The father’s rights movement recently made headlines in England when some admittedly radical members of the group Fathers 4 Justice were arrested after allegedly plotting to kidnap prime minister Tony Blair’s children.

While nothing that dramatic has happened here in New Hampshire, father’s rights activists are nonetheless making their voices heard. They attend legislative hearings, speak out at public forums and pen innumerable letters to editors. Aggrieved dads gave much of the testimony heard by the Citizens’ Commission on the State Courts, which held a series of public hearings in the summer and fall of 2005. One of the most high-profile activists in the state is Marc Snider, whose Web site, www.NHcustody.org, has attracted attention recently due to his videotaping of legislative committee hearings.

The stories told at the public hearings, and the anecdotes published on Snider’s Web site, are often emotional and difficult to read. But as heart-rending as they can be, there’s also something vaguely unsettling about them. They read like childrens’ fairy tales, with a wicked villain (usually the mother or the judge), a shining hero (the father) and bright strokes of morality. And while that’s the picture the movement tries to paint for itself, it’s more complicated than that.

Critics say that underneath much of the rhetoric are rants that insinuate a dark conspiracy against fathers, rants that, in some cases, carry misogynistic undertones. Some are even afraid of criticizing the movement, lest they attract the attention of radical fringe groups. But the fact that there is a dark side to this movement nearly obscures the genuine grievances that some dads have. Perhaps it’s the weight of all these factors that has led almost everyone involved—even the movement’s critics—to agree that there needs to be some kind of reform in the family court system.

shining a light

At first glance, the numbers seem to support claims of bias. According to statistics from the state’s Division of Vital Records Administration, of the just over 5,000 divorces in the state in 2004, almost 2,500 required some kind of custody decision. Of those, full custody was awarded to the mother in 62 percent of the cases. Fathers received full custody only 8 percent of the time. Joint custody accounted for 27 percent of cases, while some other form of shared custody made up the remaining 3 percent. However, according to a 2004 report by the state’s Task Force on Family Law, on average, less than 10 percent of custody disputes end up going to court. In 2004, 174 of the 2,476 custody cases, or 7 percent, were disputed.

Nationally, there are 2.3 million single fathers, 42 percent of whom are divorced, according to a 2003 report by the U.S. Census Bureau. Meanwhile, 4.2 million men nationwide provide child-support payments, according to the Census. Eighty-four percent of all child-support providers are men.

While those seeking reform may be a small percentage of the number of people who go through family courts each year, they are very vocal.

Marc Snider describes himself as “a force for family law reform.” For the last year, he has been one of the loudest critics of the current system, as well as a visible presence at the legislative committee meetings in Concord.

Even on the phone, Snider sounds strident and forceful. His conversational style mimics that of his Web site, www.nhcustody.org—somewhat rambling and disjointed, but consistently on-message.

Snider went through a divorce four years ago that he says victimized him and his then 5-year-old daughter. Going through the family law system, Snider says he experienced a tremendous amount of bias, “specifically and solely because I was a father.”

The grievances of Snider and other Granite State fathers are generally the same: they’re looking for increased access to their children and more flexible custody rulings; more equitable child support payments; and a court system that is not biased against men. These demands have generated a host of legislative reforms, including HB 529, a bill currently in the New Hampshire Senate that would obligate family court judges to first consider joint physical custody of a child.

Snider and others like Michael Geanoulis, president of the New Hampshire chapter of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, argue that forcing the courts to begin custody decisions with a presumption of joint custody between parents is best for children and families because it keeps both parents in a child’s life.

Opponents of the bill argue that joint custody arrangements are difficult to work out, and that each case should be judged individually, not according to a set standard.

Snider started his Web site in January 2005 after acquainting himself with other non-custodial parents, mostly fathers, who were in similar situations. His goal is to promote reform and to expose those who have been “operating from the shadows for many years.”

These so-called shadowy figures, according to Snider, are the N.H. Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and the Children’s Alliance of New Hampshire. “The Coalition in particular has been the primary driver of anti-father policy in New Hampshire family law,” he says. “But they have both enacted anti-father legislation and actively oppose reforms.”

Much of Snider’s ire is directed at the Coalition, which he says has grown from an advocacy group for victims of domestic and sexual violence to a “misandrist, anti-fatherhood organization.” In particular, Snider takes issue with the fact that Linda Griebsch, the coalition’s public policy director, is also chair of the state’s guardian ad litem board. A guardian ad litem is an independent, court appointed advocate for a child in custody proceedings.

