Monday, November 9, 2009
Dr. Baskerville’s Book - Taken Into Custody
There is an ethical clash within the author’s repeated stated "purpose" for the writing of this book and its resulting claims once read.

It is my hope you will be willing to take a deeper look into the continuing misstatements by Dr. Baskerville.   Hyperbole appears to be his chosen way to attack ideas and legislated American human rights he doesn't like.

For example, in reaction to the Newsweek article about divorce in this country, Dr. Baskerville, writes....".....millions are appalled when they discover that they can be FORCED into divorce..." (the capital letters were written by me to point out his unethical misuse of language).

Americans are being "forced" into divorce??  He can only mean by using that incorrect term, that divorce legally happens in the United States when one spouse wants out of a marriage.   Yes, that is every married American citizen’s legal right to request under the laws dealing with civil marriage.
He clearly doesn’t like the present legal reality that no American citizen can be imprisoned for a lifetime in a marriage that has failed.

However, his unethical choice of words regarding the divorce right under the law, provides the evidence that Dr. Baskerville is working to wipe out the right to divorce in almost every aspect, not merely to change a faulty domestic court system (which is what he has been claiming the reason behind the writing of the book).
Within Christianity: Neither Jesus Christ nor Paul were willing to deny the human-right to divorce for just-cause. Both taught a right to divorce and nowhere in the Bible are children ever connected to that right (that is, presented, by them, as a reason for a Christian, to not act out this God-given human right...yet, Dr. Baskerville "uses" - in my view "misuses" children as a pawn in his clear effort to wipe out the right to "no-fault" divorce in the United States).

The divorce right in the mind of God has nothing to do with children in the sense of "justice" in marriage. When people deal with the divorce right within Christian morality, much of the stress for children can be overcome.

It is clear by Biblical teaching that children can survive and also flourish within the justice of that right and the moral way that right is undertaken.

It is my hope that you will review this commentary (below) of Dr. Baskerville’s written contentions about his efforts regarding changing the domestic family court system (if the author would have consistently stayed within this area of examination - the domestic family court system - one could support his ideas. He doesn’t stay there).
The implications to the misuse of language by Dr. Baskerville, clearly steers the reader/listener into another legal area that is a separate legal issue and results in making the claim that the divorce-right, itself, should be removed and placed only within the definitions of a divorce-right that Dr. Baskerville accepts.

Thank you


All Americans Should Examine Carefully -- Dr. Baskerville’s Battle To Turn Back the Legal Clock on "No Fault" Divorce In the United States.

What a thing serves exposes the motive behind the effort.

Dr. Baskerville claims to be working for ways to reform the Family Court System.

The following quote reveals much more than a desire to reform the Family Court System (because of his viewpoint that it has failed children and many spouses).   He presents those parents -- mostly men -- wrongfully kept from their children by manipulation of the court by the ex-spouse.

Quote of his view on how to remedy the family court system problem (my underlining):

"…(a) setting reasonable limits on unilateral divorce when children are involved; (b) establishing a rebuttable presumption of equally shared parenting for children of divorce or separation; and (c) restoring and enforcing the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and companionship of their children."

The first thing one notices in reading his requirements for how to reform the family court system is that only (b) and (c) have to do with the Family Court System re the alleged failures regarding custody battles that he outlines in his book.

It is inescapable that item (a) is a clear attack on the right to "no-fault" divorce law. It is the legal foot-in-the-door that would wipe out "no-fault" divorce law (the majority of legally married couples will have children in their lives at some point).

If someone would have told you that there would be citizens of the United States, who would be working to bring a law into existence that would allow ONE spouse in a divorce action (the spouse who does not want the divorce), to control the right-to-divorce of his/her spouse because they share children, would you agree that the spouse who acted out his/her legal right to divorce, should lose his/her Constitutional right of due process because they share children?

Putting aside (for a moment) that this "law" would be setting-aside the Constitutional right of due-process for the spouse who wanted the divorce, destroy (for all intents and purposes) "no-fault" divorce in the United States, and define the basis for a right-to-divorce within a concept of "possible harm to children" the implications of such a law enacted doesn’t stop with this tossing out the right-to-divorce of the spouse who does want the divorce.

It would set-up a legal right for one spouse to imprison the other spouse in a failed marriage.

Once instituted into Law, the personal and financial problems would begin for the spouse who wants the divorce at the moment this "legal" right would be activated by the spouse who did not want the divorce or who had initiated a "no-consent" response based on it, in order to control the spouse who wants the divorce.

This type of law would allow one spouse to virtually blackmail the spouse who wanted the divorce. Echoes of such demands, quickly resonate in the brain, "If you don’t pay me what I want, I’ll not agree to the divorce."

