue raising your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

4. Share the Good News of the Gospel with all people. Be winsome but be bold.

Honoring marriage is not going to get any easier in a culture that misunderstands it as an expression of self and individualism. Rather, a good marriage is going to become more difficult. It is also, however, a defining moment in the history of the church, and we can rise to the occasion to meet it with courage and a spirit of strong conviction. Focus on the Family has more on this on their website.

Jesus Christ said in John 17:20-21, “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” The Lord prayed for our oneness as believers. Relational intimacy is, after all, at the heart of Scripture. This oneness is reflected in marriage, fulfilling our need for intimacy. And it is reflected in the church, to the watching world. A good portion of the watching world is our extended family, our neighbors, our co-workers, and those we serve every day. They watch how I treat my spouse, how I speak to my spouse on the telephone, how I treat him in person. Do I treat him with contempt when he disappoints me, or with respect as the first human target of my charity? The world is watching my marriage, and it is watching yours.

Intimacy begins with God, but marriage provides a convincing demonstration of the power of Christ’s love to enable people to experience true relationship. Your marriage can become a picture of God’s love. In an era of selfishness that is starving for love and intimacy, living in marital oneness with your spouse can be so attractive to the watching world. True relationship with God leads to true relationship in marriage, and offers a witness to the watching world. This witness is the foundation of family restoration.

Marriage and Family Restoration in Indiana and the World

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Mon, 06 May 2013 19:28:00 +0000

The recent U.S. Supreme Court arguments on same-sex marriage have generated intense interest and speculation in what already was a controversial cultural issue. It is certain, however, that the Court's decision will not fully resolve the issue. After an interesting set of oral arguments in late March and a decision expected in late June, state authorities will likely still be concerned whether or not the government should be involved in sanctioning marriage whatsoever.

A recent newspiece by Dr. Stephen M. King from the Indiana Policy Review Foundation focused on what this could mean for states like Indiana that thought they had effectively protected marriage in their state, and cited work of two Regent Professors in his defense. He writes:

"Since 1989, when Denmark became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, popularity for homosexual legal rights including the right to marry has increased. According to The Economist magazine, same-sex marriage is legal in 13 countries, with New Zealand the most recent. But even as Britain decriminalized homosexuality in marriage in 1967, and our Supreme Court struck down all 14 state sodomy laws in 2003 (Lawrence vs. Texas), there is strong opposition around the world, especially in 78 African and Islamic countries where homosexuality and, de facto, same-sex marriages are a crime.

Still, our laws tend to change as public attitudes shift. Since 2000, when Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage (the first ceremony taking place in 2004), eight additional states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage.

Indiana is one state for a ban on same-sex marriage. Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting Indiana's statute disallowing homosexual couples to legally marry.

Even so, and despite strong opposition in the state toward legalizing same-sex marriage, the Indiana General Assembly pointedly decided to table any vote for a constitutional restriction until 2014. And recent polling numbers show that approximately 49 percent of Americans surveyed support the right of same-sex couples to marry. Differences are striking when controlled for age: Over 70 percent of the Millennial Generation favors same-sex marriage, compared with 38 percent of the Baby Boom Generation. Still, these numbers show distinct increases in favorability since 2003.

Despite this increased favorability for same-sex marriage, 41 states disallow same-sex marriage, including Indiana, either constitutionally (30 states) or statutorily (11 states). The issue is not going to be easily resolved, or wholeheartedly accepted, whatever the court's decision if one can judge from the strong support of various groups and individuals who congregated outside the Supreme Court building to vocalize their opposition to or support for same-sex marriage during the Court's hearings last month.

Both proponents and opponents have their various reasons to explain why governments should, and even must, sanction marriage, including personal, cultural and procreation. A growing defense against government sanction of marriage, however, is privatization. This argument is generally supported by libertarians, who maintain that removing government from the equation will solve the problem. Still others argue the issue should be devolved to the states with little to no federal government intervention.

Let's look at the privatization question. It takes two different positions: Remove government from strictly regulating marriage, whether at the federal or state level, thus allowing any couple to marry for any reason; or treat marriage as any other contract, and allow government to enforce the terms of the contract, just as it does in any business relationship.

Proponents of privatization contend that it reduces government regulation and rules. In addition, it resolves the same-sex marriage dilemma by placing such relationships on the same level as traditional marriages without requiring government support. Others even argue for using different nomenclature: civil unions for homosexual couples and marriage for heterosexual couples, but with each benefiting from all government benefits.

Supposedly this is a win-win situation. But is it?

A 2002 law-review essay supports the Indiana position in concept and specifically argues against a 'privatization' of marriage to include homosexuals. Two Regent University scholars, Lynne Kohm and Mark Yarhouse, contend that the constitutional fundamental-rights doctrine does not apply to marriage of same-sex couples. In order for the doctrine to apply to any group or issue, whether it is the right to bear arms or marry, the participants must meet basic requirements. To marry, for example, the minimum requirements are: 1. the parties be of the minimum age; 2. marry only one person at a time; 3. are unrelated by blood or marriage; and 4. are of different sexes.

In Loving vs. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that two people of different races could not be denied the right to marry. When homosexual couples use this case to support their position, Kohm and Yarhouse contend their argument is flawed if examined in light of the minimum requirements of the fundamental-rights doctrine. [Access that article by Kohm and Yarhouse at SSRN at http://ssrn.com/author=183817.]

Specifically, they argue that to constitute a 'fundamental constitutional right,' two factors are necessary: 1. The right must be rooted in the nation's history and tradition; and 2. it must be clear and distinct in the nation's legal history. Therefore, according to the authors, homosexual couples are denied the fundamental right to marry, because they do not meet these cultural, historical and legal obligations.

Government, to summarize this position, should remain in the business of sanctioning traditional marriage, not solely because two people love each other, but primarily because of the historical, cultural and legal nature of traditional marriage itself."

Stephen M. King, Ph.D., is an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, and teaches political science at Taylor University. See the full article from the Indiana Tribune on April 30, 2013, here. Marriage protects individuals, state governments, and the future of a union of those state governments. It is the basis for any family restoration anywhere in the world.

Domestic Violence and the Boxing Ring

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Fri, 03 May 2013 19:20:00 +0000

Even in a tough and violent sport like boxing, there is a recognition that violence against women is shameful.

This weekend boxing champion Floyd Mayweather will meet challenger Robert Guerrero in a title match. Speaking at last night’s weigh-in press conference Guerrero’s father targeted Mayweather’s domestic violence record, calling the fighter a “wife beater,” highlighting a generational pattern of domestic violence in this video posted by the Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2013/may/02/robert-guerrero-father-floyd-mayweather-video.

The LA Times reported on Mayweather’s domestic violence record and time that has passed since those events. “More than eight months have passed since Floyd Mayweather Jr. walked out of a Las Vegas jail after serving nearly 90 days for his role in a domestic violence case involving the mother of his three children.” See the full article at http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/01/sports/la-sp-mayweather-guerrero-20130502.

Domestic violence is detrimental to families in myriad ways. According to one national organization dedicated to ending domestic violence it is an ill that knows now boundaries, and is often harbored in families. “An estimated one in every three women worldwide experiences violence, with rates reaching as high as 70 percent in some countries. Gender-based violence ranges from rape to domestic abuse and acid burnings to dowry deaths and so-called “honor killings.” Violence against women and girls — in peacetime and in conflict — knows no national or cultural boundaries.” See http://womenthrive.org/issues/violence?gclid=CPiHl6_Q-rYCFYtT4AoddhYAWg.

Families are strengthened when men and women treat each other with respect, honor, and love. Restoration begins on that foundation. A family cannot be restored where violence prevails. The incarceration Mayweather served for his past violent acts may help deter future occurrences. The shame that is carried with domestic violence is humiliating for both victim and perpetrator, but it can add further deterrence to future violence. Ultimately, individuals surrendered to a loving God can let Him change their behavior, and ultimately break any negative family patterns. New things can come.

Violence against women is shameful, even for a tough boxer.

Proposed Marriage Legislation Would Work to Further Deconstruct Families

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel T,) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:18:00 +0000

This post is reprinted from April 23, 2013, http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/04/23/lawmakers-in-5-states-consider-same-sex-marriage-legislation/ and provides the latest information on state marriage legislation.

Lawmakers in 5 States Consider Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

by Bethany Monk

As lawmakers in five states are considering bills that would redefine marriage, a poll shows a majority of Americans support the institution as a union between one man and one woman. It found 57 percent of likely voters in states where same-sex marriage is not recognized would oppose such a measure. Thirty-four people said they would support it. Harper Polling conducted the automated phone survey last week of 1,741 likely voters for Conservative Intelligence Briefing.

“The poll reflects what we know, that most people understand that marriage unites a man and a woman and any children they will have,” said Jeff Johnston, CitizenLink marriage analyst. “They look around and understand that all our experiments with marriage — no-fault divorce, cohabitation, single-parenting — have been disastrous. They’ve learned from that and don’t want to try yet another experiment with marriage.”
Legislators in five states are considering marriage redefinition bills:

Delaware: The House approved a bill today that could create same-sex marriage. It would still have to be passed by the Senate and signed into law. Under the legislation, no new civil unions would be performed after July 1, and existing civil unions would be converted to marriages.
Rhode Island: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-4 today to send a same-sex marriage bill to the full Senate. The House approved the bill in January. It would create same-sex marriage. Civil unions would become marriages on Jan. 1, 2014.
Illinois: The Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill on Feb. 14. A date has not been set for the full House vote on the legislation.
Minnesota: Legislation that would create same-sex marriage has not yet reached the floors of the House or Senate. A bipartisan group of legislators introduced the bill in February. It would repeal a 1997 law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Regent graduate Autumn Levy is working with legislators to maintain marriage.
Nevada: Lawmakers passed a resolution Monday in the Senate that could redefine marriage. If the entire Legislature approves it this session, they will need to do so again in 2015. Voters would have to approve it in 2016.

The District of Columbia and nine states — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York — have all redefined marriage.

