Hollywood is not the only industry peddling the story line that flesh-and-blood fathers are an optional accessory in today’s families. Plenty of academics from New York University sociologist Judith Stacey to Cornell psychologist Peggy Drexler also have been arguing that mothers can do just as well raising children with donor fathers as they can with real ones.

In her book, “Raising Boys Without _ Men,” for instance, Ms. Drexler claims & that “maverick moms,” including single women who rely on donor insemination, are just as successful raising boys as mothers who opt for the older model of marriage and motherhood. All that is needed for parental success, according to Ms. Drexler, is a “caring and supportive” model of mothering.

Until recently, there was one primary chal­lenge to the intellectually fashionable view that fathers are fungible. It came from scholarship showing that children did better—e.g., were much more likely to finish school, avoid teen pregnancy and stay out of prison—in intact, mar­ried families than in homes headed by a single parent, most of whom are women.

Yet scholars such as Ms. Drexler were able to retort that much of the research relies on a com­parison of middle-class married families with poor single mothers, so that differences in how children fare might be largely the result of socio­economic differences. In their view, middle-class women who have a decent income and a good education can do just as good a job as a middle-class married mother and father.

That view ran into some major trouble this month, with the release of the report, “My Name is Donor,” by the Commission on Parenthood’s Future (of which I am a member). The report is the first study to compare a large random sample of 485 young adults (18-45) con­ceived through donor insemination to 563 young adults conceived the old-fashioned way.

Significantly, the single women who chose to have a child by donor insemination were better-educated and slightly better off than the parents who had biological children together. So the study’s results cannot be dismissed on the grounds that affluent marrieds were being com­pared to poor single mothers.

The study, which was co-authored by Eliza­beth Marquardt, Norval Glenn and Karen Clark, paints a troubling portrait of the children con­ceived by single mothers who chose donor in­semination. Young adults with maverick moms and donor dads report a sense of confusion, loss and distress about their origins and identity, and about their inability to relate to their biological father and to his kin.

Seventy-one percent of the adult offspring of these single mothers agree that: “My sperm do­nor is half of who I am,” and 78% wonder “what my sperm donor’s family is like.” Half report that they “feel sad” when they see “friends with their biological fathers and mothers.” Donor offspring with single mothers also are much less likely toreport that they can rely on their family. Fifty-six percent of these offspring said they depend more on friends than on family, compared to just 29% of young adults born to two biological parents. The study’s findings echo recent commentary from young adults conceived through donor in semination. Writing in the Washington Post a few years ago, Katrina Clark reported that she envied friends who had both a mother and a father. “That was” when the emptiness came over me. I realized that I am, in a sense, a freak. I really, truly would never have a dad. I finally understood what it meant to be donor-conceived, and I ’”^         hated it.”

In the U.K., Tom Ellis recently decided to try to find his donor dad through a registry that attempts to connect children to their biological fathers. Without him, he told a reporter, “I will never feel whole.”

Such a sense of loss may help explain why the study found that adult offspring of single-mothers-by-choice were 177% more likely to report having had trouble with drugs and alcohol than children born to two biological  parents. Perhaps in part because they did not enjoy the love, discipline and example of a flesh-and-blood father, young adults conceived through donor insemination to a single mother were also 146% more likely to report having been “in trouble with the law” be­fore age 25.

So, despite the latest propaganda in favor of a father-optional future, this study suggests two stubborn truths: Children long to know and be known by their biological fathers, and they are much more likely to thrive when they have their own father in their lives.

On this Father’s Day, men who have managed to be good flesh-and-blood fathers to their chil­dren should take some satisfaction from the find­ings found in “My Daddy’s Name is Donor.” Even if the Big Screen portrays them as superfluous, in the real world, their kids are much more likely to turn out “all right” than kids who only know their daddy as Donor.

Mr. Wilcox is director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and a member of the Commission on Parenthood’s Future.

Divorce attorneys no longer need to hire private investigators to get the dirt on spouses who may be cheating.

All they need now is a computer.

Liz Steele, of Mesa, is going through a divorce and she has no problem with her attorney looking up everything he can on her husband.

“I have nothing against lawyers digging and doing their job,” said Steele. “The more information, the better.”

Much of what Valley attorney Craig Simon needs can be found online, in places like Facebook and MySpace.

