LAWS PAGE IT IS TIME THAT JUSTICE BE SERVED! STATE CIVIL CODES  FINDLAW  JUSTIA  o ALWAYS CHECK FOR THE LATEST UPDATES TO YOUR STATES CODES  STATE CONSTITUTIONS  State constitutions do exist.  Check with your state to find out what yours says. LOCAL LAWS  Typically there are no local laws other than the state that will have any impact on your case.  Local law is the  prejudice, bias and discrimination of injustice served by in individual or group of individuals operating outside the legal  boundaries of the law of this nation and their state.  ENFORCEMENT  Currently family court orders are viewed as nothing more than a nuisance to law enforcement because they are  unenforceable and just nothing more than a civil matter. Keeping a child from his father is not a crime and in most states  has no punishment.  CONTEMPT  There are a few different forms of contempt. Civil contempt occurs when the contemnor (the person who is committing the  act of contempt) willfully disobeys a court order. Civil contempt is also called indirect contempt because it occurs outside the  judge's immediate realm and evidence must be presented to the judge to prove the contempt. Criminal contempt occurs  when the contemnor actually interferes with the ability of the court to function properly - for example, by yelling at the judge.  This is also called direct contempt because it occurs directly in front of the judge. A Willful Disregard Or Disobedience Of A  Public Authority (that's right not just the judge but ANY public authority). Do not curse, swear, or approach the judge unless  the judge gives you the permission to. You can be slapped with contempt of court for failure to pay or failure to comply with  a court order. Third, keep you temper in check because you can and will be thrown in jail for threatening actions or words.  Getting to hear a contempt action against someone usually has to be in writing and brought before the court. Some courts  call this an action, a motion or a petition. Due to the internet some states have made progress and have posted standard  forms online that you can either print, complete and file or in some cases actually fill out online and then print and file. If you  are going to do this on your own you will have to pay the court costs and service fees and I strongly recommend that you  have someone else complete the forms so that you don't make any serious mistakes that could cost you even more time  and money. You will have to get a court date and show up to prosecute the case.  MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY/VISITATION  TEXT HERE  STATE LAWS Each state can modify the UCCJEA it to their own interpretations and intentions. In many cases the UCCJEA standard is  diluted to the point that it no longer has any weight nor merit. These states feel children a nothing more than a civil matter  and that the court and law enforcements time is better spent on criminal matters. Some states do not recognize this nations  government nor power and therefore do not use the UCCJEA or even their own states laws when deciding a  custody/visitation. I am calling for revisions to all U.S. Federal, State and Local Codes to reflect that acts of parental alienation are felony acts  of child abduction and/or kidnapping as may apply to each case. Many acts of parental alienation are malicious acts of  vengeance against the other spouse and therefore need to be judged according to the time a child is kept from the other  biological parent (without true and just cause). Custody Orders are to be effective from the time of birth (only limited by the  time that the paternal parent is identified through DNA). No bias / discrimination / indifference or preferential treatment to be  given to one parent / guardian over any other Both parents are to be kept informed about all legal matters of their child. This  means that schools and medical (just as a small example) would be required to contact and inform both parents / guardians  about appointments. Copies of all records must be made available to both parents (including school, doctors, etc.). Any  parent who does limits / restricts participate in visitation / communication / legal (without just cause) shall be a criminal act.  Any case taken in bad faith by law enforcement / courts / DCS (DCFS / CPS) cannot be simply ignored but must seek  damages against the person who filed the false report.  Limiting the amount of time that a child can be kept from visitation, communication and other legal rights that both biological  parents possess would help reduce the courts case loads. To find your own states laws about visitation, custody, divorce,  etc. visit the following websites:   FINDLAW - http://www.findlaw.com CORNELL UNIVERSITY - http://www.law.cornell.edu  JUSTIA - http://law.justia.com/codes/  As I and so many fathers have found out there is no justice for victim fathers or victim children of a mothers acts of parental  alienation, parental abduction and parental kidnapping. She could take the children and run with them for life...even with  court orders. Women get a slap on the wrist if anything at all. The system protects the mothers which is bias and  discriminator against the fathers.  JURISDICTION  The state of birth should hold ultimate jurisdiction over the child and no county, city or local municipality within that state  should exercise any right or power over the original order. Law enforcement shall not limit or alter the order due to their  state, county, municipal or local enforcement regulations or guidelines. "This order is from another county," or "this order is  from another state," are the common responses by law enforcement when dealing with a visitation order.  