"If you don’t sign over all our property to me, I’ll not agree to a divorce." On and on and on....

This so-called "law" would no-doubt become known as the "Law of Spousal Vengeance" - a ruthless idea instituted and protected by our legal system.

Unbelievable you say? Not according to Dr. Baskerville. This is what he is working for today.

One of Dr. Baskerville’s Problem Premises:

A Baskerville Premise is that marriage can only be defined a legal contract.

In spite of the fact that there is no logical/moral/legal (or historical) basis to arbitrarily define the marriage relationship today as inherently a legal contract, it is insisted that marriage can only be defined a legal contract in the United States.

Because marriage can be a legally defined relationship within the United States doesn’t mean that people who live within a sexually and financially faithful relationship and make the choice to be married within that choice, aren’t married (within/under their system of morality).

Marriage by personal contract is marriage to the couple who wish to design their marriage through this legal means. The "State" has no presumptive (or constitutional) right or basis to define and control marriage for every citizen.

Legal marriage within any given system of Law is a man-made relationship (defined and framed) by instituted family law.

Marriage can only be defined as a "relationship" within human society. Depending in the country lived in, it may or may not have held legal requirements on the couple.

In early America, marriage had no legal (national or state) requirements on the couple within it.

There were some religious communities that provided a level of control on marriages and divorce for those who chose to be members of that community, but there is no historical or legal basis for Dr. Baskerville to present marriage or divorce in the light that he does today as being inherently a legal contract.

It is a mistake in the logic to claim the right (through the power of the "state") to control all adult citizen’s personal choices in regards to the right-to-divorce because of a stated effort that to stop possible harmful consequences of divorce actions on children, we must give the spouse who does not want the divorce the legal right to stop it (this would result in a legal assertion that assumes that the spouse who wants the divorce is inherently guilty of hurting his/her children merely because he/she wants a divorce).
In other words, getting a divorce is an act of child abuse.

A very dangerous precedent to set-up in law.

This Baskerville type of mind-set (the all-powerful "state") was rampant during the movement toward prohibition. The American people did not and do not want the "state" to control their every personal choice and they rejected prohibition (in spite of a failure of some people to drink responsibly). They were right in this desire.

It is arrogantly mischievous and immoral to claim as Dr. Baskerville does that the 'state' should control the divorce right and deny "no-fault" divorce to couples who have childrenbecause he thinks the "state" (and one spouse) should control the other person in marriage who wants a divorce. This is the arrogant claim made by all those who think they know what is best for all others. They are called tyrants.

That his idea, his claim, that his desired "one-spouse" legal control over the other spouse (who does want the divorce) is being worked-for because of children of the marriage, claiming it would be his real reason for supporting such a change in law... can reasonably be seen as in actuality to serve to mislead and manipulate the system, because when a couple agree on divorce, he apparently sets no challenge to the divorce taking place.

So, what happened to his declared basis for this change in law as being for "children" ?--- If he finds it okay for a couple who agree to divorce, divorce, his entire alleged basis that divorce, itself, harms children disappears. 
Clearly, he is admitting at this point, that the manner by which divorce is undertaken and lived out is what may provide harm to children of divorced couples.

The truth is that it is not divorce, itself, that has the potential to hurt children but the way divorce is undertaken by the couple that may bring stress into the lives of children of divorce and the lack of shared-parenting support/incentives by the present family court system.

Therefore, it is logically compelling that the claim that divorce, itself, may bring injury to children is not the underlying reason for his work toward providing a "one-spouse" control over the divorcing spouse’s life, but supports his desire toward outlawing "no-fault" divorce, itself.

His ideas about divorce rights have fatal flaws and they should be exposed to those who might be and are being influenced by them.

Another Baskerville problem premise:
The 'point' that Stephen Baskerville continually attempts to make, that '....there is no other contract in law except marriage that can be broken unilaterally by one party...' implying to the reader, as though in marriage today each person has been given individual power (immoral license) under 'no-fault' over the spouse that business contracts do not have.

To state the no-fault divorce right, this way, is manipulative and untrue.

No-fault divorce makes one legal statement.

It is this: That the 'state' will not define who is to blame when a marriage fails. The court, however, remains within legal marriage obligations and attempts through family court to see justice prevail (because this family court system may be badly flawed today has nothing to do with the 'no-fault' process wherein couples choose to leave their married relationship).

It is a misuse of reason and fact to attempt to equate business contracts with a marriage relationship. Every civil/business contract that is entered has every aspect of the requirements regarding each person involved in the contract spelled out (marriage - even under the U.S., legal system of family law do not have them spelled out).

