In May 1995, unwed father
the New Jersey Supreme Court had just held
being a man did not automatically confer upon one
the right to name one's children, and that



    Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 11:09:52 -0700
    From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <lawyer@NETCOM.COM>

    NEW JERSEY: An unwed father cannot force his child to take his last name, New Jersey's highest court has ruled, tossing aside centuries of Western tradition... The decision means that 4-year-old Scott Thomas Deremer doesn't have to change his name... The presumption that a child should bear the father's surname should be replaced by a determination of what is in the child's best interest, the court said.  It noted that New Jersey must adhere to ``society's recognition of full equality for women.'' The boy's parents never married. Alan Gubernat of Easton, Pa., initially doubted he was Scott's father... In seeking joint custody, Gubernat asked the court to change his son's surname, saying the boy then would be assured ``he always has a father.'' The mother argued that Scott should keep her surname because she was the primary caretaker and because her name is known in their small town. The trial court, later backed by an appeals court, ruled that the boy's surname should be changed to Gubernat, noting: ``(the) father's desire to have progeny and also to have someone carry on his name is proper. It's a right that the father has.''...

    Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 15:17:00 -0500
    From: JIM ANDERSON <>

    Thanks to a generous donor (who prefers to remain anonymous), The DiVorce Source BBS will soon have a dedicated 24-hour number... Saturday, May 27th... the telephone number will be 801-359-4327, and the BBS will operate on a FULLTIME basis...

    FOCUS: Children & the Other Parent (SLC, UT) : : Research Analyst, Co-Chair, and Co-Founder : Jim Anderson : Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange (FREE) : : Area Coordinator for Montana and Utah : ........................:..............................................:

    Sysop, The DiVorce Source BBS, a reference resource for all aspects of : divorce law in the U.S. NIGHT ONLY: 9 p.m. - 6 a.m. MDT [(801) telephone number of Jim Anderson removed at his request]: .......................................................................:

    Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 12:42:00 -0500
    From: JIM ANDERSON <>

    The Deseret News, Salt Lake City, UT Re: "Stirred by Richard's cries, S.L. mom adopts his cause" by Lois Collins, Deseret News, Sat., May 13, 1995, p. B3

    The fallacy of "best interests" ------------------- I am utterly stunned by Inka Johnson's reactions to the Baby Richard case. She now urges the U.S. Supreme Court to uproot this poor child yet one more time! She does so under the popular guise of champion for those fabled "best interests."...


    Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 14:41:44 -0700
    From: Dean Hughson <dean@PRIMENET.COM>

    [Re NJ name case and aftermath...] .. that is a terrible story and I will think of him and his family in my prayers...

    While I don't think there is any justification for suicide or murder, as always we living are left with a lot of questions. Would he have lived if they hadn't ruled so weird in his case? Would a system that shows respect to both men and women equally be better? No question on that. Our job as human rights advocates of the Internet is to help people LIVE not die with dignity.

    Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 09:09:44 -0400
    From: Stuart Miller <>

    Children' Post-Divorce Adjustment: Effects of Conflict, Parent Adjustment, Custody and Access. Joan B. Kelley, Ph.D. - 1992

    (Sorry I don't have a cite from where, if at all, this was published) Excerpt from page 23 -

    The most frequent reason for disengagement, cited by 90% of disengaged fathers, was obstruction of paternal access by the ex-spouse and mothers' desire to break contact between father and child...

    It is apparent that custodial mothers have considerable influence on the father-child relationship after divorce. Based on interviews with pairs of custodial and non-custodial parents, custodial mothers interfere with fathers' visits with their children at a rate of 20% - 40%.


    An interesting note: This paper makes several references to "conflict between the parents," but makes no references to "fathers' hostility," only "mothers' hostility." (Which is cited quite frequently). Is it possible that conflict between the parents is created in large part by "mothers' hostility?"