The board is “teaching the judiciary directly, the judges and marital masters ... that three quarters or more of fathers who want custody of children should be presumed a batterer, as opposed to an equal parent,” he says. “That’s why child custody stats are so slanted.”

To Snider, this conflict of interest is made more galling because Gov. John Lynch recently ordered an investigation into the state Department of Health and Human Services’ selection of economist Mark Rogers to audit the state’s child support guidelines after it was discovered that Rogers had a prior conviction for failure to pay child support.

Snider and his Web site received a healthy dose of publicity on Jan. 26 when the Concord Monitor ran a front page article on Snider’s videotaping of House Children and Family Law Committee meetings at the State House. According to the article, lobbyists at the meetings reported feeling intimidated by the Snider.

Snider says he tapes state committee hearings to keep everyone honest, especially since a full transcript of the meeting is not recorded.  Public policy is too often enacted out of public view, he says, and his camera and Web site are like a spotlight. As for the complaints, Snider wrote a letter of rebuttal to the committee and the Governor’s Executive Council, although he says he hasn’t heard a reply.

Is it intimidating? Snider says yes, but only if those who are being videotaped have something to hide.

“I’m quite sure the videotaping of these public hearings is intimidating to the degree that they do not want their disingenuous and meritless and gender-biased arguments made public,” he says.

Vicky Jaffe, a spokesperson for the Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, says the videotaping was a “non-story” and is surprised over the publicity that’s been generated over it. No formal complaints were filed against Snider, she says.

Snider compares these allegations of intimidation to accusations of domestic violence during divorce and custody proceedings. In a letter dated Jan. 27 to Gov. John Lynch (which he also posted on nhcustody.org), Snider writes that he had a “false allegation of domestic violence” filed against him during divorce proceedings.

“You have to draw a parallel, because a similar allegation like this was made in family court without similar back-up and support,” Snider says. “It’s reflective of what’s wrong with the system.”

In any case, Snider does not believe that the complaints, or the publicity surrounding them, hurt his cause at all.

“Anything brings public light to this situation is beneficial,” he says. “The things being done up there are not on the up and up.”

a deluge of legislation

The higher profile the father’s rights movement has gained in New Hampshire in the last year is largely the result of a series of bills that have come before the Legislature.

Rep. David Bickford (R-New Durham) is at the forefront of legislative reform for fathers. Bickford is sponsoring half a dozen bills this session that all deal with custody and child support issues. They include HB 1580, which would modify child support requirements based on the amount of time a child spends with each parent, and HB 529, which would require family courts to start any custody decision with the presumption of equal custody between parents.

Bickford says he took up the issue after “seeing what was happening with my friends in the neighborhood.”

“People are just being devastated in their divorces,” he says. “They get married, they think they’re doing the right thing, and for one reason or another, they separate and then there’s a system of apartheid. One parent has to give up their children, and I just think that’s incredibly wrong.”

Nationally, only seven states—Connecticut, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington—start with a presumption of joint custody, but only if both parents agree. Six states—Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin—call for some kind of equal physical custody.

Bickford was also primary sponsor last session of HB 640, which he says has brought a “completely different philosophy” to custody proceedings. In fact, the law replaces the word “custody” in state statutes with “parental rights and responsibilities” and requires parents to devise a shared parenting plan. This helps soften the often adversarial nature of divorce and custody proceedings, he says.

“There’s no owner of the children anymore,” Bickford says. “That’s a major, major change in understanding.”

Geanoulis says that legislation like HB 640 has gone a long way in making custody proceedings fairer, but “how that’s going to pan out remains to be seen,” he says.

“Maybe things will change going forward, but I don’t hold out too much hope, judging from complaints I get from fathers (by) e-mail.”

If HB 640 was a “major change” then HB 529 is downright radical. The proposal that calls for the presumption of shared physical custody at the outset of all proceedings passed the House in the last session. It’s still in committee in the Senate, and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 21.

If shared custody is not in the child’s best interest, then the bill would require the court to detail the reasons why in a written order. The bill also sets criteria for what constitutes the best interest of a child. This would be a significant change, according to Bickford, because it gives non-custodial parents the opportunity to appeal a custody decision. Previously, a judge, marital master or guardian ad litem could “totally set aside evidence and rule otherwise and nobody can do anything about that because of (their) broad discretion,” Bickford says.