The word, 'unilaterally,' is misused (abused) by Dr. Baskerville.
 Civil Contracts:  Within all civil/business contracts, one person may break that contract unilaterally (I’m using his manipulative use of that word here to make a point). It’s called factually, 'breaking the contract'....

The consequences of 'unilaterally' breaking any civil contract still allows legal redress for the other person(s) named in the contract.

This is true within the 'no-fault' divorce system of today. The spouse that obtains the "no-fault" divorce under our legal system is still required to undertake the obligations that come along with the marriage laws within our society.

Dr. Baskerville is offensive to the truth (and illogical) for using the term 'unilaterally' to confuse the truth about the domestic court system failures (when it does fail a spouse or children) with the right to divorce under the "no-fault" divorce laws.

He intentionally or ignorantly mixes up the issues.

The facts are important: 1. One issue he speaks to is the failures within the family court system that should be remedied by requiring evidence of wrong-doing before an ex-spouse is allowed to make claims (charges) against the other spouse. And, 2. The other issue he clearly is working for is to have United States divorce law changed so that it will be able to control the right-to-divorce, itself (based on his personal views of what should be a basis for ending a marriage).

Logic provides the evidence that he "uses" children as the suggested compelling reason for allowing the law to give the spouse who doesn’t want the divorce, the legal right to stop it, because he wants to wipe out all "no-fault" divorce laws. This is what his ideas about controlling the right-to-divorce serve.

No-fault divorce laws interfere with that stated desire.

The potential for children to be injured by divorce is not a compelling reason for taking away the constitutional rights of any individual in the United States to a right-to-divorce. Antagonistic marriages also have the potential for harm to children. 

Within the view of American Human Rights Under Law:  We live in a Republic that has provided the right of due process for every citizen.
No individual citizen should ever have a legal right to suspend these rights or take away these rights at any time or for any length of time from another citizen.

This dangerous idea can be defined: It is called slavery

Divorce is a result, not a cause.

The idea of giving one spouse (the spouse who doesn’t want the divorce) the overreaching legal right to control the right-to-divorce of the other spouse (merely because the couple share children) is eminently incompatible with our Constitutional right of due process for every citizen within our country and any attack on this right should be vigorously challenged.
In my view, he makes the case against his own book by his inconsistent and contradictory reasoning and unethical use of words regarding the issues examined. These realities indicate that his book should no longer be published as it now is written, or that, he should rewrite his book within a consistent position of arguing for a change within the domestic family court system that upholds the right of shared-parenting whenever divorce is undertaken
under civil law.
Posted at 15:11 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Login Login
Email Address* :
Password* :

New Registration Forgot Password?
Categories Categories
Al Fonzi
Andy Caldwell
Ashly Donavan
Bill Glynn
Dan Logue
Darin Selnick
Dr. George Watson
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Mike Tabor
Dr. Wendy James
Gary Beckner
Gordon Mullin
Gretchen Hamel
Harris Sherline
Janet Cronick
Jerry Scheidbach
Joe Armendariz
Judson Phillips
Lowell Ponte
Matt Barber
Matt Kokkonen
Mike Brown
Mike Gorbell
Mike Stoker
Phil Kiver
Richard Cochrane
Richard Fryer
Richard S. Quandt
Robert Jeffers
Robyn Hayhurst
Roger Hedgecock
Rooster Bradford
Santa Barbara City Watch
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
RSS Feed RSS Feed
Top 10 Recent BlogRSS Feed
Al FonziRSS Feed
Andy CaldwellRSS Feed
Ashly DonavanRSS Feed
Bill GlynnRSS Feed
Dan LogueRSS Feed
Darin SelnickRSS Feed
Dr. George WatsonRSS Feed
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.RSS Feed
Dr. Mike TaborRSS Feed
Dr. Wendy JamesRSS Feed
Gary BecknerRSS Feed
Gordon MullinRSS Feed
Gretchen HamelRSS Feed
Harris SherlineRSS Feed
Janet CronickRSS Feed
Jerry Scheidbach RSS Feed
Joe ArmendarizRSS Feed
Judson PhillipsRSS Feed
Lowell PonteRSS Feed
Matt BarberRSS Feed
Matt KokkonenRSS Feed
Mike BrownRSS Feed
Mike GorbellRSS Feed
Mike StokerRSS Feed
Phil KiverRSS Feed
Richard CochraneRSS Feed
Richard FryerRSS Feed
Richard S. QuandtRSS Feed
Robert JeffersRSS Feed
Robyn HayhurstRSS Feed
Roger HedgecockRSS Feed
Rooster BradfordRSS Feed
Santa Barbara City WatchRSS Feed
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.RSS Feed
Archives Archives
Skip Navigation Links.
Tag Cloud Tag Cloud                      
Validator Validator