Simon is among a growing number of divorce attorneys turning to social networking sites to catch cheaters.

“It pops up and there are pictures of the new girlfriend,” said Simon. “They’re kissing and hugging. They’re on a beach by themselves.”

According to Simon, the sites are also helpful determining whether a spouse is going on a wild spending spree, buying expensive items when the spouse claims to have no money.

“All of a sudden there are pictures showing how they bought their new friend jewelry or they are boasting about a new car,” said Simon.

Simon is still surprised by what he uncovers online, but said it sure makes his job a lot easier.

“It happens more often than you can believe,” said Simon. “It’s amazing how brazen people get.”

How will my divorce affect my pension benefits?

If you are divorced, but your marriage lasted 10 years or longer, you can receive benefits on your ex-spouse’s record (even if he or she has remarried) if:

• You are unmarried;
• You are age 62 or older;
• The benefit you are entitled to receive based on your own work is less than the benefit you would receive based on your ex-spouse’s work; and
• Your ex-spouse is entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits.

http://www.peoples-law.org/Family/divorce/property/divorce_affect_on_pension.htm

If you remarry, you generally cannot collect benefits on your former spouse’s record unless your later marriage ends (whether by death, divorce or annulment).

If your ex-spouse has not applied for retirement benefits, but can qualify for them, you can receive benefits on his or her record if you have been divorced for at least two years.

If you are eligible for retirement benefits on your own record we will pay that amount first. But if

• the benefit on his or her record is a higher amount, you will get a combination of benefits that equals that higher amount (reduced for age).
• you have reached full retirement age and you are eligible for a spouse’s benefit and your own retirement benefit, you have a choice.

You can choose to receive only the divorced spouse’s benefits now and delay receiving retirement benefits until a later date. If retirement benefits are delayed, a higher benefit may be received at a later date based on the effect of delayed retirement credits.

If you

• continue to work while receiving benefits, the retirement benefit earnings limit still applies. If you are eligible for benefits this year and are still working, you can use our earnings test calculator to see how those earnings would affect your benefit payments.
• will also receive a pension based on work not covered by Social Security, such as government or foreign work, your Social Security benefit on your ex-spouse’s record may be affected.

The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the amount of benefits your ex-spouse or their current spouse may receive.

If you need information about benefits your ex-spouse can receive based on your record, please read Benefits for your divorced spouse.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/divspouse.htm

Without dissent, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure to repeal the existing laws that require civil suits to be filed within two years of a victim’s turning 18. For incidents that take place in the future, there will be no statute of limitations.

SB 1292 also opens a window for those who were abused in the past 35 years, giving them one year from the time the law takes effect to file suit, even if the time limit had previously run out.

But legislators agreed to extend the time allowed to file a suit only for cases based on a defendant’s “direct or intentional conduct.”

Sen. Amanda Aguirre, D-Yuma, who wrote the legislation, said it would give sex-abuse victims added time to go after both the perpetrator and anyone who knew of the abuse.

But she said it would leave the current time limits in place for lawsuits against churches or school districts for simply being negligent in supervising their employees. And she said it also would bar late-filed lawsuits, even if a victim could show that an organization or even a specific person had suspicions someone was a molester but failed to act.

The measure now goes to the full Senate.

Ron Johnson, who lobbies on behalf of the state’s three Catholic bishops, acknowledged that he has been working to limit the measure from its original scope. But Johnson said any limit is not to shield those responsible. Rather, he said, it would ensure that businesses, churches and schools would be able to buy insurance. Without some limit on litigation, Johnson said, no coverage would be available.

He isn’t the only one pushing for limits. Jack LaSota, who lobbies on behalf of the Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, said school districts that buy liability insurance through his organization want some assurances that the law won’t be changed so much that it would open the door to lawsuits filed after decades solely because someone who turned out to be a molester happened to be employed years ago.

Monday’s vote followed a plea from Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeau, who told lawmakers last week that he was the victim of abuse as a child. It’s important to provide a civil alternative to those who were abused but could not get justice in criminal proceedings, he said.

But Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith told legislators that it’s often difficult to get a conviction in these cases, unless there is a witness other than the victim, or the assailant confesses. Civil suits have a lower standard of proof, he said.

