logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.

 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Help Lines for Men
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by



Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)


Missouri: SB 551 move-away bill killed

From: Dave Usher  
Sent: April 13, 2001 05:53

Subject: ACFCmo: SB 551 move-away bill killed


Thanks to Mike Loebner for catching this big fish. We won! The Senate ripped the Yeckel / Simms move-away changes out of the bill.

[Full Story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2001 04 13] (Link no longer functions, and no archived copy of the article could be found)

Dave Usher

We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace

If a young boy cannot grow up expecting to be a father and husband, then how can this be America?

— Dave Usher

The American Coalition for Fathers and Children
800 978-DADS
ACFC Missouri Coaltion Website

We should be thankful we don't get as much government as we have paid for.

— Will Rogers

A word of caution to the overly optimistic.  Although, as per the newspaper article,

The [Missouri Supreme] court said that judges should use the state statute instead of precedents set by past cases,

that must not be taken to mean that judges must do so. Without any doubt, if the wording in the preceding paragraph reflects accurately what the Supreme Court judges said, that leaves the door wide open for liberal judicial discretion in the lower courts. Only time will tell. I'm sure that what will actually happen now will be affected largely by how much this ruling might cut into the earnings of the divorce industry.

The court said that under the statute, relocation requests should be judged on whether the move is in the best interests of the child and whether the relocating parent is acting in good faith. If the relocation is permitted, courts must order visitation and telephone access or custody that ensures "the child has frequent, continuing and meaningful contact with the nonrelocating" parent.

Courts also are supposed to specify who pays for transportation costs.

Let's hope for the best. At least it is a step in the right direction.


The transcript of :

Supreme Court of Missouri
Case Style: Laurie (Woods) Stowe, Respondent v. Donald Ray Spence, Jr., et al.,(FN1), Appellants.

See also:

California "Move Away" Bill Defeated By Massive Opposition, Men's News Daily, May 10, 2006

See also: Family Law — Table of Contents

Posted 2001 04 13
2003 05 02 (added reference to Family Law — Table of Contents