In cases where something is not addressed by the order the law enforcement agency should contact the court or the district  attorney of the originating order for clarification. However since it is not viewed as a criminal act it is simply ignored. If needs  be, the matter can be presented to the originating court. Neither indifference, personal opinion nor ignorance are part of the  justice system. Officers who say there is nothing that they can do mean there is nothing they will do. State lines create a problem when an abused child/parent is prevented from taken a child with them because that child was  born in the current state. Many spouses have no alternative than to return to family that often live in other states and  because one state holds jurisdiction over the child the abused parent cannot remove the abused child without facing  criminal charges. This leaves the child with the abusive parent for possibly up to 18 years or longer and in many cases they  have been brainwashed into believing that the father did not care or was abusive.  ENFORCEMENT  Get set for the games to begin. You will be played more than a chess pawn and ping-pong are their favorite games. It isn't  our jurisdiction, it isn't our city, state, or even problem. You will learn that a custody order has less importance than toilet  paper. That even if you are awarded custody it will not be enforced nor upheld. If you are dealing with multiple counties or  states you can just about hang it up. Being in jail would have been less painful than living without rights to your children. If  you are a judge, a law enforcement officer or even an attorney and think that anything that I am saying is a lie then step into  my shoes and walk the road of legalized parental kidnapping that I and so many others have walked.  The custodial parent is required to inform the non-custodial parent, guardian and or relatives of any and all changes of  address, telephone, email, instant messenger, etc. within 48 hours of the change. Any act of blocking, restricting, or  prevention of this information shall be held as contempt of court and is punishable by fines, community service, jail terms  and or the possible loss of visitation, custody and legal rights to the child.  The custodial parent is required to adhere to communications, visitation and custody rights of the non-custodial parent,  guardian and or relatives. Any act of blocking, restricting, or prevention shall be held as contempt of court and is punishable  by fines, community service, jail terms and or the possible loss of visitation, custody and legal rights to the child. Acts of  contempt, perjury or false allegations shall be held as contempt of court and is punishable by fines, community service, jail  terms and or the possible loss of visitation, custody and legal rights to the child. Each day law enforcement and courts simple overlook the letter of the law of custody orders as if they had no power or  weight. Custody orders carry weight and are enforceable and no law enforcement agency, court or other agency should  dilute or disregard any article within them either. In most cases the law enforcement officers simply say it doesn’t tell us  what to do if the person does not comply. This “not my job” approach to law enforcement makes it appear that the orders  have no weight nor merit and therefore the non-custodial parent cannot be held accountable either.  If neither the court nor the law enforcement is going to enforce the orders then why put it on paper? I watched helplessly as  I was bounced from one law enforcement agency to another only to be told to go back to where I started. Parental  Alienation does not matter to anyone who it has not happened to. Making a mockery of the parent who is trying to defend  and protect their children should be an offense that can be brought against such judicial indifference.  DOUBLE JEOPARDY  The Department of Children and Family Services (a.k.a. CPS) and family courts are forcing parents to be subjected to a  double jeopardy scheme of justice. If charges are brought again someone in the criminal court and they are cleared of them  the family court and DFCS will put the person on trial again for the same thing. Any individual or entity that is held without  legal bounds will abuse the people that it is sworn to protect just as our Presidents have proven for far too long.  While completing a foster parenting course DCS brought in a bunch of minors who were in the system to show how bad  these kids were. What I saw and HEARD was a lot of children who felt just as victimized as the families. Such horror stories  as minors being placed into adult detention centers, record suicide attempts, etc. which are not required to be reported.  Such violation of human rights would not be tolerated by the United Nations. Our schools have 12' tall fences with gates and  guards. They are "locked down" which is a jail term whenever a threat is reported. The school are given less money while  population is still growing. And yet DCS/DFCS/CPS continues to receive more and more money.  DRUGGING OUR YOUTH  I am shocked and alarmed that the government and women are using our children as lab rats for psychological testing and  treatments. The medicating of our children by schools, hospitals and one parent should be illegal. My first wife had our  oldest daughter thinking that she needed a shrink and drugs. She not only took her without my knowledge or consent but  also told her to "keep it a secret from daddy." This is nothing more (nor less) than another government gone wild for money  with the drug manufacturers.  War on Fatherhoood Part 1 War on Fatherhoood Part 2 War on Fatherhoood Part 3 War on Fatherhoood Part 4 War on Fatherhoood Part 5 CONTEMPT / PERJURY / FALSE ALLEGATIONS  Acts of perjury, contempt and false allegations should be held accountable by the district attorney’s office. In cases where a  district attorney has charged one spouse with a crime and the charges were found to be false, the district attorney’s office  should in turn defend the accused as they defended the accuser. Justice is not single sided and where justice is not served  this is an act of bias and discrimination which the district attorney’s office should be held accountable.  UCCJEA  This Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), revisits the problem of the  interstate child almost thirty years after the Conference promulgated the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA).  The UCCJEA accomplishes two major purposes.  First, it revises the law on child custody jurisdiction in light of federal  enactments and almost thirty years of inconsistent case law. Article 2 of this Act provides clearer standards for which States  can exercise original jurisdiction over a child custody determination. It also, for the first time, enunciates a standard of  continuing jurisdiction and clarifies modification jurisdiction. Other aspects of the article harmonize the law on simultaneous  proceedings, clean hands, and forum non conveniens.  Second, this Act provides in Article 3 for a remedial process to enforce interstate child custody and visitation determinations.  In doing so, it brings a uniform procedure to the law of interstate enforcement that is currently producing inconsistent  results. In many respects, this Act accomplishes for custody and visitation determinations the same uniformity that has  occurred in interstate child support with the promulgation of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA).  Revision of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.  The UCCJA was adopted as law in all 50 States, the District of  Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. A number of adoptions, however, significantly departed from the original text. In addition,  almost thirty years of litigation since the promulgation of the UCCJA produced substantial inconsistency in interpretation by  state courts. As a result, the goals of the UCCJA were rendered unobtainable in many cases.  In 1980, the federal government enacted the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, to address  the interstate custody jurisdictional problems that continued to exist after the adoption of the UCCJA. The PKPA mandates  that state authorities give full faith and credit to other states’ custody determinations, so long as those determinations were  made in conformity with the provisions of the PKPA. The PKPA provisions regarding bases for jurisdiction, restrictions on  modifications, preclusion of simultaneous proceedings, and notice2 requirements are similar to those in the UCCJA. There  are, however, some significant differences. For example, the PKPA authorizes continuing exclusive jurisdiction in the original  decree State so long as one parent or the child remains there and that State has continuing jurisdiction under its own law.  The UCCJA did not directly address this issue. To further complicate the process, the PKPA partially incorporates state  UCCJA law in its language. The relationship between these two statutes became “technical enough to delight a medieval  property lawyer.” Homer H. Clark, Domestic Relations § 12.5 at 494 (2d ed. 1988).  As documented in an extensive study by the American Bar Association’s Center on Children and the Law, Obstacles to the  Recovery and Return of Parentally Abducted Children (1993) (Obstacles Study), inconsistency of interpretation of the  UCCJA and the technicalities of applying the PKPA, resulted in a loss of uniformity among the States. The Obstacles Study  suggested a number of amendments which would eliminate the inconsistent state interpretations and harmonize the UCCJA  with the PKPA. The revisions of the jurisdictional aspects of the UCCJA eliminate the inconsistent state interpretations  and can be summarized as follows:  1. Home state priority. The PKPA prioritizes “home state” jurisdiction by requiring that full faith and credit cannot be  given to a child custody determination by a State that exercises initial jurisdiction as a “significant connection state”  when there is a “home State.” Initial custody determinations based on “significant connections” are not entitled to  PKPA enforcement unless there is no home State. The UCCJA, however, specifically authorizes four independent  bases of jurisdiction without prioritization. Under the UCCJA, a significant connection custody determination may  have to be enforced even if it would be denied enforcement under the PKPA. The UCCJEA prioritizes home state  jurisdiction in Section 201. 2. Clarification of emergency jurisdiction. There are several problems with the current emergency jurisdiction  provision of the UCCJA § 3(a)(3). First, the language of the UCCJA does not specify that emergency jurisdiction may  be exercised only to protect the child on a temporary basis until the court with appropriate jurisdiction issues a  permanent order. Some courts have interpreted the UCCJA language to so provide. Other courts, however, have held  that there is no time limit on a custody determination based on emergency jurisdiction. Simultaneous proceedings  and conflicting custody orders have resulted from these different interpretations.  Second, the emergency jurisdiction provisions predated the widespread enactment of state domestic violence  statutes. Those statutes are often invoked to keep one parent away from the other parent and the children when  there is a threat3 of violence. Whether these situations are sufficient to invoke the emergency jurisdiction provision of  the UCCJA has been the subject of some confusion since the emergency jurisdiction provision does not specifically  refer to violence directed against the parent of the child or against a sibling of the child.  The UCCJEA contains a separate section on emergency jurisdiction at Section 204 which addresses these issues.  3. Exclusive continuing jurisdiction for the State that entered the decree. The failure of the UCCJA to clearly  enunciate that the decree-granting State retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction to modify a decree has resulted in  two major problems. First, different interpretations of the UCCJA on continuing jurisdiction have produced conflicting  custody decrees. States also have different interpretations as to how long continuing jurisdiction lasts. Some courts  have held that modification jurisdiction continues until the last contestant leaves the State, regardless of how many  years the child has lived outside the State or how tenuous the child’s connections to the State have become. Other  courts have held that continuing modification jurisdiction ends as soon as the child has established a new home  State, regardless of how significant the child’s connections to the decree State remain. Still other States distinguish  between custody orders and visitation orders. This divergence of views leads to simultaneous proceedings and  conflicting custody orders. The second problem arises when it is necessary to determine whether the State with continuing jurisdiction has  relinquished it. There should be a clear basis to determine when that court has relinquished jurisdiction. The UCCJA  provided no guidance on this issue. The ambiguity regarding whether a court has declined jurisdiction can result in  one court improperly exercising jurisdiction because it erroneously believes that the other court has declined  jurisdiction. This caused simultaneous proceedings and conflicting custody orders. In addition, some courts have  declined jurisdiction after only informal contact between courts with no opportunity for the parties to be heard. This  raised significant due process concerns. The UCCJEA addresses these issues in Sections 110, 202, and 206.  4. Specification of what custody proceedings are covered. The definition of custody proceeding in the UCCJA is  ambiguous. States have rendered conflicting decisions regarding certain types of proceedings. There is no general  agreement on whether the UCCJA applies to neglect, abuse, dependency, wardship, guardianship, termination of  parental rights, and protection from domestic violence proceedings. The UCCJEA includes a sweeping definition that,  with the exception of adoption, includes virtually all cases that can involve custody of or visitation with a child as a  “custody determination.”4  5. Role of “Best Interests.” The jurisdictional scheme of the UCCJA was designed to promote the best interests of the  children whose custody was at issue by discouraging parental abduction and providing that, in general, the State with  the closest connections to, and the most evidence regarding, a child should decide that child’s custody. The “best  interest” language in the jurisdictional sections of the UCCJA was not intended to be an invitation to address the  merits of the custody dispute in the jurisdictional determination or to otherwise provide that “best interests”  considerations should override jurisdictional determinations or provide an additional jurisdictional basis.  The UCCJEA eliminates the term “best interests” in order to clearly distinguish between the jurisdictional standards  and the substantive standards relating to custody and visitation of children.  6. Other Changes. This draft also makes a number of additional amendments to the UCCJA. Many of these changes  were made to harmonize the provisions of this Act with those of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. One of the  policy bases underlying this Act is to make uniform the law of interstate family proceedings to the extent possible,  given the very different jurisdictional foundations. It simplifies the life of the family law practitioner when the same or  similar provisions are found in both Acts.  Enforcement Provisions  One of the major purposes of the revision of the UCCJA was to provide a remedy for interstate visitation and custody cases.  As with child support, state borders have become one of the biggest obstacles to enforcement of custody and visitation  orders. If either parent leaves the State where the custody determination was made, the other parent faces considerable  difficulty in enforcing the visitation and custody provisions of the decree. Locating the child, making service of process, and  preventing adverse modification in a new forum all present problems. There is currently no uniform method of enforcing  custody and visitation orders validly entered in another State. As documented by the Obstacles Study, despite the fact that  both the UCCJA and the PKPA direct the enforcement of visitation and custody orders entered in accordance with mandated  jurisdictional prerequisites and due process, neither act provides enforcement procedures or remedies.  