Saturday, August 26, 2006

Non-Custodial Mothers Should be Showing Support for John Murtari

I was kind of sorry to see that no non-custodial mothers or any of their organizations (if one such animal existed) was involved in supporting this John Murtari. I happen to personally know that a good number of non-custodial mothers are located in upstate New York and have to deal fairly regularly with a court system that thinks it’s okay to treat a non-custodial mother as a second-class citizen.

Not getting involved in this issue or showing any support for this man has allowed fathers rights advocates to grab the issue for themselves and paint it as another example of bias against fathers in court; which, in fact, it is not.

The horror of a moveaway of her children is a constant shadow looming over the lives of millions of non-custodial mothers. They might never see their children again after a moveaway, at least not until they are adults. IF the children even remember their mother, they might find their way back.

Or not.

This is a regular threat in the daily life of a non-custodial mother.

Much of this activity has been facilitated by the court system in order to enable men to get out of paying high child support. Yet there also exists a strain of gender-neutralized feminism that has enabled our legal system to be used against mothers as well. These sad, sick and demented gender-neutralized creatures, in their never-ending attempts to create an androgynous world, will go to any lengths to totally reshape our society in their own gender-neutralized image. AND they don’t care how many lives they have to destroy in order to do it.

These two elements are the genesis of these ongoing custody wars we hear so much about.

People like John Murtari, unfortunately, are frequently the equivalent of ‘collateral damage’ in these ongoing custody and social engineering wars. As there was no bias against fathers exhibited in his case.

Nevertheless although no bias appears evident, it does seem that John Murtari was the victim of a court system that feels it doesn't have to follow the same law that everyone else has to follow, but instead they can do whatever they feel like doing, depending upon their own personal opinion, bias against a particular group, dislike of a certain person, social engineering agenda, whatever.

As basically the laws of New York State DO allow for moveaways, BUT they also allow for child support paid to the custodial parent to be lessened in order to account for the higher expenses involved in visitation by the non-custodial parent. Otherwise the left behind parent is obviously facing a double bind as either they can afford to visit OR pay child support, not both. AND with airfare as expensive as it is, renting a car and a hotel room (because of course the moveaway ALWAYS winds up being half way across the continent, never just to the next state) clearly not getting child support reduced to reflect the new visitation travel expenses involved means you might never see your kids again.

This is John Murtari’s dilemna and it’s a familiar ones to all non-custodial mothers since generally their income is less then custodial fathers, thus they are more likely to be subject to the sort of spiteful and vicious manipulation of a moveaway in an attempt to keep them from seeing their children. Richard Gardner, himself, the PAS expert admitted that 50% of his clients having children alienated from them were mothers. AND who was doing this, but the childrens' fathers. This was back in the 80s when few fathers had custody YET Gardner client caseload was 50% mothers and 50% fathers. So if we are to believe Gardner (and I'll admit it's quesionable if he can be believed on anything, as this statement of his could have been a bizarre attempt to drum up more business from women) anyway if true this could show that custodial fathers are even MORE likely to be alienating then custodial mothers.

Anyway, John Murtari's problem should have been a simple enough one to solve except, of course, when you are dealing with a class of court officials who decide to ignore the remedy we already have in place: simply by reducing Murtari's child support to reflect the higher costs of visiting his son after the moveaway to Colorado from New York.

So the Judge(s) responsible for this whole unnecessary uproar should probably be investigated and then suitably disciplined. As we have REAL problems going on in the world and should not have to be subject to this sort of manufactured crisis.

Just my opinion.

Yet at the same time, non-custodial mothers can use the spotlight that has been placed on the moveaway issue through John Murtari’s ordeal to work on getting the law changed that allow a custodial parent to do any ‘moveaway’ of our children. We should call these actions what they are: judicially sanctioned abductions. Since they are nothing but men using the legal systems they have created to benefit themselves and kidnap our children from us. All of this for financial incentive mainly to benefit men.

The Post Standard

Jailed activist refusing food
Thursday, August 10, 2006

By Jim O'Hara
Staff writer

A vocal opponent of the state's divorce and custody laws is refusing to eat or drink as a protest in the Onondaga County Justice Center Jail in Syracuse, where he is serving a six-month sentence for not paying child support.

John Murtari, 49, is serving the sentence in the Justice Center instead of the county penitentiary in Jamesville because of the health services available in the downtown facility, according to sheriff's Sgt. John D'Eredita.

"Apparently, he's taken the position he doesn't want to eat or take any fluids," D'Eredita said.

County Family Court Judge Bryan Hedges said Wednesday he sentenced Murtari about a week ago to six months in jail for the willful failure to pay child support.

According to Hedges, he gave Murtari the option of a probationary sentence, but Murtari chose a jail sentence instead.

Murtari is well-known around the courthouse, where he has long protested the system that granted his ex-wife custody of their son following years of legal battles. He also has protested the support orders and the fact his wife moved across the country with their son, now 13.

A former Lysander resident now living in Wayne County, Murtari organized Kids-Right, a national organization that advocates a child's right to both parents.

Hedges said Murtari has chronicled his battle on his Web site - - and the recently imposed jail sentence has attracted a lot of attention. The judge said he has received numerous e-mails about the case and his law clerk has been fielding phone calls "from around the country and around the world" about the case.

A small group of supporters gathered Wednesday outside the Onondaga County Courthouse to protest Murtari's jail sentence and to call for changes in the way noncustodial parents are treated by the courts.

"There are far too many criminals on the streets to be filling jail cells with folks who have fallen on hard times," said Kris Titus, of Fathers for Justice in Canada.

Murtari's lawyer Charles Keller said his client is not refusing to pay support, he's simply unable to pay the amount the court has ordered


Happy Bullet said...


I don't get you sometimes. I agreed with a lot of this, but do you really believe that statements like this:

"Since they are nothing but men using the legal systems they have created to benefit themselves and kidnap our children from us. All of this for financial incentive mainly to benefit men."

Are true? If more men had custody of children than women it would surely logically follow, but quite the contrary is the case. To a large degree.

This strikes me as a strange attempt at an attack on "the patriarchy" the evidence for existence of which points entirely to the existence of the opposite, a "matriarchy". Very strange...

NYMOM said...

It quite simple and not confusing at all...

Men are using John Martari as an example of bias in the court against fathers. When in fact, there is no bias in the court against fathers.

More mothers then fathers had custody of children because quite simple most men never paid any attention to their children or wanted custody of them. Few families ever saw the inside of a courtroom to decide these issues, so historically mothers had default custody of their kids.

Mothers in every society everywhere have always have always nurtured and raised the children of this world. This is not some gift we got from the legal system in western civilization, as every other society in the world, even those nutty muslims (under Sharia law) recognizes that a child up to about the age of 7 or so should be in the custody of his mother and her family. AND until recently (mainly due to a combination of high child support guidelines and gender neutralized feminists running amuck) our society followed the same common sense logic.

Anyone with half a brain who looked at today's statistics and studies honestly, could see that going through the legal system to decide custody has favored MEN...

Thus, I think non-custodial mothers should support John Murturi, not because I believe for a minute that he faced discrimination, but because supporting him will ultimately help mothers and children.

As these moveaways are very frequently used by non-custodial fathers to destroy the mother/child bond due to male jealousy of it...

Additionally it has the potential to rein in the power of our legal system, which has shown itself unfit to rule on issues concerning mothers and children.

So just because men are too stupid to see the advantage the courts give them in custody proceedings is no reason that women should miss an opportunity to drive a stake through the evil heart of these gender neutralized feminists and mens rights nuts who have taken over the family court system.

This is an opportunity to: dare I say it, 'neuter' both groups...

Happy Bullet said...


Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000. Total Custodial Fathers 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).

That's the sort of reason I believe otherwise. If there is some kind of fault in believing statistics like this then please tell me.

You know, I'm right with you on some of this gender neutral stuff. The times when I think I, and MRAs in general, support gender neutral policy is when having a gender biased policy can result in unfairly gender biased rulings. I say that because I believe that you are not 100% gender neutral yourself. In this post you have said that John Murtari faces the same injustice that many non-custodial mothers face. I agree with you on this, but it has crossed the gender gap - that is, it is a gender neutral issue. Which is why you are saying women should look at the issue as well. You can't be saying it is an injustice when men face the issue, as you appear to support John Murtari...

Surely you must also know that there is never any "collusion" between gender neutral feminists and MRAs. Their political positions are almost diametrically opposing.

This blog would probably be really good if you dropped the completely random and (from all appearances AFAIK) illogical attacks on men. I think you're hurting some of your own causes by doing so.

I got that statistic from putting in google 'statistics custody divorce' and looking at the first page:

There are some other interesting statistics in there. Please provide refuting statistics if you know of any...

Cheers anyway.

NYMOM said...

First of all those census numbers do not reflect the total reality as there are over 5 million children in the custody of their grandparents, which the American Assn. of Retired Persons (AARP) reports. Many of them paternal grandparents, acting as surrogates for fathers, just to help them get out of paying child support. AND they are just as vicious to the child's mother as the father is, so for me it's the same issue.

Second of all, I do not know if those census numbers reflect Joint Legal custody, with fathers getting either residential or primary, which is equivalent to sole custody. Or if those numbers only reflect fathers having sole custody.

It's not entirely clear to be that the census is accurately capturing the whole picture here or is under reporting the true numbers of fathers who have custody.

Second of all, it should be obvious I'm not gender neutral.

As I'll become gender neutral the day some man has to carry a child for 9 months, go through inconvenient and painful medical procedures for most of that period, have his body totally disfigured and then finally face anywhere from 10 to 24 hours in labor to bring a child forth...

THEN and only then can anyone convince me that men should have the same rights as mothers...since men invest, contribute, risk or bring absolutely NOTHING to the table vis-a-vis children.



AND until the day that changes don't come on my blog talking to me about gender bearing children is NOT gender neutral...

Third and lastly, this is a blog that I've created to discuss ways to support MOTHERS...So if you have some imput regarding that issue I'll be happy to hear it.

NYMOM said...

BTW, this is not a place to discuss ways to improve the lives of men but of improving the lives of MOTHERS and their children...

That's what this blog is about.

So don't bother coming back if you don't have some imput on that issue as it's the ONLY one I care about...John Murtari, the census and any other statistics are relevant here only in so far as they relate to that issue: improving the lives of mothers and their children...

You want to talk about other issues, then create your own blog.

silverside said...

The census numbers are bad for a number of reasons.

1) The census breaks down families by married couple family, female householder - no husband present, and male householder - no wife present. Since I work with demographic data, I have actually exchanged emails with the census as to where living together couples with children go. Not clear at all. Some male householders may be living with their children and the mother of their children. So it's hopelessly messy.

2) As NYMOM mentions, if you want to look at discrimination per se, you have to limit your analysis to disputed custody cases and see what the results are there. There are a number of studies indicating that when men challenge mothers for custody, they get some form of it about 70% of the time. This is not going to show up in the Census figures (even given the caveats above) because in cases where there is no marriage, a female head of household will be the rule because it's the default position 99% of the time. He wasn't around, she gave birth, kid stays with her.

3) I also believe, based on census data, that there is a strong possibility that the male householder female householder data is strongly skewed by location. It's no secret that in most major American cities, especially among low-income populations, single mother households are very high. Much of this has to do with many complicated socio-economic factors, such as the utter destruction of the US manufacturing base and the family-sustaining jobs it offered young men with little education. The influx of drugs, a reliance on crime, increased prison time, racism, and so forth have further decreased the number of marriagiable men in these communities. (Won't even go into gangsta culture here, which encourages men to view women as "ho's" not as your wife.)Having a "baby daddy" has emerged as the most workable strategy for mothers under the circumstances. This is not necessarily of their choosing--low-income women dream of white-picket fences as much as women of greater means. But they know that their chances of winning that lottery are not that great. Or if they do get the fence, it will be because they earned it themselves in the workforce, not because some man provided it for them.

Now, given that reality in the cities, rural areas can look very different. I ran the 2000 Census numbers by county in New York State by female householder, no husband present (with children under 18) v. male householder, no wife present (with children under 18). ENORMOUS DIFFERENCES. Female householders were heavily weighted towards New York City and its burroughs, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse--all the families we discussed where "baby daddy" never was part of the picture, mostly because he's been in jail for drugs for the past five years, not because he lost custody in court. In the rural areas, the numbers ARE ALMOST EQUAL in some counties. Is this because Fathers Rights people and their allies have been successful in swinging family court decisions? Maybe, because rural people, even poor people, are more likely to choose marriage than their urban counterparts. Is it because their are more cohabitating couples with children who are being recorded by the Census as male householder? Maybe a little of both.

Hopefully, the census will create a living together, bio mom and bio dad category for the next census, so we can clean up the data.

[Of course, the census is not going to be clear on custodial parents, male or female, who have remarried either. So the data will not shed light on that either.]

Sorry for going on so long!

NYMOM said...

Thanks for your explanation silverside.

Don't worry about it being long as sometimes a long explanation is essential to understanding the facts.

So essentially the census could be either over or under reporting the numbers of custodial fathers or mothers too for that matter.

Since it really just takes data from unmarried male heads of household with children under 18 residing there and assumes they are custodial. AND vice versa with female heads of household...but your own informal study showed the numbers flipped for city versus rural...

That's interesting too...

Cities are generally more liberal I think then rural areas, so maybe the county courts in those rural areas are favoring fathers...the problem is that gender neutral feminists in cities ALSO frequently favor fathers in custody decisions. But as you said most of the custodial mothers in NYC are default custodial, so that issue wouldn't really be apparent to most people...

It's actually those old patriarchs who are more likely to award mothers custody and they are a dying breed...

So it doesn't look good for the mothers following us. In essence our daughters will live in a world where custody of their children will be allowed to be used as a club against them.

That's what these idiot feminists have left behind as their legacy...

Stupid asses...

BTW, that's why I also use the AARP numbers for custodial grandparents...they estimate about 5 million but they don't break it down into paternal grandparents vs. maternal...and it does make a difference.

Silverside thanks for posting that interesting read on the census numbers and rural versus city results...I remember us discussing this before but it was a while back so you refreshed my memory which is always good...

NYMOM said...

BTW, Silverside.

What your take on this John Murtari.

Should non-custodial mothers support him or is he just another grandstander trying to get attention for fathers rights nuts?????

Anonymous said...

I don't know enough about his case. I do remember a few years ago, that he was apparently stalking Hillary Clinton's office in Syracuse, and it was enough to freak out a staff member. But even a fruitcake can have a point once in a while, just like a broken clock is right twice a day. As a nc mom, I kind of wish that the former Mrs. Murtari would count her blessings. She may have had a good reason for leaving the state--and she may have had good solid reasons for leaving Mr. Murtani behind. Sometimes a moveaway may be justified. But if she can get by without full freight on the child support, why doesn't she just cut him loose? She just keeps dangling with a guy who does seem a few cards short of a deck, and with predicable results.


NYMOM said...

I'm not sure she is getting by paying the full freight herself...she may be getting public benefits of one kind or another that they want Murtari's child support to reimburse Colo. for...

Remember some states even consider subsidiarized child care and medical coverage to be reimburseable public benefits and using child support from the non-custodial parent for that purpose...

The problem is a lot of these rules governing child support have to be applied across the board whether or not you are self-supporting and don't need the child support. It's not legal to waive it...

One of my previous posts highlighted how many middle and upper class parents are caught in a vise as their collection helps the state get matching funds to support TANF families. In ND, for instance, 60,000 families pay child support and only 5,000 collect TANF, BUT the entire 60,000 help ND get federal matching funds to pay that TANF...

So as we discussed earlier, the problem in child support is complicated as many many people are making money off collecting it today.

Also even if he is something of a nut, I agree with him about that moveaway. They had Joint Custody before she did it...and their child was like 4 years old...

I mean fortunately he was in a position to travel to CO and get visitation of his son, since a 4 year old can forget you very easily...

So like you said even a stopped clock is right twice a day...and we cannot trust the judicial system to decide these cases individually...thus there should be a blanket law forbidding moveaways; at least until the children are 14 or so and have a chance to speak their mind about it...

What if he was the mother of some 4 year old whose dirtbag father got custody just to get out of paying child support? That happens too frequently under our current system and these kids and mothers might never see each other again...

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I can be totally black and white about it. I don't think it's always good, but then I don't think it's always bad either. Being in certain situations can basically make the custodial mom a prisoner. If I had custody and my daughter didn't mind leaving, I would leave the state in a New York minute. If I could. But of course that will never happen. So I wait till she's out of high school. Four more years till I'm no longer a prisoner in this cesspool of a county.

Of course, on some level I made the decision to remain where I am. I already know in advance that my daughter would not be going with me, so I stay. But even though it's my "decision" (stay and see your child, even though it means low paying jobs and endless harrassment from the ex which the courts will never stop or discourage in anyway vs. leave with the idea that I might set up a "better" life somewhere else which won't really happen because I'll miss my daughter and still feel like shit), it doesn't feel like I have much "choice."


NYMOM said...

No you're right you don't have much choice in the matter.

But how much worse would it be if you didn't even have the limited choice you do in order to be permitted to stay in your daughter's life?

What if your ex was in the military, for instance, and decided to relocate to a military base in Germany or Hawaii with your child when he first was given custody and your child was 4 years old?

Or he relocated half way across the US and you had other family obligations, so you could not follow?

I mean as soon as you make any commitment: job, marriage, children, your choices do become more limited, that's a given. But these moveaway situations, especially of young children, (frequently made for no good reason) should not be a choice any parent is permitted to make.

AND NYS does allow the custodial parent to do just that, automatically. The ONLY mandatory requirement is a 30 day notice of your new address and some don't even do that.

So it's up to the non-custodial parent to try to track them down, sometimes with no willing help from the courts, and get a lawyer in whatever state they've relocated too and try to get some sort of contact/visitation order enforced.

Clearly a system like this evolved at a time when divorces were few and most people did not dispute custody. Today it simply isn't workable anymore, as our divorce rate is at 50% and every action involving kids appears to be headed into the legal system.

So the laws need to be changed to address this change in family relationships.

I'll admit it will make things more difficult for the single mothers we discussed who have default custody only and now can move willy nilly all over the country with no permission, but guess what, I don't think we should target every law and public policy to make sure that people who do not follow the rules have things easier then those who do.

It's the same thing that has happened with child support. We can never get any changes made in how it is handled either because of the small number of family who need TANF funds, which are reimbursed through the collection of child support from other families...

So it is becoming a little much already.

Anonymous said...


Mommy can we go visit all the other democrat the abortion clinic dumpster?

democrats make sure children can go to school
just like mommy does, and democrats will make
sure they graduate from school even when they
can't read or write because it isn't right to punish
a child by not graduating him or her when the
other kids who did learn graduate.

Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does, so you never have to work my child, democrats will take and take to give to you
until there are no more rich to take from, then we
will see what democracy truely is.

One thing about democrats that makes absolutely no sense is their desire
to wipe themselves off the face of the world,
be it by abortion or trying to appease enemies
who's one mission it is to help them accomplish this

When you teach children that they are entitled
to the same benefits in life as others who do
earn their way with hard work, why would they
have any desire to do anything but stand in a
welfare line waiting for a handout. By rightisright

NYMOM said...

The issues I discuss on this blog are bigger then which political party you belong to...

customhair said...

I have a facebook group called "Mothers without Custody" and another group called

See you there..Heidi

Anonymous said...

Gotta love how you feminazi's twist everything around to make it look like it is mothers who are picked on and fathers or men are the root cause of all of your problems.

You are all so full of it is insane. I will bet you love the words of these insane radical feminazi:

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.' -- Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck". Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator

He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." -- Marilyn French

You all sicken me. Twist and turn the facts all you want but it is a known fact that there is extreme gender bias against fathers in the family court system and it is fathers who have been destroyed by the feminazi ideology more than anything else. Of course I will bet your the type who cheers whenever a father commits suicide because of your actions hmmmm?

NYMOM said...

I am allowing the following comment to be posted even though the writer clearly misunderstood the position I took on John Murtari...or 'played stupid' and pretended to misunderstand it.

It goes to show how these fathers rights nuts love painting themselves as victims so much that they'll even attack a position that mirrors their own.