Jeff Dion, acting executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, said: “Pedophiles don’t retire. Even when the victim waits 30 years to disclose the abuse, if the perpetrator is still alive, we find them at 70 or 80 years old, in walkers and wheelchairs, continuing to molest kids.”

Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
February 23, 2010
Source: Arizona Daily Star

Prados, an ex-Marine, leaned forward in the jury box and asked in a let-me-get-this-straight tone of voice: “He’s brave enough to go out and get shot at by anyone but he couldn’t handle this?” he said of the locker-room taunting.

Fellow jury candidate Robert Avanesian, who had also unsuccessfully sought dismissal on financial hardship grounds, chimed in: “I think severe emotional distress is what is happening in Haiti. I don’t think you could have such severe emotional distress from that,” he said of the allegations in the deputy’s case.

The spontaneous outbursts of the reluctant jurors just as Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James R. Dunn was about to swear them in emboldened others in the jury pool to express disdain for the case and concerns about their ability to be fair, and to ratchet up the pathos in their claims of facing economic ruin if forced to sit for the three-week trial.

In this time of double-digit unemployment and shrinking benefits for those who do have jobs, courts are finding it more difficult to seat juries for trials running more than a day or two. And in extreme cases, reluctance has escalated into rebellion, experts say.

After three days of mounting insurrection, lawyers for both the deputy and the sergeant waived their right to a jury trial and left the verdict up to Dunn.

“We can’t have a disgruntled jury,” said attorney Gregory W. Smith, who represents Deputy Robert Lyznick in the lawsuit against his former supervisor. He called the panel “scary” and too volatile for either side to trust.

Money woes inflicted by the recession have spurred more hardship claims, especially by those called for long cases, say jury consultants and courtroom administrators. More than a quarter of all qualified jurors were released on hardship grounds last year, according to court statistics. And judges say they have seen more people request such dismissals in the last year.

“There’s a lot of tension, a lot more stress people are dealing with these days,” said Gloria Gomez, director of juror services for the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

In Lyznick’s suit against the county, Dunn granted hardship dismissals for more than half of the 65 people sent to his courtroom. In a neighboring courtroom, where Judge Robert H. O’Brien was about to try an asbestos case, 66 of 107 prospective jurors were excused for financial difficulties before the individual questioning, or voir dire, got started.

“The economic situation has really put attorneys and judges in an awkward position of having to say to someone who is the sole wage earner in a family or someone who is self-employed and doesn’t get paid when they don’t work that they have to serve, and we have more and more of those,” said Jaine E. Fraser, a psychologist and jury consultant who sat in for the asbestos jury selection before the parties settled.

People on the margins of society tend to be more sympathetic with victims bringing suit, and excluding them on hardship grounds can disadvantage plaintiffs, Fraser said. But it’s also risky, she noted, to force people into jury service that will cut deeply into their paychecks.

With shrinking budgets, courts are under pressure to do more with less. Los Angeles County courthouses were summoning 55,000 people a week, at $15 a day each, until the economic crisis imposed more belt-tightening. The county is now making do with 45,000 summonses a week — only about half are even answered — compelling stricter scrutiny of those claiming financial, medical and child-care problems, Gomez said. The county has also tightened sanctions for repeat no-shows, imposing fines of as much as $1,500.

Fraser, who is based in Dallas, said jurors there have been more willing to serve since the city raised daily jury compensation from $6 to $40. California courts have been trying for years to get the daily stipend raised to $40, without success, Gomez said.

As he struggled with the mounting pleas for dismissal, Dunn alluded to pressures on the court “to be very diligent in reviewing excuses.”

High school teacher Sharon Friedman told the judge she had no savings and would lose 60% of her February pay. Substitute teacher Martine Tomczyk argued that she needed to be free to take work days when they surfaced. Freelance producer Robert Thatcher said he could lose contracts to competitors if he missed deadlines while on the jury.

As excuses were flying and Dunn struggled to maintain order, one of the few jurors who hadn’t sought dismissal interrupted the questioning to offer his take on the unusually passionate resistance.

“I think with what is going on in the country, there are a lot of angry people,” said retired Broadway actor Sammy Williams. “Money is such an issue and to give money to someone for results of a case, it’s really important that they’re getting it for a real reason, an important reason.”

The Los Angeles Times

by Carol J. Williams

February 15, 2010

Source: LATimes.com