As the Obstacles Study pointed out, the lack of specificity in enforcement procedures has resulted in the law of enforcement  evolving differently in different jurisdictions. In one State, it might be common practice to file a Motion to Enforce or a Motion  to Grant Ful l Faith and Credit to initiate an enforcement proceeding. In5 another State, a Writ of Habeas Corpus or a  Citation for Contempt might be commonly used. In some States, Mandamus and Prohibition also may be utilized. All of  these enforcement procedures differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. While many States tend to limit considerations in  enforcement proceedings to whether the court which issued the decree had jurisdiction to make the custody determination,  others broaden the considerations to scrutiny of whether enforcement would be in the best interests of the child.  Lack of uniformity complicates the enforcement process in several ways: (1) It increases the costs of the enforcement action  in part because the services of more than one lawyer may be required – one in the original forum and one in the State  where enforcement is sought; (2) It decreases the certainty of outcome; (3) It can turn enforcement into a long and drawn  out procedure. A parent opposed to the provisions of a visitation determination may be able to delay implementation for  many months, possibly even years, thereby frustrating not only the other parent, but also the process that led to the  issuance of the original court order.  The provisions of Article 3 provide several remedies for the enforcement of a custody determination. First, there is a simple  procedure for registering a custody determination in another State. This will allow a party to know in advance whether that  State will recognize the party’s custody determination. This is extremely important in estimating the risk of the child’s non-  return when the child is sent on visitation. The provision should prove to be very useful in international custody cases.  Second, the Act provides a swift remedy along the lines of habeas corpus. Time is extremely important in visitation and  custody cases. If visitation rights cannot be enforced quickly, they often cannot be enforced at all. This is particularly true if  there is a limited time within which visitation can be exercised such as may be the case when one parent has been granted  visitation during the winter or spring holiday period. Without speedy consideration and resolution of the enforcement of such  visitation rights, the ability to visit may be lost entirely. Similarly, a custodial parent must be able to obtain prompt  enforcement when the noncustodial parent refuses to return a child at the end of authorized visitation, particularly when a  summer visitation extension will infringe on the school year. A swift enforcement mechanism is desirable for violations of  both custody and visitation provisions.  The scope of the enforcing court’s inquiry is limited to the issue of whether the decree court had jurisdiction and complied  with due process in rendering the original custody decree. No further inquiry is necessary because neither Article 2 nor the  PKPA allows an enforcing court to modify a custody determination.6 Third, the enforcing court will be able to utilize an  extraordinary remedy. If the enforcing court is concerned that the parent, who has physical custody of the child, will flee or  harm the child, a warrant to take physical possession of the child is available.  Finally, there is a role for public authorities, such as prosecutors, in the enforcement process. Their involvement will  encourage the parties to abide by the terms of the custody determination. If the parties know that public authorities and law  enforcement officers are available to help in securing compliance with custody determinations, the parties may be deterred  from interfering with the exercise of rights established by court order.  The involvement of public authorities will also prove more effective in remedying violations of custody determinations. Most  parties do not have the resources to enforce a custody determination in another jurisdiction. The availability of the public  authorities as an enforcement agency will help ensure that this remedy can be made available regardless of income level. In  addition, the public authorities may have resources to draw on that are unavailable to the average litigant.  This Act does not authorize the public authorities to be involved in the action leading up to the making of the custody  determination, except when requested by the court, when there is a violation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects  of International Child Abduction, or when the person holding the child has violated a criminal statute. The Act does not  mandate that public authorities be involved in all cases. Not all States, or local authorities, have the funds necessary for an  effective custody and visitation enforcement program.  WHERE IS THE INJUSTICE COMING FROM?  So, where could such a great work fall so far from justice?  It is permitting states to reduce, alter and even ignore the  UCCJEA and other federal guidelines.  Within those states you have certain groups and individuals like in Southern Georgia  who are not held to any standard of justice but their own.  Judges, law enforcement and attorney who take a guilty until  proven guilty stance against a Father whose court orders are proven to be worthless and unenforceable, whose few hours  of visitation set forth by the court is being violated and the Father is frustrated from the lack of support and protection that  the justice system provides him.  If they see him cry they call him unstable and if he takes matters into his own hands they  can remove him from the family completely.  