Thirty-one states have amendments defending marriage.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONView the poll results.
Learn more about Delaware’s HB 75.
Learn more about Rhode Island’s H 5015.
Learn more about Illinois’ SB 0010.
Learn more about Minnesota’s HF 1054.
Learn more about Nevada’s SJR 13.

****

A great deal of scholarship by Professor Kohm is on the significance of marriage to family strength. It all can be accessed on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at http://ssrn.com/author=183817. Law is more than a profession - it's a calling.... and Regent students, professors, and graduates are working to make a difference.

Family Restoration and the Significance of Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:03:00 +0000

In our efforts to communicate the significance of marriage to family restoration we have made a number of posts here at FamilyRestoration detailing arguments surrounding the current marriage debate. '

Here we link for you a clear and concise booklet that you can print, send, or share in efforts to equip and educate people in the area of marriage. Drafted by collaborative efforts between Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, and The Heritage Foundation, it is a clear, concise, and effective tool in understanding marriage and the future of the family.

There is a strong cultural contingent in the legal community that will hasten the legalization of polygamy in the wake of marriage equality. You can read about that strategy here as "marriage equality for all," at this link. For a response to the legalization of same sex marriage and how it relates to legalization of multiple marriage partners see the insightful and informative article at this link.

Furthermore, the Anglican Church of England has issued now in April 2013 a definitive statement on the positive value of marriage in the Christian ethic. The document from the Faith and Order Commission can be found at this link.

Finally, there are some important things you and your family can do on your own to protect and strengthen marriage, available at this link. They include:

Hold tight to the truths of the Scriptures. Do not grow weary.
Honor a biblical understanding of marriage by remaining faithful to your respective spouse.
Continue raising your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Share the Good News of the Gospel with all people. Be winsome but be bold.

Family restoration for American culture is dependent on a solid legal foundation for marriage between one man and one woman that will protect the best interests of children.

Who has Rights to Your Children?

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel T,) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:58:00 +0000

Families are the best, safest, and most efficient environment for child rearing. Yet the national mindset on parenting as portrayed by popular news media is that somehow your children don't belong to you, the parents. Rather, they belong to the community.

A recent MSNBC Promo says, "...we have to break out of our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."

The media is confused as to what parenting is -- in that aggregate mind parenting is done either by a single parent, a community, or two parents, and particularly favored in this paradigm are same-sex parents. Yet research continues to prove that children raised in a stable, married family with a mother and a father are the most likely to thrive.

Parents have a constitutionally protected right to direct the upbringing of their children. They also have a duty to protect the best interests of their children. If the community or government has a perspective that infringes on those fundamentally protected rights, that interference is only legally possible if the parents are judicially ruled to be "unfit," acting to the harm and detriment of their children.

So who has rights to your children? Neither the government, the community, nor MSNBC has any legal right to your children. Simultaneously, you have a duty to protect your children's best interests, even to the foregoing of your own autonomy as an adult. Keep your children first, and the community will have no need, and certainly no right, to intervene into your family.

The Political Science of Family Fragmentation

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel T,) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:28:00 +0000

The interface between political science and family law and policy offers the opportunity to consider how government family support interacts with the occurrence of family fragmentation. We presented this research at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference last weekend in Chicago.

The current dramatic rise in government support for fragmented families over the last several years allowed us to introduce a statistical study of human behavior within families as an aspect of politics. This research was more controversial than expected, as the participants and attendants to our panel were not pleased to learn the facts regarding the costs of family fragmentation. Observing the political aspects of individual or family behavior in the context of government support identified patterns of family breakdown and a lack of family formation. It is understandable that some might take these descriptive generalizations personally, rather than appreciate a full discussion of these facts as a political hypothesis.

This research was originally published by Lynne Marie Kohm and Rachel K. Toberty in the Regent University Law Review, and is entitled, A 50 State Survey of the Cost of Family Fragmentation, 25 Regent U. L. Rev. 25 (2012)(detailing that statistical analysis on a state by state basis). The article is also available at the Social Science Research Network at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2205349.

Though the family welfare system in the United States is designed to bridge expense gaps created by family fragmentation, this process of support tends to result in increased reliance on state funds by broken families. Now firmly established as a regular part of states’ budgets, observing these trends reveals that federal and state resources offered to assist fragmented families restrict those recipients and their children by the very benefits designed to assist them. (See e.g. Derek Neal, The Economics of Family Structure, copyright 2001, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, SSRN Working Paper 8519, (October 2001), http://www.nber.org/papers/w8519 (discussing marriage rate theories, existing literature, and a developed economic theorem that describes the recent demographic phenomenon of never-married mothers).)

The small otherwise bankrupt town of Woonsocket, Rhode Island provides an example of how this phenomenon occurs. Woonsocket has a local economy based solely and completely on government support. A third of its residents use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which was formerly known as food stamps. At precisely midnight on the first of every month Woonsocket experiences its monthly financial windfall of nearly two million dollars, deposited on residents’ Electronic Banking Transfer cards (EBTs), which then flows to grocery stores and sundry establishments throughout the town, operating its local economy for the next 20-30 days. According to the Washington Post in an article by Eli Saslow entitled Monthly Boom and Bust Cycle dated March 16, 2013, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/food-stamps-put-rhode-island-town-on-monthly-boom-and-bust-%20%20cycle/2013/03/16/08ace07c-8ce1-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html, “a federal program that began as a last resort for a few million hungry people has grown into an economic lifeline for entire towns.” Woonsocket is not alone, but many residents in many towns and cities across the United States live off government support like SNAP, which is directly loaded onto individual EBT cards and used at will by average Americans. In fact, EBT has been accepted for some time at local bars, strip clubs, and other establishments unrelated to general health and welfare. See Welfare Recipients Take Out Cash at Strip Clubs,FoxNews.com, Jan. 1, 2006, also available at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/06/welfare-recipients-take-out-cash-at-strip-clubs-liquor-stores/?test=latestnews.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), one in seven U.S. residents received SNAP (food stamps) in 2011. At the end of 2012 one in four residents were relying on SNAP. Government support makes up one third of U.S. wages. Government resources support nearly 40 million people. This support is observable in broken households or never formed families, and according to family law scholar Stephanie Coontz is creating “a nation of welfare families.” For an examination of how the federal benefits work with state implementation, see Gina Adams, Pamela A. Holcomb, Kathleen Snyder, Robin Koralek, and Jeffrey Capizzano, Child Care Subsidies for TANF Families: The Nexus of Systems and Policies, at Urban.org (Apr. 10, 2006), also available athttp://www.urban.org/publications/311305.html.

These programs are designed to provide assistance for families. Operatively, however, they have worked to trap those families in government dependence, and near poverty. Government reliance inadvertently tends to create a cycle of poverty embedded in family fragmentation as it serves as a disincentive to become part of an intact and stable family. “Experts estimate that for most couples receiving public assistance, getting married will reduce their benefits by 10% to 20% of their total income.” See Eve Tushnet, “A Choice Between Feeding Your Children or Getting Married,” First Things, Feb. 27, 2013, at http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/02/27/a-choice.... Thus, government welfare is creating further family fragmentation, and greater dysfunctional reliance, albeit unintentionally.

On the other hand, strong families are part of the fabric of a healthy and strong society. Intact families are generally not in need of support as economic resources of the united family members are used to support the family. Family restoration is the best solution to these concerns. When families are strong, society is strongest, and stabilized; the outcome is that communities and families do not require government intervention. Strong families cost government less.

Interactions between political science and family law and policy reveal how government family support fosters and perpetuates the occurrence of family fragmentation. The current dramatic rise in government support for fragmented families over the last several years demonstrates clearly that human behavior within families is a critical aspect of politics. Curbing family reliance on government through marriage and family restoration, however, would serve to increase family stability.

Gosnell Murder Trial Illustrates How Abortion Destroys Women and Children

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 12:07:00 +0000

The Abortion Doctor who provided abortions to poor minority women in the heart of Philadelphia, Kermit Gosnell, is on trial for the murder of two young women and eight children born alive.

Last week his assistant testified that at the direction of Dr. Gosnell he personally snipped the neck with scissors of 100 babies born alive. This shocking disrespect for women, children, and human life is repulsive. The only media outlet providing coverage for this trial appears to be the Huffington Post. Here is an excerpt from their report of last week's trail details:

Mass of estimated that he saw about 100 babies born alive and then "snipped" with surgical scissors in the back of the neck, to ensure their "demise."

Gosnell, who had another clinic in Delaware, typically came in only at night for the final part of the procedure, leaving Massof to monitor the pain-racked or highly sedated women.
"I felt like a firemen in hell. I couldn't put out all the fires," he testified.

Gosnell, meanwhile, took in more than $1 million a year, and kept $250,000 in cash under his mattress, prosecutors have said.

"He always led me to believe he was a poor, struggling urban physician and surgeon," Massof said. "I thought he was hurting financially."

Outside the courthouse Thursday, leaders of two black, anti-abortion groups condemned Gosnell as racist for aborting so many black babies during his 30-year career. Gosnell, who is also black, performed as many as 1,000 abortions a year, many to minorities and immigrants.

"Kermit Gosnell is a racist of the worst kind," Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, said. "He is also a butcher who preyed on the women and girls of his own race – making millions of dollars from the desperation and despair of women from his own community."

Read the entire story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/kermit-gosnells-abortion-_n_3017956.html. This case, more than any in American history, demonstrates that abortion absolutely destroys women, their children, and the families they belong to.

Restoring Families, Children, and Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 01:24:00 +0000

The current marriage debate has so many angles to consider. The confusing rhetoric surrounding the debate only serves to muddle its significance. These ten questions and answers to consider about marriage published by the American Thinker athttp://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/m-ten_qa_on_same-sex_marriage_canards_and_evasions.html serve to sort out the tangled web of rhetoric. Restoring families requires this understanding.

Ten Q&A on Same-Sex Marriage Canards and Evasions

By Stella Morabito

Forces pushing for genderless marriage are a wellspring of fallacies and unanswered questions about the consequences. Let's explore some of them.