    WARNING: Be careful how you use this paper! Although it has interesting statistics about visitation interference and lawyers' destruction of amicable agreements between the parents, the conclusion of this paper seems to be that where there is conflict between the parents, that fathers' visitation is not beneficial. In other words, where the mother is a dysfunctional individual, it is better to let her have her way and disenfranchise the father.

    Stu Miller American Fathers Coalition

    Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 20:18:51 -0400
    From: Stuart Miller <>


    The New Jersey Supreme Court executed a father because he wanted to accept his parental responsibilities and legitimize his son by bestowing his surname upon him. After the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court and appellate court decisions that would allow the father to bestow his surname upon his son, Alan Gubernat shot himself and his three-year-old son. Granted, the judges didn't pull the trigger, but they are as guilty of executing him and his son as sure as if they had performed the execution themselves. But they executed more than just this man and his son.

    The "in-Justices" of the New Jersey Supreme Court, in making their decision, reasoned that the time has come to acknowledge the great strides women have made. Society could not agree more. Feminist women have almost completely destroyed the family and all associated with it that is holy. The Bible clearly states that the fathers are to be the head of the household. This is not to mention the Magna Carte, upon which all of our constitutions and institutions are founded. But the government, with its judicial henchmen, have propagated upon society a system that is diametrically opposed to the Word of God. In many circles this would be considered "Anti-Christ." In Washington, it is rephrased as "we need to move forward!" In other words "Don't dwell on our evil deeds!"

    What manner of vanity, arrogance and pompousness consumes these men that they would seek to destroy even antediluvian traditions of legitimizing children by allowing a father to bestow upon his son, his name. One can only wonder what it would it have been like studying all of those seemingly interminable "begats" in the Bible, had these "dis-honorable social engineers" been there to perform their nefarious deeds. Noah begat Japeth; and Japeth begat Gomer; and Gomer begat Ashkenaz; and Ashkenaz begat... Oh, hold on a second, there isn't any record of it because the child was born illegitimately and some idiots who dress themselves up like priests, in robes the shade of their hearts, changed all the rules that have been time honored and handed down by G_d, and they wouldn't let the father legitimize his son. Would have shortened that chapter, eh?

    It is interesting to note, not only the outrageousness of the NJ decision, but the gradual "move forward" in the judiciary's attitudes, whereby women are no longer disgraced by bearing children outside of wedlock, men are. Men are also vilified by the Pimp and the Vice-Pimp of the United States. No longer are men warned not to fall victim to the wiles of "loose women." No, heaven forbid.. now it is "Ohhh you poor dear, I know you couldn't be responsible or accept any responsibility.... did a penis just fall out of the sky and impregnate you or do you happen to have a Social Security Number so we can attach all of his assets for life? No, no... don't worry, you will never have to pay us back for all our services, only the "john," er, I mean, the IRRESPONSIBLE FATHER WHO HAS ABANDONED HIS CHILD, will. Our fee? Nothing, we are becoming the most powerful bureaucracy in the world and currently have a $4 Billion budget and employ 44,000 assistant pimps! We are going after foreign nationals next, in case you were not responsible for your own actions while you on vacation at that nudist resort on the Riviera, too! The Pimp and the Vice-Pimp will see to that! Yes, our image is changing. Yours is too. Mrs. Pimp is going to handle all of the Pimp's image issues. And she knows what she is doing. After all, she is one of the founders of the CDF (Children Deserve Fatherlessness!)

    The henchmen have ceased to be judges and are, at the very least, ministers of their own prejudice. Based on this decision, it would be hard to argue that they are not ministers of even another God. But one thing is certain, it is not the G_d who created this world, whom they worship. It most certainly is not the Prince of Peace.

    Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 09:18:24 -0700
    From: Joseph ARDITTI <jarditti@UCI.EDU>

    Is it possible to charge and try justices for murder? If so the ones in NJ should be first in line.

    Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 17:53:04 EDT
    From: "Byron Bollas" <Byron=Bollas%HQ%Rational@VINES1.RATSYS.COM>

    The only individuals that get away with blaming someone else for a henious act THEY committed are women... not men...

    Apart from that however I can understand this man's pain but not his actions in killing his own child... it was not his child who hurt him, but rather the child's MOTHER and the facists behind the judicial bench...

    I'm sorry but I see no justification in his murder of an innocent 3 year old.... and actions like his hurt our cause all the more...

    Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 16:24:01 -0700
    From: Alan Schroeder <schroede@CALVIN.USC.EDU>

    I do believe I will examine the text of this putrid decision and proceed to rip it apart, piece by piece, with a rebuttal footnoted to the max... The legal reasoning here is decidedly *unfit* What it's basis is will become food for my fodder. The best way to make a judge cringe is to assault his/her legal reasoning and precedent, footnote it, and attach many prominent names to it...

    Alan S./Who will join me in assaulting this madness? (Figuratively -speaking of course, would'nt want the judge to claim BWS)

    Oh yeah, Simba's Dad & Snow White's too.

    Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 11:21:33 -0400
    From: Jan Cohen <CHARLYB@DELPHI.COM>

    I am so sorry for the father, the mother and the little one--I managed a short clipping during the incident's news release last night. The father and the boy looked happy together...

    Though not an advocate of the taking of human life, especially one so young, the practices that are stripping essential needs from people must be put to a halt. To justify the end with an unjustifiable means, and label it 'in the best interests of the child,' will only do more damage and lead to the further downfall of society as human-kind knows it. Should the family continue to be torn apart by a process finding its roots in the so-called struggle for 'gender-equity,' than one can only wonder just how much time 'Americana' has left.

    Nothing justifies the taking of a human life...

    ..but nothing also justifies the process driving people to their ends, and in doing so, taking others with them...

    Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 13:55:52 -0700
    From: Alan Schroeder <schroede@CALVIN.USC.EDU>

    Yes, for a society to choose one parent over another is foolish. To think that a court of law is capable of such a difficult and affective decision is, at best, ludicrous. Surnames, primary custody, unfitness & fitness, best interests, etc. are created in a legal, not familial context. Business as usual in the family courts means proceeding with impunity regarding outcomes of previous decisions. Stare decisis supercedes justice and superior social policies. Unfortunately, most lawyers tend to be single and liberal, not in the traditional sense but the current, activist sense.

    Alan S./Simba's Dad

    In message Tue, 16 May 1995 11:21:22 -0400, Jan Cohen <CHARLYB@DELPHI.COM> writes:

    Interesting comments regarding said topic by the New Jersey ACLU in today's NY Times. Something about how women have finally achieved equality. One tends to wonder at what price though...

    Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 06:57:50 -0700
    From: Dean Hughson <dean@PRIMENET.COM>
    Newsgroups: Subject: A Prayer For a Dead Man and his Child

    When someone dies at their own hand, it is not possible for the living to understand the 'why' of what happened. It is our responsibility to give support to those who remain behind, like the mother, grandparents, family, and friends. Death, to the living, does not seem like a good decision but we are not the ones who judge such things. Our responsibility is to help the living people with their problems in living and while we should mourn this sad death of a young man and a child, we must not let ourselves get offcourse that we need to change the systems that cause so much pain...

    May this father and child be a symbol of what is wrong in America and elsewhere.

    Our prayers and thoughts are with the mother. The loss of a child is a terrible thing. Our thoughts are with the grandparents--who have lost not only a grandchild but also a child...

    This prayer is said in sadness in places where FREE has membership from England, Greece, New Zealand, Canada, throughout the US, and with the hope that equality and change will occur...

    Dean Hughson Braymer Mo


Except as otherwise noted, all contents in this collection are copyright 1996-2009 the liz library. All rights reserved.
This site is hosted and maintained by Send queries to: