Fathers' and Children's Equality (FACE)

Legislative Morality, Family Law, and the Erosion of the American Family

Written by Gary Ewing

Introduction

Every law passed by government limits someone’s freedom in some way. While laws are often created with good intentions, they almost always require one person to surrender a right, a privilege, or a choice in order to protect another person’s interests. The real question is not whether a law restricts freedom, because nearly every law does. The real question is whether the restriction is necessary, fair, and applied equally.

The Constitution protects many individual rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property rights, and due process. Yet these rights frequently come into conflict with the rights of others. Legislators constantly attempt to balance competing interests, and every new law shifts that balance.

Traffic laws restrict how fast we may drive. Tax laws require citizens to give up part of their income. Zoning laws limit how property owners may use their own land. Criminal laws prohibit conduct that threatens the safety of others. In every case, one person’s freedom is limited to protect another person’s rights.

The challenge is knowing where government should stop.

Legislative Morality

One of the oldest questions in a free society is whether government should legislate morality. Throughout history, lawmakers have attempted not only to prevent crime but also to shape behavior according to society’s moral standards.

Many laws reflect moral principles that almost everyone accepts. Laws against murder, theft, fraud, child abuse, and perjury exist because society recognizes these acts as morally wrong as well as harmful.

The controversy begins when government extends beyond protecting people from harm and starts regulating private behavior between consenting adults or dictating how families should function.

Government cannot make people honest, faithful, forgiving, compassionate, or loving. It can punish certain behaviors, but it cannot create character. Character begins in the home, not the courthouse.

Every generation must decide how much authority government should have over private lives. The more laws enacted to regulate personal conduct, the more freedom individuals surrender. A free society must constantly ask whether legislation protects liberty or slowly replaces personal responsibility with government control.

Marriage: A Lifetime Commitment

Marriage was once understood as a lifelong covenant built upon commitment rather than convenience. The traditional wedding vows spoke of remaining together “for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health.”

Those vows recognized that every marriage would experience disappointment, financial hardship, illness, disagreement, and personal struggles. Marriage was never intended to be easy. It required sacrifice, forgiveness, patience, loyalty, and perseverance.

Today, marriage is often viewed differently. Personal happiness has become the highest priority. Phrases such as “I’m unhappy,” “We’ve grown apart,” or “I’ve outgrown you” have become common reasons for ending marriages.

Certainly, there are situations involving abuse, violence, addiction, or serious neglect where separation or divorce may be necessary for the safety of a spouse or children. No one should remain in a dangerous relationship.

But many marriages end because couples stop working through ordinary problems that previous generations often viewed as part of married life.

When commitment becomes temporary, families become less stable. Children lose the security of an intact home. Grandparents lose daily contact with grandchildren. Extended families drift apart.

Marriage should not be abandoned simply because life becomes difficult.

Hollywood and the Normalization of Divorce

Hollywood has enormous influence over American culture. Movies, television programs, celebrity magazines, and social media shape public attitudes toward relationships, marriage, and family.

Celebrity divorces dominate headlines. Multi million dollar settlements, large alimony awards, child support battles, and public courtroom disputes receive constant attention.

Marriage is often portrayed as temporary, while divorce is presented as a normal life event or even a fresh beginning.

Far less attention is given to couples who quietly work through hardship, forgive one another, raise children together, and remain committed for decades.

The entertainment industry frequently celebrates personal fulfillment while giving little recognition to sacrifice, responsibility, loyalty, and perseverance, the very qualities that sustain healthy marriages.

Culture influences behavior. When divorce becomes normalized, commitment can become optional.

Family Court and Child Support

The purpose of family court should be to preserve families whenever possible and protect children whenever necessary.

Unfortunately, too often the system becomes focused on litigation instead of reconciliation.

Parents frequently enter family court during one of the most emotionally painful periods of their lives. They are grieving the loss of a marriage, worried about finances, fearful of losing time with their children, and uncertain about the future.

Yet many leave feeling as though they were treated like case numbers instead of human beings.

Parents are not objects.

Parents are not account numbers.

Parents are not simply child support obligations.

They are mothers and fathers whose relationships with their children will affect those children for the rest of their lives.