They manipulate his frustration and falsely report that he is hostile and  aggressive and therefore should not have his children.  He is nothing more to them than just another civil matter.  He is money to the mother and her attorney, he provides  financial incentives to the court and law enforcement for each action they take against him.  At the end of their day justice  was in their bank accounts not his.  For those who uphold justice I pray that I could have my day in your court but Fathers  don’t have the luxuries afforded to mothers.  Come take a walk in my shoes or those of my son and see just what injustice  is.  Better yet try it yourself and see if you can survive the horrible physical, mental and financial toll that Parental  Kidnapping has on you and then remember that your child has no attorney to protect them from you or your X, from the  frigid cold of the justice system, the courts or the attorneys or even that someone not related to them created a piece of  paper saying that they cannot be with their father like before.  The justice system teaches you not to look into peoples eyes  to see who they truly are merely to beware of the abuse that they are capable of.  Do not report the correct information  because they may be lying (while advising you to alter your report).    When I was testing to go into the California Highway Patrol one of the questions on the test was ‘can you bend the law?’   The only answer is no you cannot but the judge is the only person who can.  The evaluator was puzzled and inquired what I  meant by that.  I explained that going one mile an hour over the speed limit you have broken the law but the judge had the  power to say I am going to let you off with a warning or I wish I could do more to you for breaking the law.  Justice is  supposed to be unbiased, not discriminate and well...just.  That is the black and white of it.  But then you have the blue side  where cops protect cops and the side that effects EVERYONE (including law enforcement) is the red (tape) side.  You could  hold a person accountable IF... that is the red area which causes more people to feel victimized after being victimized.  Like  with Parental Kidnapping there are far too many names being injected into the system that are muddying up the waters.   Child Snatching, Deprivation, Absconding, Hostile Aggressive Parenting, Parental Alienation, Parental Denigration, Parental  Abduction, etc.  The justice system is being overrun with frivolous things that increases their workload, preventing and  decreasing the quality of justice served, and increasing the number of victims.  Bring back justice and there won’t be as  many victims.  Decrease the number of victims and you will increase trust in the justice system.  Increase trust in the justice  system and you will reduce the perceived hatred of the system.  In Iraq one group of military soldiers stopped breaking down doors and holding guns to everyones head and the people  responded not only in a positive manner but started to cooperate with them turning in weapons, reporting potential threats,  etc.  All it took was kindness.  How would you feel if they were doing that to your family?  This is what I am trying to say.   You, the judges, the courts, the law enforcement, etc., know what justice is and know that you swore an oath to protect and  defend.  Do it.  Fathers are not the enemy we are Fathers who want to be a part of our families lives.  God is the one friend who will not turn away from you in your time of suffering and need.  Click on the Bible and one will be delivered to you. Click on the pen above to contact me Note that the information contained in these sites is not legal advice, I am not an attorney, the information may not be accurate or current and is subject to each individual interpretation. You agree to hold me harmless and have been informed of such.   Specific cases are where there may be just cause this information does not apply and is not held to judicial standards because it is the person opinion, experience and information was collected from personal, private and public sources which I have no control over. Site Founded June 25, 2007 - All Rights Reserved. WheresDADDY.ORG, WheresMOMMY.ORG & AChildsRights.ORG FBI Changes Definition of RAPE to Include MEN as VICTIMS But is this a solution?  Sure, it includes males who  are raped without gender limits but it poses a  potential issue as it addresses unwelcome or  unscented penetration.  What about the acts all  the way up to that point?  Typically rape includes  holding the person hostage in one form or  another, while terrorizing the victim for the  gratification of the perpetrator while victimizing the  victim the entire time (meaning clock) that it takes  for the act of penetration to be committed.  Sure,  boys, males and fathers are now included and the  statistics will soon start to show a picture that has  been ignored and refused for far too long but I  question what other ways can this change fail just  from this one change.  But does this mean that the rape of a minor is not longer a sex crime if there is penetration?  We are  not just talking about a scene from the movie Deliverance.  Women rape men too and it does not have  to be violent.  Most cases of childhood rape are non-violent.  This seems to remove the “No Means  No” portion and only focus’ on the final act to complete the series of crimes which occur all the way up  to rape.  What has to be proven yet is whether this change is enforcible and enforced.   The end of the  feminist reign by removing the gender protection is at least a step in the right direction for the victims.