{"id":376,"date":"2002-03-26T16:03:23","date_gmt":"2002-03-26T23:03:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mossback.org\/archives\/2002\/03\/political-activism-opportunities\/"},"modified":"2002-03-26T16:03:23","modified_gmt":"2002-03-26T23:03:23","slug":"political-activism-opportunities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/2002\/03\/26\/political-activism-opportunities\/","title":{"rendered":"Political activism opportunities"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\t— A couple of issues have been brought to my attention recently that will be of interest to those divorced fathers and mothers paying child support who’d like to get involved in the California political process. First, Assemblyman Rod Wright (D, Los Angeles) has a bill that will make it harder for the wrong man to be identified as the father of a child born out-of-wedlock. This ensures that the appropriate party can participate in raising the child, and with supporting the child and its mother. The bill is AB 2240 Paternity Testing<\/a>. Here’s the summary:
\nAB 2240, as introduced, Wright. Paternity testing.<\/p>\n

\n(1) Existing law provides for a voluntary declaration of
\npaternity. Existing law requires that declaration to be executed on a
\nform developed by the Department of Child Support Services
\ncontaining specified information, including a statement by the mother
\nthat the man who has signed the voluntary declaration of paternity
\nis the only possible father.
\n This bill would require the Department of Child Support Services
\nto consult with father’s rights advocacy groups upon further
\ndevelopment of that form. <\/p>\n

\n(2) Existing law authorizes specified persons to bring an action
\nto declare or determine the existence of the father and child
\nrelationship, as specified.
\n This bill would require specified persons who bring an action
\npursuant to that provision to sign a declaration under penalty of
\nperjury that the defendant is the only possible father. <\/p>\n

\n(3) Existing law authorizes a local child support agency to issue
\nan administrative order requiring the mother, the child, and the
\nalleged father to submit to genetic testing to determine paternity in
\nany civil action or proceeding in which paternity is a relevant fact
\nand a contested issue.
\nExisting law authorizes a party in a civil action to make a motion
\nto vacate a judgment within a specified period of time.
\nThis bill would set forth procedures whereby certain persons may
\nmove to vacate a judgment establishing paternity entered by a court
\nof this state after the expiration of the period of time in which a
\nparty may generally move to vacate a judgment, as specified.
\n


\nThe other thing<\/b> concerns an advisory panel of fathers who will meet with the state’s Department of Child Support Services once a quarter to provide input on the operation of the child support collection system.

If you’re interested in either of these things, drop me an e-mail and I’ll tell you how to get involved. You can comment on the bill by simply clicking “Comment” at the link provided.

Note to the squeamish<\/b>: People bring these issues to me because there was a time when I was a fathers’ rights activist, but I’ve retired from that avocation. So if you’re an affected party and you think you can sit back and let somebody like me perform your citizenship duties for you, you’re mistaken. Either you do it yourself, or it doesn’t get done.\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

— A couple of issues have been brought to my attention recently that will be of interest to those divorced fathers and mothers paying child support who’d like to get involved in the California political process. First, Assemblyman Rod Wright (D, Los Angeles) has a bill that will make it harder for the wrong man … Continue reading “Political activism opportunities”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbifyw-64","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bennett.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}