The child support system often becomes primarily a collection system instead of a family preservation system. While children absolutely deserve financial support from both parents, the system should never reduce parenting to a monthly payment.

Money is important.

A mother or father’s presence is equally important.

Children need emotional support, guidance, discipline, encouragement, love, and time with both parents whenever it is safe and appropriate.

The law should recognize that parenting involves much more than finances.

One Size Does Not Fit Every Family

Every family is different.

Every marriage is different.

Every divorce is different.

Every child is different.

Yet family courts often rely upon standardized formulas that cannot possibly account for every family’s unique circumstances.

Justice requires individual consideration.

Cases affecting children should be decided one family at a time, based upon the specific facts before the court.

Judges should have broad discretion to examine each parent’s involvement, financial realities, work schedules, parenting history, the needs of the child, and the long term consequences of every decision.

Justice should never become an assembly line.

Sensitivity and Compassion in Family Court

Families do not enter court because life is going well.

They enter during some of the darkest moments they will ever experience.

Judges, counselors, evaluators, mediators, child support personnel, and everyone involved in family court should receive meaningful sensitivity training.

Compassion does not weaken justice.

Compassion strengthens justice.

Families deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Parents should leave court believing they were heard, understood, and treated fairly, even if they disagree with the final decision.

The courtroom should never become another source of trauma.

Preserving Parent Child Relationships

Children generally benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents whenever it is safe and appropriate.

Family courts should encourage cooperation instead of conflict.

The legal system should reward parents who place their children’s interests ahead of their own disagreements.

Too often litigation becomes a contest with winners and losers.

Children lose when parents become enemies.

The goal should always be preserving healthy relationships, reducing conflict, encouraging shared parenting whenever appropriate, and helping families move forward rather than keeping them trapped in years of litigation.

The Cost to Society

The breakdown of the family affects far more than one household.

It affects schools.

Neighborhoods.

Churches.

Communities.

Employers.

Taxpayers.

Most importantly, it affects children.

Government cannot replace a stable family.

Courts cannot manufacture love.

Judges cannot order trust.

No law can force forgiveness.

The strongest families are built by committed parents who accept responsibility for one another and for their children.

Conclusion

Every law takes away some freedom while protecting another interest. That reality makes legislative morality one of the most important questions in a constitutional republic.

Government has a legitimate role in protecting children, enforcing contracts, and resolving disputes. But government should exercise humility when entering the family.

Strong families cannot be built through regulations alone.

They are built through love, sacrifice, commitment, responsibility, forgiveness, and perseverance.

Family courts should focus less on processing cases and more on preserving families whenever possible. Child support should never become a substitute for parenting. Every family deserves to be treated as unique, with decisions based on individual circumstances rather than rigid formulas.

If America wants stronger communities, safer neighborhoods, and healthier children, it must once again strengthen the institution that has always been the foundation of civilization: the family.

The family remains society’s first school, first support system, and first source of love. When families are strengthened, communities become stronger. When families are weakened, society eventually bears the cost.

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing America is not simply writing more laws. It is remembering that the law can regulate behavior, but only strong families can shape character.

The Government Takeover of the American Family: How Family Court, Child Support, and Bureaucracy Replaced Parents

Written by Gary Ewing

The family was once considered the basic building block of society. Parents were responsible for raising children, resolving family disputes, and providing guidance, discipline, and support. Families relied on relatives, churches, neighbors, and local communities. Government played a limited role.

Over the last sixty years, that relationship has changed dramatically. What began as an effort to help families has evolved into a system of courts, agencies, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms that exercise enormous influence over domestic life. In the process, many believe the government has weakened parental authority, undermined fathers, and replaced family responsibility with bureaucratic control.

The Great Society and the Expansion of Government

When Lyndon B. Johnson launched the Great Society in the 1960s, the goal was to reduce poverty and expand economic opportunity. While many of the programs were well intentioned, they also expanded the role of government in everyday life.

Before the Great Society, marriage rates were higher, divorce rates were lower, and children were more likely to be raised in two parent households. Families depended more heavily on one another and on their local communities. As government programs expanded, the state increasingly assumed responsibilities that had traditionally belonged to families.

Many believe this shift weakened the family unit. When government becomes the provider, the referee, the collector, and the enforcer, it inevitably begins competing with the family itself.