1. What's love got to do with it?

Nothing. Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction. Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing "affection" as a factor in defining civil marriage. Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples. But not the state.

2. What is the state's interest in marriage?

First, to recognize the union that produces the state's citizens. Second, to encourage those who sire and bear the citizens to take responsibility for rearing them together. That's all, folks. Proponents of genderless marriage often answer this question with non sequiturs such as property rights (irrelevant), civil rights (extraneous to the question), and "love and stability" (not a function of state involvement).

3. Why should state interest in marriage be about children if not all marriages produce children?

It's thoroughly irrelevant that many heterosexual couples lack children because of intent, infertility, age, or health. Claiming that this is relevant to the case for genderless marriage suggests the "fallacy of composition": inferring that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Citizens of the state can exist only through the female-male union, no matter how the union occurs -- whether traditionally, artificially, or in a petri dish. That's the only fact that provides any grounds for state interest in marriage.

4. What about marriage for the sake of same-sex households with children?

We just don't have the right to deliberately deprive children of knowing their biological mothers or fathers. But genderless marriage ultimately requires us to do this. It requires society to sanction the refashioning of familial bonds in alienating and experimental ways. Use of surrogates and egg or sperm markets put children at ever-increasing risk of being treated more as commodities than as human beings. Laws supporting genderless marriage cannot help but ramp up these trends to newer and crueler levels.

5. Won't biological parents continue to have a default legal right to rear the children they sire and bear together?

See Question 4. The rights of biological parents to raise their own children will necessarily diminish in the wake of legalization of same-sex marriage, because changing the definition of marriage results in changing presumptions about who the legal parents are. Recognizing marriage as the union of one man and one woman is the only sustainable basis upon which a biological mother and father are legally and by default recognized as the primary caregivers of their children. But today there's a new push for the state to require special licensing of all family configurations as "care-giving units."

6. How can legalization of same sex marriage affect my own marriage?

It is the vehicle by which all civil marriages may soon be abolished, including yours. When children are no longer considered central to state purpose, marriage becomes nothing more than a contract between any two (or more) people. A reversal of DOMA could give force to an emerging movement called "singlism," which argues that the state should cease recognition of marriage because it is discriminatory against those who do not have partners.

Furthermore, the un-defining of marriage is only one part of a package deal that includes the transgender push for the un-defining of gender. This is already happening under the radar through laws that define gender identity only on self-perception: seeing yourself on any given day as male, female, both, or neither. If that goal is achieved, the reduction of your "marriage" to social and legal gibberish will be complete. And as we become more isolated from family bonds in the eyes of the state, the state becomes freer to define our humanity.

7. How about we just "get the state out of the marriage business" altogether?

This is a silly slogan that actually invites the government to regulate our personal associations on a scale we've never before witnessed. Libertarians like to discuss "privatizing" marriage, but we should smell a big fat government trap here.

State recognition of marriage serves to ensure the autonomy of the family, which in turn serves as the greatest buffer zone between the individual and the power of the state. If civil marriage is abolished, all families instead become partnerships subject to contract law, with the state ever more aggressively defining and regulating those contracts. And how can we expect the government to respect family autonomy if we no longer require the government to recognize it?

8. Isn't it relevant that public opinion is shifting in favor of same sex marriage?

No. Poll numbers reflect only what people are willing to say. People consistentlyfalsify their preferences when confronted with the likelihood of being smeared, isolated, and punished if they express "incorrect" views. The echo chambers of media, academia, and Hollywood serve as enforcers. Constant repetition of views, no matter how implausible they may seem at first, combined with the suppression of dissent, often results in an availability cascade that leads to shifts in public opinion.

9. What about all those conservative politicians and pundits now reversing course and supporting same sex marriage?

See #8. Politics as usual. The self-reinforcing opinion cascade is having its intended effect on them. None offer substantive arguments. The fear of losing turf, power, and connections leaves them more susceptible than most to the forces of preference falsification and the suppression of dissent.

10. What about equal rights for gays? Doesn't restricting marriage to union of a man and woman infringe on their civil rights?

Civil societies recognize and respect the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. But marriage is what it is, rooted in sexual complementarity and biology. This fact makes some people sad. And angry. So in the interests of fairness, public officials are changing the meaning on paper to make the emotionally afflicted feel better.

The reality is that this disrespectful hijacking of the civil rights movement in order to co-opt the definition of marriage reduces everybody's civil rights.

It violates the rights of children by serving to deprive them deliberately of biological parents. It violates everybody's civil right to religious freedom by setting up a collision course in which conscience protections will be trumped by a nonsensical legal definition of marriage. It violates our freedom of association by removing the buffer zone of family (and all mediating institutions) that insulate all individuals in society from abuses of state power. It violates freedom of expression by requiring Orwellian Newspeak of everyone, especially those accused of hate for objecting to same-sex marriage.

In the end, the primary beneficiary of this social experiment is a tyrannical minority hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives and eventually dictating all of our personal relationships.

Stella Morabito has published several op-eds on same-sex marriage in The Washington Examiner.

Rescuing Women and Children for Family Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:11:00 +0000

Every day women and children are bought and sold in a human market of insatiable demand. Human sex trafficking is the fastest growing business in America, and around the world, but the Wellhouse, Inc. is rescuing those women and children and restoring them to families.

Robertson School of Government Professor James D. Slack serves on the executive board of the Wellhouse, Inc., and has watched its development. The Wellhouse is a faith-based NPO located in Birmingham, AL. It is dedicated to ministering to women who are victims of human trafficking. Started by one of Dr. Slack’s MPA students when he taught at UAB, Tajuan McCarty, the concept of the Wellhouse and business plan was her culminating MPA project in 2010. God worked miracles on several fronts, and Tajuan’s story is the impetus for it all.

As a prostitute, a lesbian, a cocaine addict, being sexually exploited for years, and kidnapped 2 times, held captive, raped and tortured repeatedly, Tajuan was quite angry when she finally escaped. She tried to pull her life together and entered the MPA program the next year, but got back into drugs and was re-incarcerated at Tutwiler Prison in Alabama.

Tajuan found Christ when she walked into The Birmingham Dream Center and met Lisa "Roxanne" Holifield. She left prison with no hope of a better life. People like Dr. Slack and Lisa "Roxanne" Holifield from WDJC's Morning Radio show in Birmingham began to show her what following Christ looked like. Dr. Slack shared that her culminating project to restore victims of human sex trafficking was not well received at UAB and it was a struggle getting it approved and accepted by a faculty committee.

Within a year of graduation, however, amazing things happened. God opened up miraculous doors, and Tajuan established The Wellhouse, a house for women rescued for trafficking. Corporations volunteer to use their private jets to fly women into Birmingham to stay at The Wellhouse. CNN has told Tajuan McCarty’s story, and NBC is interested in running a story about The Wellhouse ministry.

Watch this video and learn more about how God is working in this ministry, at http://youtu.be/zqCEni99JQ8. Everything for this short video was volunteered, including the actors and the corporate jet.

For more information contact Tajuan McCarty, Executive Director, The WellHouse, at 1-800-991-0948, P.O. Box 320796, Birmingham, Alabama 35232, email info@the-wellhouse.org, or volunteer@the-wellhouse.org, on the web at www.the-wellhouse.org, on FaceBook at www.facebook.com/thewellhousesaves, on Twitter at @the_wellhouse, or on YouTube at thewellhousesaves.

Women and children are being victimized by human sex trafficking at an alarming rate, but ministries like The Wellhouse work to restore them to their families.

Marriage Before the Supreme Court

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel T,) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:14:00 +0000

The oral arguments are over and now marriage is before the Supreme Court of the United States, in two separate but related cases that will make a difference in the direction of marriage in America. Perry v. Hollingsworth, the California Proposition 8 challenge to voters' ability to define marriage for their state, and Windsor v. U.S., the New York same-sex union case that is challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act regarding a federal definition of marriage, will both likely have profound effects on the future direction of marriage. You can listen to the oral arguments here.

I have joined several law professors in an amicus brief to the High Court in Perry on behalf of four different organizations of black pastors and faith based groups, asking the Court to uphold California's definition of marriage. You can view that here. And I have also joined several law professors in another brief in Windsor and you can view that here. These cases could potentially redefine marriage for every state, regardless of current state law or state constitutional provisions. Several briefs have been filed in the Windsor case. See the Jurist.org article at http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/02/three-briefs-filed-with-supreme-court-in-case-challenging-doma.php

Though the federal government is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in Perry, the Proposition 8 case, the Obama administration filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its brief, the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to strike down California's marriage law as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You can find that brief here.

Last month the Illinois Senate approved same sex marriage, noting that the state will recognize same sex marriage and afford it full faith and credit regardless of the federal rule in DOMA. See it at http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/02/illinois-senate-approves-same-sex-marriage-bill.php.

The United Kingdom has also set out a plan for "equal marriage," outlining a proposal for marriage to be available to any parties who wish to enter into such a union. Read more about that at http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/media_releases/9585.aspx . To read the text of the proposed legislation read here. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/cbill_2012-20130126_en_6.htm#sch6-pt2 In France citizens are protesting the French president's plan to legalize same sex marriage to allow couples to adopt and conceive children, stating that they "have nothing against different ways of living, but we think a child must grow up with a mother and a father." Meanwhile, an individual has filed a lawsuit to be married to his donkey: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/does-the-law-love-an-ass/ .

New directions for marriage are ahead; the question is whether they will foster family restoration, or family deconstruction.

Marriage Before the Nation

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:50:00 +0000

A leading champion for marriage, Maggie Gallagher shares her concern for the arguments before the Supreme Court this week:

Half or more of the American people believe marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these unions can make new life and connect children to the mother and father who made them. For the Supreme Court to brand these millions of people irrational bigots because we do not believe gay unions are marriages—and take away our right to use the democratic process to make our case to the American people—is not going to end the culture wars, it's going to entrench them. We don't need another Roe v. Wade. We need a court that respects the rights of all the American people, not just the politically fashionable ones.

Seven million Californians deserve the right to vote for marriage, and taking away that precious and important right is wrong.

I will go out on a limb and predict that the majority of this court is not going to overturn Prop 8. Do not try to make the American people believe that the Constitution written by our founding fathers in 1789 requires gay marriage.

On March 7, Justice Anthony Kennedy, when a library was named in his honor at a Sacramento federal courthouse, made the case that too many moral issues are being referred to the courts:

I think it's a serious problem. A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say. And I think it's of tremendous importance for our political system to show the rest of the world — and we have to show ourselves first — that democracy works because we can reach agreement on a principled basis.

"On this he is right," said Gallagher. "It requires no courage, at this point in history, to side with gay marriage advocates. Respecting the rights of the millions of Americans who disagree, and respecting the boundaries of our Constitution, is staying on the right side of history.

"I urge the Supreme Court to respect our Constitution, respect the rights of all Americans, and respect those who right now, outside the Courtroom today, are standing up for the classic understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife, against those who seek to change its meaning and purpose without the consent of the American people."

Once again, I value your opinion, please click here if you care to comment. I will read and respond on the website.

Warmly,
Maggie
MaggieGallagher.com

Family restoration needs the foundation marriage provides. The Supreme Court will make that decision for the nation.
Forward To A Friend

This email was sent from:
American Principles in Action
1420 K Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
US

Family Restoration Requires Family Security

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:31:00 +0000

Personal security for family members is significant for strong societies, and strong family law. Dr. Mary Manjikian, Fulbright Scholar with the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, on the BLog Women in International Security highlights the importance of legal support for family restoration in the face of abuse and manipulation within marriage.

21st Century UK: Can women still be coerced within marriage?

March 18, 2013

Mary Manjikian
For the past two months, British newspaper readers have been riveted by the sage of Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhne. Here’s the story in brief: Price and Huhne were a British power couple. He was a liberal democratic member of Parliament and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, while Price, an immigrant from Greece, was a high-flying academic who had served as Chief Economist in the Department of Business, Enterprise and Reform. They divorced in June 2010. During the divorce proceedings, Pryce gave a series of interviews alleging that they had had an abusive marriage in which he had coerced her on numerous occasions. According to Pryce, he forced her to sign a legal document saying that she had been the driver of the car when he was arrested for speeding in 2003, claiming that being convicted of such a charge could cost him his career. She also alleged that he pressured her to have an abortion on two occasions – the first time she complied while the second time she refused, going on to have a son.
In the legal trial which followed – both were tried for perverting the course of justice due to the fraud committed when Pryce took the speeding points for her husband – she adopted an unusual legal defense. She claimed that she was not liable for her unlawful behavior because it was an act of marital coercion. The coercion defense dates back to the seventh century in Britain when women had no legal rights or independent social, political or economic identity. In the original case, a husband hid stolen goods in the family home and the wife claimed that she felt forced to go along with his larcenous behavior since she had no independent means or recourse. She was found innocent by reason of marital coercion.
However, in 2013 (some thirteen hundred years later), Pryce lost her trial and now faces jail time, along with her ex-husband. The situation has led to a debate in Britain about the notion of martial coercion. At present, legal analysts claim that the defense is outdated for two reasons: First women today have independent legal status, along with incomes and careers. It is difficult to see how a woman could be coerced, they argue, when she clearly has the option of leaving the marriage. In other words, the law is outdated because marriage is no longer a patriarchal institution.
Second, some analysts argue that it is wrong – and in violation of European Human Rights legislation – to claim that only women can be coerced in an intimate relationship. Thus the law is discriminatory since it does not afford the same protection to everyone– including those in non-traditional partnerships. It improperly privileges both marriage and the rights of women in according this protection to them alone.
The stance advocated by both the jury and the judge in the Pryce case represents a clear shift from traditional 1970’s feminist thinking. Back then, scholars described marriage as an inherently repressive institution which did not benefit women and always oppressed them. Later, marriage was deemed to be an irrelevant institution, which conferred no utility upon the participants, and which should not be treated as in any way special or unique. In current debates about gay marriage, the thinking has changed again – with advocates noting that marriage benefits the participants and society, and that this benefit should be available to all. This argument against marital coercion legislation also represents an end to feminist essentialism arguments which suggested that women were inherently more peaceful or more fragile and that masculine behavior was inherently more belligerent. The new viewpoint suggests that both sexes have the potential for violence, aggression and coercion within marriage and that therefore women should not be afforded special protection.
The problem with both of these arguments is that they ignore other worldwide/global realities. Those who pillory Price and ask why she did not simply leave sound a great deal like those who would blame a woman for being raped.
It is also far too simplistic to argue that coercion no longer exists and that protections are no longer required. Even in Britain, statistics presented by Plan UK note that ten percent of adolescent girls in the UK marry before the age of eighteen. They note that worldwide, “every three seconds a girl becomes a child bride,” with the average age of marriage in some African nations hovering around fifteen. In addition, gendercide of female fetuses still exists – in India, in China and even in the US and the UK. Just this week, the British press reported on women in England who were pressured by their husbands and families to abort their female fetuses. (Even a prominent female physician felt powerless to resist deeply ingrained cultural attitudes and family power structures.) In another high profile case a surrogate was pressured to abort a child with birth defects. In addition, we can still identify situations where husbands will not ‘permit’ their wives to work, and feminist analysts have suggested that domestic violence within marriage represents a sort of internal terrorism.
So how do we reconcile these two conflicting views of marriage and intimate relations? Clearly, the jurors believed that Vicky Price could not have been coerced within the bounds of marriage because she was wealthy and educated. And certainly it upsets the feminist ‘party line’ to believe that even wealthy, educated women might be coerced into making reproductive choices by other people. Similarly, it is disturbing to contemplate that despite strides being made in women’s political representation and education, marriage may still be harmful to at least some women both in the UK and worldwide.
The problem is that in establishing an upper-middle class, educated, white woman as the standard for feminist thinking, we have (once again) failed to focus on the fact that she herself is an anomaly. It would be wrong to adopt universal policies regarding marital coercion or indeed marriage in general by making reference to this one isolated and atypical case. As we think about issues of human security, about the vulnerability of women who are refugees, immigrants and victims of war, we need to acknowledge that women are often uniquely vulnerable and deserving of special protection. Admitting this does not make anyone a bad feminist, nor does it affect the agenda of those who wish to provide more opportunities for women everywhere.
The danger is if Western policymakers continue to see middle-class white women as the ‘typical woman’ and to assume that policy prescriptions in the West will work equally well elsewhere in the world. For example, rolling back legislation which protects women within marriage in the UK might establish a standard which could then become a universal norm. This does not create a positive worldwide precedent.

____________________

Mary Manjikian is an Assistant Professor at the Robertson School of Government in Virginia Beach, VA. She is currently a Fulbright Research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Study at Durham University in the UK. She is the author of three books on international security.
Further Reading:
The Guardian: Marital Coercion
BBC: Martial coercion legal defense explained
The Daily Telegraph: Vicky Pryce trial – Guilty of perverting the course of justice

Regent Developing Women Leadership

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel T,) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:57:00 +0000

This past weekend I had the opportunity to attend Capital Law School’s Wells Conference on Adoption with Professor Lynne Marie Kohm in Columbus, Ohio. My attendance was all due to the generous support of Regent University. Regent recognizes the importance of supporting and developing women leaders.

In anticipation of the event, I was able to help Professor Kohm research and prepare for her presentation entitled “Rethinking Mom and Dad,” which detailed the law and social science on whether children do best with both a mother and a father, and why that is the case. At the event, I helped Professor Kohm run the power point and video links for her presentation. Being at the conference with Professor Kohm gave me the chance to network with several other law professors and legal professionals.

I also think this experience was instrumental because it gave me a front row seat to watch and learn from Professor Kohm. I look up to Professor Kohm in many ways but one of the most important is her courage and grace in presenting truth and light in a dark world. Just take this conference as an example; Professor Kohm was the only presenter out of about ten who was advocating that the best interest of a child involves a mother and a father. She was incredible in her ability to be firm in her research and arguments yet sensitive to others. Watching her present and interact with the audience and other presenters at the conference taught me much about what it looks like to be a Christian leader who changes the world.

I am confident that this experience will have a profound impact on developing my own leadership abilities and has furthered my desire to continue to be involved in issues of restoring the family. It has also given me the confidence to now go to the next conference with Professor Kohm in April in Chicago (for a presentation entitled “The Politics of Family Fragmentation”) where she is graciously allowing me to co-present with her.

I am blessed to be at a school that recognizes the importance of supporting future leaders and has professors that are willing to train these students.

--Rachel Kathleen Toberty

Regent University Law School, Candidate for J.D., 2013

Editor In Chief, Regent Journal of Law and Public Policy

Rethinking Mom and Dad toward Family Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:18:00 +0000

An upcoming Conference on Adoption Law at the Capital Law School's Wells Conference Symposium in Columbus, OH, will feature a host of subjects on "Rethinking the Best Interest of the Child." My (somewhat) controversial presentation is entitled "Rethinking Mom and Dad," and discusses the notion that children need both a mother and a father.

In fact, this is such a significant event that Regent University has allowed me to use this opportunity for student mentoring in leadership. My graduate assistant, Rachel Toberty, will be joining me at that conference. This will provide her with a fabulous comparative perspective on child advocacy by another law school from a different perspective and further develop her leadership skills. She and my graduate assistant, Elizabeth Oklevitch, have done some excellent research to prepare my presentation and article for this event. You can see more about it below:

The 9^th Annual Wells Conference on Adoption Law:
"Rethinking Children's Best Interests"
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Capital University Law School
Columbus, Ohio 303 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Panel One will focus on
"The New Face of Family and Children's Best Interests"

FEATURED PANELISTS


Annette Appell, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Civil Justice Clinic, Washington University Law (same sex adoption; birth certificates)	Cynthia R. Mabry, Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law (Post Adoption Contact and PACAs)	Lynne Marie Kohm, John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law, Regent University School of Law (Rethinking mothers and fathers: the inclusiveness of family)	Melissa Holtzman, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Ball State University (the best interests of the child in the context of contested adoption)

6.5 CLE and Social Work Counselor and Social Worker Continuing Education credit hours are requested.

For more information and to register, please visit the conference web site at www.law.capital.edu/Wells.

For questions about the conference, please contact:
Denise St. Clair
Executive Director
National Center for Adoption Law & Policy
Capital University Law School
dstclair@law.capital.edu
614.236.6593

The introduction to my remarks, listed here below, gives you an idea of how important mom and dad are to family restoration.

Rethinking Mom and Dad

By Lynne Marie Kohm*

If the players of the National Football League are any indicator of what might be in the best interests of children, some sports experts seem to think that fatherless quarterbacks have more challenges to their NFL success than those who had the benefit of both a father and a mother while growing up.[1] Robert Griffen, III (also known as RGIII), is a prime example.[2] In fact, "decades of research have now documented the tremendous challenges children face when they grow up without their fathers,"[3] and indeed father absence[4] and the father wound[5] are serious concerns in America today.[6]

In contrast, others argue there is "no conclusive evidence that, absent conditions [of poverty], the pure, pared-down state of single motherhood is itself dangerous to children."[7] A recent survey of current studies on parenting that mitigated family structure variables indicated that "strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers."[8] That survey of studies concluded that "average differences favor women over men" in parenting, but that "parenting skills are not dichotomous or exclusive" noting that the "gender of parents correlates in novel ways with parenting-child relationships but has minor significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success."[9] A 1999 study contended that successful parenting is not gender specific at all, but that children do not need either a mother or a father, but any gender configuration of adults could parent well,[10] even if still others called this thinking "lunacy,"[11] or "political screed masquerading as science."[12]

Constitutionally, parental rights are fundamentally protected,[13] but what parental situation is authentically in the child's best interests? Arguments for genderless parenting suggest that "the gender of parents only matters in ways that don't matter."[14] In 1987 Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in Bowens v. Guillard argued, however, that "the optimal situation for the child is to have both an involved mother and an involved father."[15] The New York Court of Appeals in 2006 ruled that

[T]he Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.[16]

An expert relied on in testimony against California's Proposition 8 (a referendum defining marriage as between one man and one woman passed by a majority of Californians) wrote that both "mothers and fathers play crucial and qualitatively different roles in the socialization of the child."[17]

Speaking now as a bisexual parent and a child who was raised by two mothers, Professor Robert Lopez asserts that what parents do matters, and that he and other bisexual parents have "no choice but to take responsibility for what we do as parents…. When you are a parent, ethical questions revolve around your children and you put away your self-interest . . . forever."[18] Journalist and researcher Alana Newman, speaking as a child of sperm donation who was raised without a father at home states "I am the daughter of a sperm donor. For a long time I didn't understand how this had negatively impacted my life... I am convinced that I am not alone in my struggles being donor-conceived."[19] Doug Manwaring, a homosexual father of two teenage boys recently spoke publicly "of his personal experience as a gay man who came to realize that his own children need both a mother and a father."[20]

Parents affect children. Rethinking whether a child needs a mom and a dad is no straightforward task. Exploring conflicts and issues that arise when determining the best interests of a child in a number of different parental contexts, this article considers rethinking the best interests of a child in having a parent of each gender, namely a father and a mother. Focusing on child rearing and adoption from many angles such as fatherlessness, same gender parenting, motherlessness, parental incarceration, and children resulting from assisted reproductive technologies, this article discusses whether dual gendered parenting holds more or less weight in a best interest of the child analysis. If it does not matter whether a child has an opportunity to have a relationship with both a father and a mother, why is that the case? And if dual gendered parenting better fosters a child's best interest, why is that so? Can any state law require dual gendered parenting within parental rights and equal protection guidelines? And for that matter, should gender of the parent ever be a relevant consideration in the adoption of a child? This piece will consider state statutory codes defining what is in the best interests of a child, pediatric medicine, social science, constitutional requirements, and federal law and policy in determining if it is truly in a child's best interests to have both a mom and a dad. It will conclude with a discussion of dual gendered parenting imperatives, while offering innovative resolutions to the best interests of children missing one or the other.

Part I discusses various studies and scenarios of parenting, perspectives on each, and their results on children. It confronts the problem of fatherlessness, the need for mothering, and the significance of a marriage context for children. Part II examines statutory parameters on the best interests of children regarding parental preference in state codes, analyzing these factors and considering whether and how they are directed by pediatric medicine, or evidence from social science. It then compares these facts with federal law on equal protection, and federal family policy. Part III brings all these angles together in a discussion of a child's interests in his or her own parents. It sets forth how the law and the evidence find it imperative that a child have an opportunity to enjoy a relationship with a father and a mother whenever possible, while offering innovative resolutions to provide a father or a mother for a child that has been deprived of one or the other.

A child's best interests, though required by state family law code, are not always the driving factor in parental decisions. Rethinking the best interests of a child leads to a legal duty that finds it imperative to allow a child every opportunity to have one parent of each gender - a mother and a father - whenever possible.

* John Brown McCarty Professor of Family Law, Regent University School of Law. My sincere gratitude is expressed to the Capital University Law School Law Review board and staff for hosting the March 2013 Wells Conference on "Rethinking Best Interests," where this article was presented by invitation.

[1] See e.g. Colin Cowherd, Sports and fatherless football players, SI Sports Radio [get correct cite here] (contrasting very successful rookie quarterbacks such as RGIII, Russell Wilson, and Colin Kapernick who were raised with a father (and a mother) with very talented but struggling quarterbacks such as Cam Newton, and Michael Vick, who did not have the benefit of being raised with a father at home.

[2] "It was always mom and dad with us. Robert knew we were both there." (is this exact?) Interview with Robert Griffin, Jr., Dec. 12, 2009, http://www.zennie62blog.com/2012/12/09/rg3s-dad-talks-raising-robert-griffin-iii-12353/.

[3] Jenet Erickson, Men Don't Matter, Public Discourse, Oct. 26, 2012, at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6710/.

[4] See National Fatherhood Initiative, Defining the Issue (2011) at http://www.fatherhood.org/about/about-how-we-do-it (stating that "There are record levels of father absence in America…" with "24 million children liv[ing] in homes absent their biological father" and "1 of 3 children nationally – triple the rate of 1960 – liv[ing] in father-absent homes.")[hereinafter NFI].

[5] See The Father Wound Epidemic, Fathers for Good (2013), at http://www.fathersforgood.org/ffg/en/month/archive/march10.html. The "father wound" is not yet an officially recognized clinical term, but it is used by mental health professionals in identifying the origin of numerous emotional and behavioral conflicts in spouses, singles, and children. "These difficulties can be the result of failing to have a strong, loving and supportive relationship with a responsible father, or as a result of modeling after and then repeating significant weaknesses of the father such as selfishness, excessive anger, emotionally distant behaviors or indifference to the faith." Id. See also Russell Simmons, "Knock Knock," PhatPraise, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E0DMcZ23kE.

[6] NFI, supra note 4.

[7] Katie Rophie, In Defense of Single Motherhood," New York Times, Aug. 11, 2012, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-single-motherhood.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

[8] Timothy J. Biblarz and Judith Stacey, How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? 72 J. Marriage & Fam. 3 (Feb. 2010).

[9] Id. summarizing the findings.

[10] L. B. Silverstein & C. F. Auerbach, Deconstructing the Essential Father, 54 Am. Psychologist 397 (1999).

[11] Wade Horn, Lunacy 101: Questioning the Need for Fathers, All about families newsletter, Jul. 21, 1999, at 4, available at www.allaboutfamilies.org. Mr. Horn was the Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services in 2001-2007. See Wade Horn Ran Welfare for George W. Bush, Washington Post, Feb. 26, 2012, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/26/wade-horn-ran-welfare-for-george-w-bush-heres-how-hed-handle-the-sequester/.

[12] Jeff Jacoby, Attack on fatherhood a political screed masquerading as science, Boston Globe, Jul. 26, 1999, at A15, also available at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8566262.html.

[13] Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)(both holding that parents have an inalienable right to direct the upbringing of their children).

[14] Erickson, supra note 3, citing a "top-tier family science publication" – find this and cite it correctly directly from that source.

[15] Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 614 (1987, Brennan, J. dissenting).

[16] Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E. 2d 1 (2006, J. Robert Smith).

[17] Michael E. Lamb, Fathers: Forgotten Contributors to Child Development, 18 Human Dev. 245, 246 (1975). Dr. Lamb testified in favor of same-sex couples in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), trial transcript at 1064, 1068.

[18] Robert Oscar Lopez, "Growing Up with two Moms: the Untold Children's View, Public Discourse, Aug. 12, 2012, at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/. Apparently, Professor Lopez had to explain his position. See Karen Ocamb, Bisexual CSUN Prof Robert Oscar Lopez Explains Support for Regnerus Study, LGBTpov.com, Aug. 19, 2012, also available at http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012/08/19/bisexual-csun-prof-robert-oscar-lopez-explains-support-for-regnerus-study/, where Lopez does so in a way that breaks through myriad sexual, political, and multicultural lines.

[19] Alana S. Newman, Gay Marriage and the Test-Tube Tidal Wave, First Things, Aug. 2, 2012, at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/08/gay-marriage-and-the-test-tube-tidal-wave.

[20] Napp Nazworth, Kids Need Both Mom and Dad, Says Gay Man Opposed to Gay Marriage, CP Politics, Jan. 28, 2013, at http://www.christianpost.com/news/kids-need-both-mom-and-dad-says-gay-man-opposed-to-gay-marriage-89018/#RF0rHvKbI3Mk7EXR.99. Doug Manwaring is "now living with his ex-wife so they can co-parent their two teenaged sons." Id.

Children Benefit from Family Restoration Based on Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:10:00 +0000

Children benefit from marriage - that lifetime union of one woman and one man - as a basis for their family, as evidenced from law and culture around the globe. Some experts, however, are suggesting that marriage expansion - expanding marriage to include other combinations of individuals than one woman and one man - is not bad for children.

When nations consider the incidents of marriage as a place to conceive and raise children, citizens seem to have a profound viewpoint change on the issue of marriage expansion. France provides a timely international example. Police in Paris estimated a crowd of 340,000, the largest demonstration there since 1984, protesting the French president's plan to legalize same sex marriage to allow couples to adopt and conceive children,[1] stating that they "have nothing against different ways of living, but we think that a child must grow up with a mother and a father."[2] This debate reflects a "deep and abiding moral and ideological divide in France."[3] Colombia's position on same-sex marriage and parenting is being challenged in a lawsuit for recognition of the now-nonexistent parental rights of a non-biological partner.[4]

Puerto Rico's Supreme Court recently upheld a law banning same-sex couples from adopting children in a best interest analysis.[5] And marriage expansion toward same gender couples is the subject of Supreme Court decisions this spring,[6] though neither case before the high court is directly about parenting choices and children, but rather rights recognition for the adults. Others suggest that same-sex marriage has restricted parental rights and human rights in Canada, which is now ten years hence of making same-sex marriage the national law.[7]

Now Psychology Today has published a piece on whether group marriage - or polyamory - is bad for children. Polyamory is the natural progression of marriage expansion. This article argues that many adults in a sexual relationship together can foster good and healthy aspects of a child's life. You can read " Is Polyamory Bad for Children" at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201301/is-polyamory-bad-the-children.

Children do not need many moms and many dads all in consortium together. Rather, a child simply needs one mother and one father to provide him or her with stability, continuity, love, respect, and a safe place to grow and thrive. Children benefit from family restoration based on marriage most of all.

[1] Lori Hinnant, Huge Turnout in Paris for Anti-Gay-Marriage Protest, The Virginian-Pilot, Jan. 14, 2013, at 11.

[2] Id., stating "French civil unions, allowed since 1999, are at least as popular among heterosexuals as among gay and lesbian couples. But that law has no provisions for adoption or assisted reproduction, which are at the heart of the latest debate," noting that 52% of French favor legalizing gay marriage, according to a survey released Sunday, down from as high as 65% in August. But see also Steven Erlanger, At once Catholic and Secular, France Debates Gay Marriage, New York Times, Jan. 10, 2013, at A5 (discussing demonstrations in favor of same-sex couples and "marriage for all" legislation).

[3] Robert Saretsky, Egalite Meets Gay Marriage, New York Times, Feb. 8, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/global/the-gay-marriage-debate-in-france.html?_r=0 (discussing that the heart of the matter is not over gay marriage but over gay parenting, quoting Sylvian Agacinsky: "If we truly sought what is most universal in our lives, we could go no further than the fact that 'a child can only issue from a father and mother, that is to say a man and a women.' We ignore this 'fundamental value' only at our own and society's peril, Agacinski warns. Most alarming, in her eyes, is the burgeoning market in surrogate mothers, women engaged inw hat she calls 'a commerce in human beings'.").

[4] Leiderman (the biological and gestational mother of a son and a daughter) and Botoero (her partner) are litigating the matter. See Juan Forero, Colombia same-sex case could have regional impact, Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2012, at A10 (highlighting the legal victories homosexual parenting communities have achieved in socially conservative Latin America and discussing the women's desire for recognition).

[5] Jaclyn Clifford, Puerto Rico Supreme Court upholds same sex adoption ban, Jursit.com, Feb. 22, 2013, http://jurist.org/paperchase/2013/02/puerto-rico-supreme-court-upholds-same-sex-adoption-ban.php. (citing the opinion which is available in Spanish at http://recend.apextech.netdna-cdn.com/docs/editor/Sentencia-%20CC-2008-1010.pdf).

[6] Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, SCOTUS (2013)(considering the constitutional merits of California's voter approved referendum Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman); US v. Windsor, No. 12-307, SCOTUS (2013)(considering the constitutionally of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in its definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman). For a brief practical review of those cases see Anna Stolley Persky, Marriage Equality: Will Shift in Public Opinion Sway the Supreme Court? Washington Lawyer 18 (Feb. 2013)(discussing cultural support for same sex marriage according to Persky). For an academic approach to each see Brief for Amici Curiae The Coalition of African American Pastors USA, the Center for Urban renewal and Education, The Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc., and Numerous Law Professors in Support of Petitioners and Supporting Reversal, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, SCOTUS (2013); and Brief for Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Respondent Bipartisan legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives Addressing the Merits and Supporting Reversal, U.S. v. Windsor, No. 12-307, SCOTUS (2013), both available at www.scotusblog.com.

[7] See, e.g. Bradley Miller, Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada, Public Discourse, Nov. 5, 2012 (regarding the reality that opposition to same-sex marriage has created a new orthodoxy that limits freedom of expression as a human right, and limited parental rights in public education due to the institutionalization of same-sex marriage in curriculum that do not allow a parent object to that information as not the best education for his or her children).

Revoking Family's Asylum in the U.S. Does not Foster Family Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:01:00 +0000

Parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children. That right is constitutionally protected in the United States, but not in all nations. When the Romeike family was being forced to stop homeschooling their children by government-ordered police action, they fled to the United States. The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) successfully represented them in their immigration asylum claims, and they became the first family to obtain asylum for the protection of homeschooling rights.

Now the U.S. Department of Justice is petitioning to revoke that asylum. “The U.S. Department of Justice wants to revoke asylum granted to a German family that fled their country after facing persecution for homeschooling their five children. Germany has a broad ban on homeschooling with very few exceptions. Music teachers Uwe and Hannelore Romeike were prohibited from homeschooling. The evangelical Christians withdrew their children from public school in 2006. They were concerned that the school’s values were in conflict with their values. Two years later — after facing police visits to their home to take their kids to public school — the family moved to the U.S.

In 2010, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) took the Romeikes’ case, and helped them win a legal battle. They became the first family to obtain asylum for the protection of homeschooling rights. For a while, the Romeikes were able to homeschool their children in their small Tennessee town. But then Attorney General Eric Holder appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration. The Board sided with the government. HSLDA then appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The way the government argued the case undercut parents’ rights to raise and teach their children as they wish.

“(Holder’s office) argued that there was no violation of anyone’s protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling ,” HSLDA Founder and Chairman Michael Farris writes on the organization’s website. Holder’s second argument is revealing, he said. “The U.S. government contended that the Romeikes’ case failed to show that there was any discrimination based on religion because, among other reasons, the Romeikes did not prove that all homeschoolers were religious, and that not all Christians believed they had to homeschool.” This argument reveals a dangerous form of “group think,” Farris added. “The central problem here is that the U.S. government does not understand that religious freedom is an individual right,” he explained. “One need not be part of any church or other religious group to be able to make a religious freedom claim. Specifically, one doesn’t have to follow the dictates of a church to claim religious freedom — one should be able to follow the dictates of God himself.”

Read the entire article by Bethany Monk of Citizen Link at “U.S. Wants to Send Christian Homeschool Family Back to Germany,” at

http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/02/18/u-s-wants-to-send-christian-homeschool-family-back-to-germany/ . You can also read the Romeikes’ opening brief. And here you can read the DOJ’s response to the Romeikes’ opening brief. Finally, read the Romeikes’ reply brief.

Parents’ rights are fundamentally protected in the United States, and those rights inure to all immigrants who are granted asylum. To revoke that asylum is extremely unusual. The challenges families face in immigration policies are numerous and I have written about them before. You can access those remarks, entitled “The Challenges of Family Law and Immigration Policy,” at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1962671. The 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals will determine if police-forced public education that parents have deemed not in the best interests for their children is sufficient grounds for granting asylum. To learn more about what rights parents have in protecting their children see the new book out by Congressman Steve Bloom and Kerriel Bailey, Esq. (Regent Law 2008), entitled They’ve Crossed the Line: A Patriot’s Guide to Religious Freedom, available at www.AMGPublishers.com.

Revoking one family’s asylum could be a strong signal of harm to families and to the immigration process that might have otherwise worked toward family restoration.

Abortion and Abortion Coercion Harms Families

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:05:00 +0000

An New York Kindergarten teacher died after an abortion in Maryland. McKenna Morbelli, of New Rochelle, traveled to the Carhart Clinic last week to have a late-term abortion 33 weeks into her pregnancy after it became apparent that her fetus had developed abnormalities. Following a complex multi-day procedure, the 29-year-old married woman allegedly suffered a ruptured uterus and passed away from massive internal bleeding in a nearby hospital. There is little news on this story here in the U.S., but you can read more of its reports in the UK at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277868/jennifer-McKenna-Morbelli-dies-having-abortion-33-weeks-pregnancy.html#ixzz2LdACssjH.

A woman in Colorado filed a lawsuit earlier this month against Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and one of its abortionists claiming she was forced her to undergo an abortion without anesthesia and then left part of her baby’s body inside her. “Ayanna Byer, 40, says she changed her mind about having an abortion after Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs informed her they could not give her the agreed-upon intravenous anesthesia. The lawsuit claims the abortionist performed the abortion anyway. Byer was then sent home, but ended up in an emergency room two days later.” There is little news on that story as well, but you can read more about it here at
http://www.citizenlink.com/2013/02/21/take-action-women-sues-colorado-planned-parenthood-over-force-abortion/.

And a 16-year-old Texas girl who was being coerced by her parents to abort her unborn child requested court intervention on her behalf. ABC news covered the story here at http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/texas-teen-wins-right-to-give-birth-over-parents-objections/. CNN wanted was gripped by this story as well - http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/us/texas-abortion-teen-lawsuit/?hpt=hp_t3. The young woman was able to obtain an injunction against the coerced abortion with the assistance of several attorneys who are Regent University School of Law graduates who have founded the Texas Center for Defense of Life, a non-profit organization dedicated to defending women and girls against coerced abortions. "We just achieved an agreed order," Stephen Casey, a lawyer and co-founder of The Texas Center for Defense of Life, told CNN in a telephone interview Monday afternoon. The 16 year-old-girl’s identity is being protected, but her 16-year-old boyfriend and father of the child has faced reporters.

Gregg Terra (Regent ‘01) also co-founder of TCDL, with Stephen Casey (Regent 09), have argued that Roe v. Wade, the historic 1973 Supreme Court decision that guaranteed women the right to have an abortion, works both ways. No one can force anyone else to have an abortion. This case, unlike the first two, has captured some headlines here in America. Lawyers must be willing to deal with the harmful effects of abortion on families. To read more about this concern, and how legal education can make a difference, see the article by Professor Lynn D. Wardle and myself on SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2201231

Abortion harms families – from a married woman who aborts her mal-formed child (Morbelli), to a woman who changes her mind on the operating table (Byer), to a teen who is forced into an abortion by parents. The Morbelli family is devastated by the death of McKenna. The Byer family is likely devastated by Ayanna’s botched abortion. The Texas family is now exposed and torn apart over the abortion decision of their daughter. A new family has been formed, however, as the teens were married this week after the injunction was issued, and a child has been protected by those who protect women and children and families. Abortion always harms families.

The Diversity of Child Support Enforcement Measures The Court’s Decision, The Neglected Child, and The Beloved V8

noreply@blogger.com (Rachel T,) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:28:00 +0000

This excellent post is thanks to Tracy Burnette, Regent Law School 2L.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, “a main objective of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program is to make sure that child support payments are made regularly and in the correct amount.”[1] “The anxiety the custodial parent feels when payments are not regular can easily disrupt the family's life.” Id.

Various jurisdictions across the United States have employed creative methods of enforcement in order to remedy the problems of child support enforcement and collection. A few jurisdictions have developed innovative strategies for penalizing non-payors of child support, perhaps even to incite public embarrassment. However, some jurisdictions remain relatively traditional in penalizing the support-deficient. For example, in Virginia[2], a non-compliant, support-deficient parent may be subjected to any of the following traditional penalties for failure to comply with his or her child support obligation[3]:

· Service of a Lien[4]

· Civil Contempt of Court[5]

· Incarceration Until Support Paid

· Suspension[6] of / Refusal to Renew His/Her Driver’s License

· Revocation of His/Her Driver’s License

· Attaching Unemployment Benefits[7] or Employment Compensation Benefits[8]

Some jurisdictions have employed extremely innovative enforcement measures. Louisiana[9] and Virginia[10], among other states, have utilized both hard copy and electronic “Wanted” lists for each of the state’s most reluctant parents.[11] The (not-so) lucky reluctant parent’s name and photograph are broadcasted to whomever will take a gander at the list.

Among the inventive jurisdictions and the most surprising, in my opinion, is the “boot” method. Designed to publically embarrass non-custodial, non-paying parents who have been reluctant in paying their respective child support obligation, this “boot” method has been employed by Illinois[12], Cape May County, New Jersey[13], Wayne County, Michigan[14], and Fairfax County, Virginia[15].

In addition to employing traditional measures to ensure the enforcement of one’s obligation to pay child support, officials in Fairfax County have been vested with the authority to locate one’s vehicle and immobilize it for neglecting to pay child support.[16] Fairfax County has been booting cars since 1998.[17] Between March 1998 and December 1999, 70 vehicles were booted in Fairfax County, resulting in an average of $5,000 from each non-custodial, non-paying parent.[18]

In 2000 the Commonwealth of Virginia took this idea statewide,[19] giving the Department of Social Services authorization to boot a noncustodial parent’s car, provided certain circumstances exist.[20] In order for the Department of Social Services to have one’s vehicle booted by the sheriff the Department must have previously attempted to enforce the child support obligation by employing “conventional” methods of enforcement, unless inappropriate to use such traditional methods. In addition, there is a nominal threshold for arrears and a lien must have been filed.

This leads to the inquiry of whose car can be booted? The sheriff has authority, delegated by the Department of Social Services, to boot a vehicle owned (1) solely by the non-custodial, non-paying parent, (2) co-owned by the non-custodial, non-paying parent and his or her current spouse, or (3) a business’s vehicle provided that the non-custodial, non-paying parent is the sole proprietor of that business.[21]

So far, we now understand that one’s vehicle may be in jeopardy contingent upon whether that person has been reluctant in fulfilling his or her child support obligation and the requisite conditions are present. However, there’s more to this “boot method” than just the observation that it exists and the conditions by which it may be employed. The boot placed on the non-payor’s vehicle is tailored the sex of the innocent child in which he or she is financially neglecting: baby blue for boys and pastel pink for girls.[22]

Statistics reveal that the collection of child support steadily increased following the year 2000 in which the Commonwealth of Virginia took Fairfax County’s “boot method” statewide.[23] In 2000, the White House issued a press release commending Virginia’s innovative method and stating former President Clinton’s intention to take this idea nationwide.[24]

Even though the “boot” method has proven effective, statistically, a lingering concern remains: what about the non-custodial, non-paying parents who enjoy the luxury of owning multiple vehicles? Would the Department authorize the sheriff to boot all cars owned by the non-custodial, non-paying parent? If not, the enforcement method is virtually ineffective in that the parent would not be immobilized; the parent would simply use another one of his or her vehicles and go about his or her other priorities.

Perhaps employing a combination of the innovative “boot” method and a “conventional” method would better effectuate the enforcement method’s purpose: in addition to booting the car, suspend the license. This combination would immobilize the non-custodial, non-paying parent and would prevent him or her from circumventing the purpose of the enforcement measure. Regardless, it seems to be working, providing children with much needed support, while also providing some of us with a source of entertainment.

[1] Handbook on Child Support Enforcement, Dept. of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, pg # 24 (last updated 2008), www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocse/handbook_on_cse1.pdf.

[2] In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the “support enforcement agency” is defined as: “a public official or agency authorized to seek enforcement of support orders or laws relating to the duty of support, establishment or modification of child support, determination of parentage, location of obligors or their assets, or determination of the controlling child support order. A support enforcement agency of the Commonwealth is not authorized to establish or enforce a support order for spousal support only.” Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.32 (2005).

[3] Support Order is defined as: a judgment, decree, or order, whether temporary, final, or subject to modification, issued by a tribunal for the benefit of a child, a spouse, or a former spouse, which provides for monetary support, health care, arrearages, or reimbursement, and may include related costs and fees, interest, income withholding, attorney's fees, and other relief.” Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.32 (2005).

[4] Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1927 (2003).

[5] “Last year, Assistant Attorneys General: Represented DCSE in 141,483 hearings, including civil

contempt hearings, which resulted in 652,785 days in jail for noncustodial parents who failed to pay support; assisted in collecting $13 million in lump sum child support payments; and assisted in obtaining new court orders for child support totaling $1.5 million.” Virginia Department of Social Services 2011-2012 Fact Sheet, Va. Dept. of Soc. Serv. 2 (2012), http://www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/children/child_support.cgi [hereinafter VDSS Fact Sheet].

[6] According to the Virginia Department of Social Services, “DCSE has collected $430 million in delinquent child support since 1996, $33.5 million during this fiscal year, through the suspension of driver’s licenses.” Id.

[7] According to the Virginia Department of Social Services, the “collection payment” accounts for 89% of child support payments. “[The Department] [c]ollects approximately 89% of child support payments via wage withholding, with over $2.5 million dollars passing through Virginia’s State Disbursement Unit on an average day.” Id.

[8] Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1941 (2012).

[9] For an example, of Louisiana’s poster of most wanted non-paying parents see Louisiana’s Most Wanted, Dept. of Child and Family Serv., http://www.dss.state.la.us/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=163 (…cite just says 2012)

[10] Arlington County’s Sherriff’s Office initiated this program in 1996 in order to “more aggressively” ensure child support payment by those parents who “are seriously delinquent” in their obligated payments. Deadbeat Parents Wanted by Arlington County, ARLINGTONVA.US, http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/Sheriff/SheriffDeadbeatParents.aspx (last updated Sept. 14, 2012).

[11] Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1940.1 (2003). Section 63.2-1940.1 Provides:

Publishing a most wanted delinquent parent list; coordinated arrests. The Division of Child Support Enforcement shall (i) publish at regular intervals a list of the most wanted delinquent parents as determined by the Commissioner together with arrearage information and other identifying information, including but not limited to, a photograph, occupation and last known address for the purpose of locating such delinquent parents and (ii) periodically conduct coordinated arrests of delinquent parents in conjunction with state and local criminal justice agencies pursuant to § 16.1-278.16.

[12]305 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/10-17.13 (West 2007). “Public Act 95-685 grants the state permission to work with municipalities to immobilize and impound cars belonging to deadbeat dads.” Kate Clements Cohorst, Deadbeat Dad Laws in Illinois, http://www.ehow.com/list_6453643_deadbeat-dad-laws-illinois.html#ixzz2BIT88fc6 (last updated 2012).

[13] The Associated Press, Pink and Blue Parking Boots to Greet Deadbeat Parents in Virginia (Jan. 4, 2000), http://cjonline.com/stories/010400/new_parkingwoes.shtml.

[14] The Associated Press, Pink and Blue Parking Boots to Greet Deadbeat Parents in Virginia (Jan. 4, 2000), http://cjonline.com/stories/010400/new_parkingwoes.shtml.

[15] 22 VA ADC 40-880-350 (2012).

[16] Id. Full text of 22 VAC ADC 40-880-350 (2012).Enforcement Remedies:

Distraint, seizure, and sale

A. The department may use distraint, including booting of vehicle, seizure and sale against the real or personal property of a noncustodial parent when:

1. There are arrears of at least $1,000 for a case with a current support obligation and at least $500 for an arrears-only case;

2. Conventional enforcement remedies have failed or are not appropriate; and

3. A lien has been filed pursuant to § 63.2-1927 of the Code of Virginia.

B. Assets targeted for distraint, including booting of vehicle, seizure and sale are:

1. Solely owned by the noncustodial parent.

2. Co-owned by the noncustodial parent and current spouse.

3. Owned by a business in which the noncustodial parent is the sole proprietor. Assets owned by business partnerships or corporations which are co-owned with someone other than a noncustodial parent's current spouse do not qualify for booting of vehicle, or seizure and sale.

