The flaw in this piece is that Clark Rockefeller ... or whatever his name actually turns out to be ... did not lose custody of "Snooks" (are these people serious, calling a child that?) because of any anti-father bias in family court. He lost it because he refused to substantiate his identity during proceedings.

In other words, he was dodgy in court, and therefore was treated in the way that dodgy people are usually treated by courts ... whether they're fathers, mothers, sisters, uncles, whatever. His past, or lack of one, caught up with him, and his refusal, then and now, to identify himself, is his own problem.

No. The flaw is not that Rockefeller alias Chicester alias etc. refused to substantiate his identity. The flaw is that the majority of fathers who can and do substantiate their identities are frequently subject to the same coercive measures resulting in frustrated access scenarios that this apparent criminal experienced. In short, almost all fathers are treated like criminals. They keep saying this in online posts. They are not a small disgruntled minority. They are multitude.

Whether or not fathers are wrong by courts, is immaterial to THIS one example. It is a FACT that he DID NOT substantiate his identity, and thereby forfeited custody.

He chose being secretive and sneaky, over having his kid. It's just that simple. Had he identified himself, and THEN lost custody, THAT might actually have been an example of a wronged father. But this is not how things have turned out.

Rockefeller or Whatshisname is NOT an example of "wronged father"-- by virtue of his own continual con-game -- and it is incredible that someone would hold him up as one. If he were a truly virtuous father worthy of having his child, he would not have forfeited his ability to claim her by remaining a shadowy figure. He would, instead, have disclosed his identity and proceeded properly with a custody claim.

But he didn't.

People who favor fathers' rights ... and I guess I count myself among them, given that I agree they usually get short-shrift in family courts ... need to do something known as "picking their battles." Whatshisname is NOT someone they should be holding up as a "wronged father" because in fact he is NOT one. He is, instead, a craven, dodgy con-man who chose to continue his con, rather than have his child. Fathers' rights advocates are not helping their case by defending this particular creature.

There are plenty of other examples of wronged fathers one could use. Don't use Whatshisname. He doesn't deserve your time or anyone else's. There are other wronged fathers who do, in fact, deserve to be defended and aided.

Take care of them ... not Whatshisname.

"The flaw in this piece is that Clark Rockefeller ... or whatever his name actually turns out to be ... did not lose custody of "Snooks" (are these people serious, calling a child that?) because of any anti-father bias in family court. He lost it because he refused to substantiate his identity during proceedings."

"In other words, he was dodgy in court, and therefore was treated in the way that dodgy people are usually treated by courts ... whether they're fathers, mothers, sisters, uncles, whatever. His past, or lack of one, caught up with him, and his refusal, then and now, to identify himself, is his own problem."

Sorry PsiCop, but even on your redefinition, you are still wrong.

This couple (Boss and ???) settled out of court. There were no

proceedings. And this leads to the major flaw in your argument.

Even though you admonish me to isolate this to a single example,

which is a common ploy in rerouting discussion from the issue

that has extended discussion in and around the Boss&??? case,

you go on to talk about how "people are usually treated in court".

You extended the discussion beyond "this one case". Well the

is that not all people are "usually" treated in this way. Good,

unindicted, innocent fathers are treated like ??? every day while

mothers, even those actually convicted of kidnappings are whitewashed

during proceedings and given residential custody. In arguing

that ??? is not a wronged father you are arguing with yourself,

since you are the only one who has presented the argument and

you are the only one who seems to feel a need to pursue it.