The Child Support System

One of the clearest examples of government involvement in domestic relations is the child support system.

The federal child support enforcement system was established in 1975 when President Gerald Ford signed legislation creating the Title IV-D program. Even Ford expressed concern about excessive federal intrusion into people’s personal lives and family affairs.

What began as a support program eventually grew into a massive enforcement system.

The government now determines what support is, how much must be paid, when it must be paid, and what penalties follow when a parent falls behind. Every family is different, yet the system often treats families as if they can be reduced to formulas and payment schedules.

This does not mean parents should abandon their children. Parents should support their children. The question is whether government bureaucracies should be the ones defining family responsibility through rigid formulas and enforcement mechanisms.

Some parents contribute through money. Others contribute through housing, transportation, childcare, emotional support, guidance, supervision, and direct involvement. The value of a parent cannot always be measured by a court ordered dollar amount.

The Clinton Expansion

The system became even more aggressive during the Clinton administration.

In 1996, Bill Clinton signed welfare reform legislation that expanded child support enforcement. Wage garnishments, tax refund interceptions, property liens, credit reporting, license suspensions, and other collection tools became standard parts of the system.

Clinton frequently spoke about fathers paying child support. Many people came away with the impression that the system was directed primarily at fathers, even though the legal obligation technically applies to both parents.

Today, child support arrears exceed one hundred billion dollars nationwide. Much of that debt is considered difficult or impossible to collect because many parents simply do not have the financial resources to pay it. Yet interest, penalties, and enforcement actions continue to accumulate.

In many cases, what began as support has become government imposed debt.

Family Court

People should be suspicious of a system called Family Court.

The name sounds harmless, but in reality it often turns family members into opposing parties. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, and relatives are placed against one another in an adversarial legal system.

Judges, lawyers, agencies, and administrators become involved in matters that were once considered private family affairs.

Once a family enters the system, it is no longer treated like a family. It becomes a case file.

Parents are processed, evaluated, sanctioned, billed, and controlled. They are often treated like objects rather than human beings with children, emotions, history, and family bonds.

At its core, the problem is that the government has inserted itself into domestic relations to a degree that would have been unthinkable to previous generations.

Fathers and the System

Many fathers believe they are treated as financial obligations rather than parents.

A father can lose custody, be denied meaningful parenting time, fall behind because of unemployment or hardship, and then be treated as a criminal by the very system that helped separate him from his child.

Even when fathers are denied parenting time, many are reluctant to return to court.

If they are behind on child support, they may fear sanctions, contempt proceedings, or other penalties. Others fear that challenging the system will only result in additional restrictions, additional support demands, or additional legal expenses.

As a result, many fathers remain silent even when their parenting rights are ignored.

False Allegations

Custody battles can become particularly destructive when accusations are used as weapons.

False allegations of abuse or sexual misconduct can destroy a parent’s reputation before any evidence is presented.

The accused parent may lose parenting time, spend thousands of dollars on legal fees, suffer public humiliation, and experience permanent damage to the relationship with the child.

Yet when allegations are later shown to be false, meaningful consequences for the accuser are often rare.

The parent may be cleared, but the damage has already been done.

Criminalizing Fatherhood

Many fathers feel that ordinary parental affection is now viewed through a lens of suspicion.

A father helping care for a young daughter, including bathing her when she is small, can find innocent actions interpreted in the worst possible light.

A father hugging his child, kissing his child, sleeping beside a frightened child, or expressing affection can sometimes fear that normal parental behavior will be misrepresented during a custody dispute.

This creates a no win situation.

If a father is affectionate, he risks suspicion. If he is distant, he risks being labeled uninvolved or neglectful.

Ordinary fatherly love should not be confused with misconduct.

The No Win Parent

Parents today often find themselves trapped.

If they discipline their children, they may be accused of being abusive.

If they do not discipline their children, they are accused of allowing children to run wild.

When children misbehave, society blames the parents. Yet at the same time, parents are frequently told what they can and cannot do when raising those same children.

Parents are expected to be responsible while simultaneously having less authority than previous generations.

Harsh Enforcement and Human Consequences

The enforcement system extends far beyond support orders.

Parents who owe $2,500 or more in child support arrears can be denied a passport under federal law.