C. The Director of the Division of Child Support Enforcement or his designee shall give final approval for the use of distraint, seizure and sale. This includes immobilizing a vehicle using vehicle boots.

D. When initiating booting, or seizure and sale of vehicle, the department shall check with the Department of Motor Vehicles for vehicles registered in the noncustodial parent's name, the address on the vehicle registration, and the name of any lien holder on the vehicle.

E. Once a lien has been filed pursuant to § 63.2-1927 of the Code of Virginia, the department shall send a notice of intent to the noncustodial parent before initiating distraint, including booting of vehicle, seizure and sale action. If there is reason to believe that the noncustodial parent will leave town or hide the asset, the asset can be seized without sending the notice and with proper documentation.

F. If the noncustodial parent contacts the department in response to the intent notice, the department shall request payment of arrears in full. The department shall negotiate a settlement if the noncustodial parent cannot pay the arrears in full. The least acceptable settlement is 5.0% of the arrearage owed or $500, whichever is greater, with additional monthly payments towards the arrears that will satisfy the arrearage within 10 years. The department may initiate distraint, including booting of vehicle, seizure and sale without further notice to the noncustodial parent if the noncustodial parent defaults on the payments as agreed.

G. The department shall send a fieri facias request to each county or city where a lien is filed and a levy is being executed if the noncustodial parent does not contact the department in response to the intent notice.

H. The department shall set a target date for seizure or booting and have the sheriff levy the property or boot the vehicle.

I. Once property has been seized or booted by the sheriff, the department must

(i) Reach a payment agreement with the noncustodial parent of 5.0% of the arrearage owed or $500, whichever is greater, with additional monthly payments towards the arrears that will satisfy the arrearage within 10 years and release the vehicle to the owner;

(ii) Proceed with the sale of the vehicle pursuant to § 63.2-1933 of the Code of Virginia, or

(iii) At the end of 90 days from the issuance of the writ of fieri facias, release the vehicle to the owner.

J. The department shall send a cancellation notice to the sheriff if a decision is made to terminate the seizure action before the asset is actually seized.

K. If the department sells an asset and it is a motor vehicle, the department shall notify the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue clear title to the new owner of the vehicle.

[18] Child Support and Gambling Winnings, Clinton Library 10 (2000), www.clintonlibrary.gov/.../647851-child-support-gambling-2.pdf (this authorless PDF is from Cynthia Rice’s files in the Clinton presidential records, but gives no publication reference).

[19] Regarding the Duties of the Department of Social Services, specifically: the authority to collect information regarding motor vehicles of those that have an obligation of child support. Va. Code Ann. § 20-88.53 (B)(4) (2005).

[20] VDSS Fact Sheet, supra note 5.

[21] Id.

[22] The Associated Press, Pink and Blue Parking Boots to Greet Deadbeat Parents in Virginia (Jan. 4, 2000), http://cjonline.com/stories/010400/new_parkingwoes.shtml.

[23] Virginia Division Of Child Support Enforcement Total Collections: SFY 1993 - SFY 2009, Va. Dept. Soc. Serv. (2009-2012), http://www.dss.virginia.gov/geninfo/reports/children/child_support.cgi .

[24] The White House Office of the Press Secretary, New Responsible Fatherhood Initiative to Promote Work and Boost Child Support Payments, (Jan. 26, 2000), http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000204.html.

Endangered Gender Deserves Global Attention for Family Restoration

noreply@blogger.com (Regent Law) — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:25:00 +0000

Just as genocide is the deliberate extermination of a race of people, gendercide is the deliberate extermination of persons of a particular gender. Reproductive female gendercide – killing female fetuses as soon as it becomes clear they are females – is occurring not just in some remote parts of the world. This reproductive gendercide, also known as female feticide, is occurring around the globe.

This phenomenon is resulting in a serious ratio imbalance for myriad nations. The natural sex ratio balance for any society is generally 100 girls for every 103-106 boys. Sex ratios at birth are being severely skewed by reproductive choices around the world. For example, recent research indicates that India’s sex ratio imbalance in 2008 was 112 boys for every 100 girls; Albania reported an imbalance of 113 boys for every 100 girls; China nationally reported a sex ratio imbalance of 118 boys for every 100 girls. In some parts of that country that ratio skews to 168 boys to 100 girls in third births. The west is just slightly behind eastern nations, as in the UK the sex ratio is also skewed 108 boys to 100 girls; the US rate is 107 – and these rates are not abating. See The War on Baby Girls: Gendercide, The Economist, available at http://www.economist.com/node/15606229, (May 4, 2010). These ratios have been moving toward greater imbalance since 2010, and are expected to continue that course into 2050. These ratios are not limited by geographic location, nor are they limited by economic ability. In fact, sex selection is prominent even among higher income families in wealthy nations. Why is that? Reproductive choice in gender selection has been aided by medical technology to those who can afford it. The proliferation and affordability of ultra sound testing, which allows for a 99% accuracy rate in determining the sex of a fetus has significantly contributed to gendercide worldwide. Another method for sex determination of a fetus – a simple non-invasive pin-prick blood test of the mother – micro-cell fetal DNA testing – which will soon be available is 100% accurate. The results of this ability according to sociological sources suggest that the world is missing more than 163 million females over the past 3 decades. Currently, according to United Nations statistics, there are 61 million fewer girls in the world than boys. To give you a context for that – there are 60 million people in the UK; all the human beings in the combined NY, NJ, and New England area equal 61 million people. That’s a lot of missing people–but that’s what the UN says we’re missing in girls. These are shocking realities.

What does this mean? The low status of females has been combined with abortion on demand, population policies that limit families to a certain number of children, and cultural mores that strongly incentivize son-preference. Girls are devalued by raw gender discrimination working through politics and culture. The evidence suggests that this problem is not abating on its own by a postmodern sense of gender equality. Rather, it is advancing around the world – by public policy in China, by cultural more in other Asian nations, and by parental eugenics in the west. What is needed is significant and concerted cultural, communications, ethical and legal pressure to ensure that no child is aborted simply because she (or he) is the “wrong” sex. I've been writing about this since 1997. See http://ssrn.com/author=183817.

Last weekend a symposium was held on this issue entitled “Endangered Gender: A Discussion on Sex-Selection Abortion,” with the screening of the new documentary “It’s a Girl: The three most dangerous words” was viewed Friday night, followed Saturday morning by an all-star team of global experts in human rights abuses who took on this issue in both its concerns and its potential solutions. Hosted by the Regent University School of Law’s Journal of Law and Public Policy, the Regent Journal of International Law, Regent Students for Life, the International Law Society, and the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights, and the Rule of Law, and sponsored by Diakon Baseball Group and Themus Bar Review, the symposium discussed this tragedy of fetal gender discrimination from several angles of law, policy, and culture.

Mr. Stephen Mosher, President of Population Research Institute, and internationally recognized authority on China and its population issues, discussed his research on coercive population control programs since 1979 when he was a pro-choice atheist invited by the Chinese government as the first American social scientist to that great nation. At that time he witnessed forced abortions under the then “new one-child policy.” This experience led Mosher to reconsider his spiritual conviction and to eventually become a practicing pro-life Catholic. He has testified before Congress as a world population expert, and an expert on human rights abuses, and is the author of the best-selling book A Mother’s Ordeal: One Woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child Policy. His research set the stage for the discussion. Professor David Smolin, the Harwell G. David Professor of Constitutional Law, and the Director of the Center for Children, Law, and Ethics of Cumberland Law School at Samford University in Alabama spoke on the domino effect of skewed sex ratio imbalances in any society. Widely published on the missing girls of China, children’s rights, adoption, abortion, child labor, children as research subjects, and assisted reproductive technology, Professor Smolin brought a big picture perspective to what he termed “parental eugenics” in gender choice. Medical Dr. Prakash Tyagi, of India, Executive Director of GRAVIS, a development agency working toward the self-reliant empowerment of the Indian Thar Desert communities, and founder-director of GRAVIS Hospital where he practices medicine, discussed the medical and cultural aspects of sex selection abortion. An expert in international public health, Dr. Tyagi was a Fulbright scholar in international public health at UNC Chapel Hill, and a Ford Fleishman Fellow at Duke University. His Indian perspective and concern for global public health was both illuminating and personal. As a father of two young daughters himself, he noted that fathers hold the key for their daughters’ future.

The Symposium panel also included Dr. Ana Aspras Steele, former Harvard professor and current President of the DALIT Freedom Network – government relations directed social justice addressing the tragic practice of untouchability perpetrated ever day in Indian society against the Dalit people based on racial and caste discrimination. In her work as director of the DALIT Freedom Network - an evangelical organization focused on economic policy, health care, education, and social justice – Dr. Steele works hands on with women who have been forced to abort their baby girls under cultural and family pressure. Her stories were profound and disturbing, and she foresees a rise in the trafficking of women and children in the face of female fetal endangerment. Finally, and very significantly, Congressman Trent Franks, Representative (R) from Arizona related the issue to slavery and eugenics in world history. Having been a child advocate nearly his entire adult life, from the Arizona House of Representatives, to the Center for Arizona Policy, to the Head of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, he authored of one of the most controversial bills presented in the U.S. Congress last year, PRENDA – the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act – a bill to criminalize the knowing abortion of a child for sex-selective or gender purposes. That Act was passed by the House but failed in the Senate. It will likely be proffered again in light of global sex ratio imbalances and the outright gender discrimination inherent in them.

The Journals will be publishing scholarly articles by the panelists in their upcoming issues. To find out more go to www.regent.edu/endangeredgender. The three most deadliest words in the world should not be “It’s a Girl!”