The N.H. Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and the Children’s Alliance of New Hampshire have testified against HB 529. Vicky Jaffe said the Coalition opposes HB 529 because it believes shared custody is not a good idea in cases of high conflict divorce.

“The Coalition is focused on the best interest of the child, and if there’s been violence in the relationship, shared physical custody is not a workable solution,” she says. According to Jaffe, though the bill’s requirements may sound like common sense, equal physical custody is not always a workable situation for families and could be detrimental to the child.

The Coalition’s argument echoes the opinions of many critics of the bill, and the father’s rights movement in general: that there’s too much focus on what each parent “gets” (whether it’s the amount of child support paid or the number of hours with the child) instead of what most benefits the child.

Bickford says that objections from the bills critics are based on the idea that between 75 and 80 percent of fathers seeking custody fit the profile of a batterer, a statistic he says is false.

“They seem to have the impression we should presume all dads are batterers and go from there,” he says.

Like Snider, Geanoulis believes that organizations like the N.H. Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence are spreading unfair statistics.

“They’ve been up there giving testimony that’s utterly unsubstantiated and outright false,” he says. “I was there when they told (a committee) a number of times … (that) any father who seeks custody fits the profile of abuser.”

However, Jaffe says the Coalition has never mentioned those statistics.

“I don’t know where that comes from,” she says. “The coalition has nothing against fathers and nothing against fit fathers who love children and care about them.” Currently, joint custody is always an option, but it’s not the default choice.

disturbing tactics

Judith Statdman Tucker lives in Portsmouth and is editor of the Web site www.mothersmovement.org, a mothers’ advocacy Web site; she also served as senior director of the non-profit advocacy group Mothers & More from 2000 to 2003. Tucker wrote an essay critical of the father’s rights movement in June 2005, for which she received a deluge of angry e-mails, some of which contained abusive and threatening language. The darker side of the movement is downright creepy, with not-so-subtle undertones of misogyny and a desire for patriarchal control, according to Tucker. Couched in much of the rhetoric are conspiracy theories and outlandish tales of an organized movement directed against men. 

“(Fathers groups say) it’s (the National Organization of Women’s) fault, it’s domestic violence organizations’ fault,” Tucker says during a recent interview. “All these people are somehow standing in the way of justice for fathers and justice for families,” she says.

The movement’s tactics are “sort of torn from the neo-conservative playbook,” Tucker says, the idea of using subtle lobbying tactics and small legislative reforms to influence larger change. That’s what’s most disturbing about the legislation making its way through the State House. A lot of the language in the bills is “very vague,” she says. Tucker also fears that with the volume of legislation that’s been filed, New Hampshire may be being used “as a test case in some ways” to see which reforms can pass.

“(Fathers groups) are calling attention to a real issue, but the solutions proposed are very unfair to women and children in many ways,” she says.

But Tucker does agree with the most basic tenet of the movement, that there needs to be an overhaul in the family court system. “The way the court system is now actually encourages conflict,” she says. “I think it needs to be overhauled, but not what the father’s rights groups are looking for.”

working toward reform

Several committees were convened in 2004 to look at ways to improve the state’s child support guidelines and, in general, overhaul the family court system. A report by the Judicial Branch Family Division Implementation Committee specifically identified the “adversarial system” of the family courts as an area in need of reform.

“It is the goal of this new process to move these extremely important matters through the court system in a far speedier and less adversarial way,” the report states.

Ellen Musinsky is a professor at Franklin Pierce College who practiced law in New Hampshire for 25 years, specializing in family law, as well as other areas. Musinsky says the language used in custody law has “created some thoughts about ownership and rights and who wins and loses.”

In the last 25 years, she says, the direction “is to really move from that language entirely to … the new language about doing parenting plans.”

But shared physical custody, which many father’s groups are seeking, may not be such a good idea, according to Musinsky.

“I think that in many cases, that assumption is workable, but I think it isn’t a good idea to impose it on all families,” she says.

High-conflict divorces can be made worse if there’s a presumption of shared custody, according to Musinsky. “I really think the right way to deal with those cases is on an individualistic basis, either through … mediation … or to let the courts (decide),” she says.

Implementing HB 640 was a “big change,” Musinsky says, and she thinks that lawmakers should slow down before enacting any further reforms.

“It might work right, but I think rational policy making would be to hold on for a while and see what this does before making other changes,” she says. “The Legislature has to be very careful when making changes like this.”

And while the adversarial system may not be the best of all possible options, Musinsky feels there is a place for it in family law.

“No person who’s been involved in family law practice feels the adversarial system feels good,” Musinsky says. But much in the same way there are right and wrong parties when a business relationship falls apart, for example, there can be right and wrong parties in family law.

“If we’re going to have a fault-based system, people may not be nice, because there may be a party actually at fault,” Musinsky says. “A lot of times, people choose to leave their spouses because they’re really concerned if they don’t, the kids will be harmed. That’s not going to work out well in a system where you try and sit around and work out things nicely.”

As for bias in the courts, Musinsky believes that’s simply a result of traditional gender notions that are still hanging around.

“I think there’s a bias toward keeping things as stable as possible when … parents split up, and to an extent, that means maintaining some level of status quo,” she says. “If the (mother) has been primary caretaker, it will appear there’s a gender bias. That’s because the presumption will be the status quo, and because we haven’t moved as a society to that 50/50 (division) of parenting.”

through the eyes of children

As a child, Michael Geanoulis’ parents went through a painful divorce, an experience he would later relive as an adult. “I think of myself as being a narrow survivor of a single parent home,” he says.

The organization he serves as president of, the New Hampshire Chapter of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, describes its mission as “to assist state and local efforts compatible with the goal of assisting fathers to remain actively involved in the lives of their children regardless of marital status.”

In addition, Geanoulis, of New Castle, is a member of the state’s Commission on the Status of Men and frequently testifies on issues of “the father-child connection, fatherlessness … and looking for ways to bring fathers closer together.” Geanoulis has been involved in father’s rights issues for the last 10 years. Though he takes a more moderated approach, he says he’s “in close contact” with Snider.

“Marc is one of my favorites in social reform (activism),” Geanoulis says. “Both of us consider both mothers and fathers important for children.”

Geanoulis contends that there is a dearth of information on the role that fathers play in child development, regardless of whether parents are divorced or together. But when divorces do occur, a father’s role is even more marginalized, he says.

“Because of the bias and prejudices that evolved out of the primary caretaker syndrome and the lactation needs of babies, that was kind of etched into permanency without a recognition that, as children evolve out of the first few months, they need a paternal influence in life. Courts generally feel that mothers are nurturers and a father is only supposed to go out and be the breadwinner,” he says.

Geanoulis was present at many of the public hearings for the Citizens Commission on the State Courts. He says that the majority of people testifying were non-custodial parents unhappy with the current system. “That’s the best indicator something is wrong,” he says. About a dozen people testified at each of the Commission’s 11 public hearings throughout the state. Transcripts of each hearing are posted on the Commission’s Web site, www.nhcitcourts.org, and much of the testimony comes from fathers who said they were treated unfairly by the court system. During the Portsmouth hearing, Steve Vogl urged for an end to the “adversarial” nature of the court system. A mediator and former lawyer, Vogl himself went through a difficult divorce that he said consumed two and a half years of his life and cost him $80,000 in legal fees.

“The eighty thousand dollars that I spent was simply the cost of asking the court to allow a father the ability to parent his child and a child the ability to be parented by her father,” he said, according to the transcript on the Commission’s Web site.

Another father, Wayne Wood, told how he spent two years in the court system trying to prove that he paid an adequate amount of child support.

“There’s an awful lot of people on the bench that have an agenda that is in contrast to the best interest of family. I should be considered as an equal parent in that court, not as a child support payment, not as a, you know, a person that’s a problem. I’m not a problem. But that’s the only way they look at fathers. You go in there and they make the presumption and assumption that you are bad,” Wood told the commission.

Laura Kiernan, communications director for the New Hampshire judicial branch, said that members of the Commission have made a “very big effort” to communicate with fathers groups, and that a sub-committee on the family courts has been discussing possible changes.

Geanoulis notes that the “atmosphere is a little more charged these days,” with committee testimony and bills seeking to reform custody proceedings and the child support system. He suggests the rising debate is creating angst and anxiety among those invested in maintaining the current system.

But Jaffe says activists like Snider have largely set the tone. She described Snider’s Web site as “an angry site.”

“We don’t want to engage them on a debate on that level,” she says. “The coalition wants children to be in good parenting situations. We’re much more about best interests of the child.”

In the meantime, Geanoulis is lobbying hard for HB 529 and worrying about the future for fathers.

“I hope that sometime going forward, the integrity of the institution of marriage will be reestablished and that divorce will be made a little more difficult,” he says. “And when people get married, they should do so looking at the institution of marriage through the eyes of children.”