Wages can be garnished. Tax refunds can be seized. Professional licenses can be suspended. Liens can be placed on property.

If another country imposed similar restrictions on parents through government agencies, many Americans would likely describe it as harsh or draconian. Yet when similar powers are exercised under the banner of family law, they are often treated as normal.

Harsh enforcement can also create enormous emotional pressure.

When parents are buried under debt, denied access to their children, threatened with penalties, or treated as criminals, the emotional consequences can be severe.

In extreme cases, this pressure can contribute to depression, domestic conflict, violence, murder, or su***de.

When the Cure Becomes Worse Than the Disease

In many ways, the cure has become worse than the disease.

Government claimed it was stepping in to fix family breakdown, unpaid support, and domestic disputes. Instead, it created a system that often deepens conflict, punishes parents, expands bureaucracy, and turns private family pain into legal warfare.

Instead of strengthening families, the system often breaks them further apart. Instead of encouraging cooperation, it creates resentment. Instead of treating parents like mothers and fathers, it treats them like legal opponents, payment sources, or administrative problems.

That is not family support. That is government control.

Lessons From History

History provides warnings about what happens when governments become too involved in family life.

In the United States, Native American children were removed from their families and placed in boarding schools where they were forced to abandon their language, culture, and traditions. Government officials claimed they knew what was best for the children. The result was broken families, cultural destruction, and generational trauma.

Australia followed a similar path with Aboriginal children. For decades, Aboriginal children were removed from their homes and placed with white families, missions, or institutions. These children became known as the Stolen Generations.

Government officials believed they were helping. The result was family separation, cultural loss, and lasting damage that is still felt today.

Different countries, different policies, same lesson: when governments assume they know better than parents, families often suffer.

Conclusion

The central question is not whether children should be supported, protected, and loved. Nearly everyone agrees they should.

The real question is whether courts, agencies, and bureaucracies can manage family relationships better than families themselves.

After decades of expanding government involvement, rising family litigation, growing child support debt, and increasing bureaucratic control over domestic relations, many Americans believe the answer is no.

The foundation of society is not government.

It is the family.

When government replaces parental authority, weakens family responsibility, and turns family relationships into legal and administrative matters, families suffer.

Strong families are built by parents, relatives, communities, and personal responsibility, not by bureaucracies and enforcement systems.

The lesson is simple: families thrive when parents are trusted and empowered, and they struggle when government attempts to take their place.

How the Government Ruined Marriage and the Family

Marriage used to mean something different in this country. It was about sticking things out, building something over time, and raising a family with some level of stability. It wasn’t perfect, but it worked for a lot of people. Over the years, that foundation has been chipped away, and a big part of that comes from how the system is set up today.

Start with money, because that’s what drives behavior whether people admit it or not. The tax system doesn’t always reward marriage. In some cases, two people can actually be better off financially staying single than getting married. That doesn’t make sense if you’re trying to promote stable households. When people see that combining incomes costs them more, it changes how they think about commitment.

Then there are government assistance programs. A lot of them are structured so that once a household earns above a certain amount, benefits get reduced or disappear. That creates a situation where a single parent can receive more support than a married couple making the same money. Nobody says it out loud, but the system sends a clear signal. Stay separate and you might come out ahead.

Divorce laws also changed the landscape. When no fault divorce became common, it made it easier to walk away. There were good reasons behind that change, especially in situations where people were in bad or unsafe relationships. But it also lowered the bar for ending a marriage. What used to be a serious, last resort decision became more routine. Over time, that shifts how people view marriage going in.

Family court doesn’t help much either. It often turns personal issues into drawn out legal battles where money and positioning take center stage. Instead of helping families find solutions, the process can make things worse, especially when kids are involved.

None of this happened because someone sat down and said let’s destroy families. A lot of these policies were created to fix real problems. The issue is that they didn’t fully think through how people would respond. When you build a system that rewards independence over cooperation, people adjust to it.

The end result is a country where marriage isn’t supported the way it used to be. In some cases, it feels like it’s working against you. That’s not just a personal issue, it affects communities and the next generation.

If anything is going to change, the incentives have to change. People follow what benefits them. Right now, the structure doesn’t always favor staying together, and until that gets addressed, the trend isn’t likely to reverse.

Written by: Gary Ewing