How the Government Creates Child Abuse by Stephen Baskerville
April 13, 2006
|
Posted by ANCPR
HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE – How the Government Creates Child Abuse by Stephen Baskerville
Just in time for “Child Abuse Prevention Month,” the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publishes its annual contribution to obfuscating the causes of child abuse.
Operatives of the child abuse industry often wax righteous about the “scandal” of child abuse. “We cannot tolerate the abuse of even one child,” says an HHS press release. But the real scandal is the armies of officials who have been allowed to acquire — using taxpayers’ dollars — a vested interest in abused children.
Devising child abuse programs makes us all feel good, but there is no evidence they make the slightest difference. In fact, they probably make the problem worse. Child abuse is largely a product of the feminist-dominated family law and social work industries. It is a textbook example of the government creating a problem for itself to solve.
Child abuse is entirely preventable. A few decades ago, there was no child abuse epidemic; it grew up with the welfare system and the divorce revolution. It continues because of entrenched interests who are employed pretending to combat it.
A few undisputed facts will establish this — facts that are passed over and even distorted year after year by HHS and others whose budgets depend on abused children.
Almost all child abuse takes places in single parent homes. A British study found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present than in an intact family. HHS has its own figures demonstrating that children in single-parent households are at much higher risk for physical violence and sexual molestation than those living in two-parent homes. Yet this basic fact is consistently omitted from its annual report.
Shorn of euphemism, what this means is that the principal impediment to child abuse is a father. “The presence of the father … placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse,” conclude scholars in the journal Adolescent and Family Health. “The protective effect from the father’s presence in most households was sufficiently strong to offset the risk incurred by the few paternal perpetrators.”
In fact, the risk of “paternal perpetrators” is miniscule. Contrary to the innuendo of child abuse “advocates,” it is not married fathers but single mothers who are by far the most likely to injure and kill their children. “Contrary to public perception,” write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks of the Heritage Foundation, “research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household.” Mothers accounted for 55% of child murders, according to a Justice Department report (1,100 out of 2,000, with fathers committing 130). Here again, HHS itself has figures that women aged 20 to 49 are almost twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of child maltreatment: “almost two-thirds were females.” Given that “male” perpetrators are not usually fathers but much more likely to be boyfriends and stepfathers, fathers emerge as by far the least likely child abusers.
While men are thought more likely to commit sexual as opposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse is much less common than severe physical abuse and much more likely to be perpetrated by boyfriends and stepfathers. “Children are seven times more likely to be badly beaten by their parents than they are to be sexually abused by them,” according to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The NSPCC found that father-daughter incest is “rare, occurring in less than 4 in 1,000 children,” and that three-fourths of incest perpetrators are brothers and stepbrothers rather than fathers. HHS’s own figures show that reported sexual abuse is a tiny minority of reported child abuse, and of this little is committed by real fathers. The Journal of Ethnology and Sociobiology reports that a preschooler not living with both biological parents is forty times more likely to be sexually abused.
Yet feminists would have us believe that father-daughter incest is rampant, and conservatives credulously swallow their propaganda. A recent PBS documentary, “Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories,” asserts without evidence and contrary to known scientific data that “Children are most often in danger from the father.”
Feminist child protection agents implement this propaganda as policy. “One scholarly study concluded that “An anti-male attitude is often found in documents, statements, and in the writings of those claiming to be experts in cases of child sexual abuse.” Social service agencies systematically teach children to hate their fathers and inculcate in the children a message that the father has sexually molested them. “The professionals use techniques that teach children a negative and critical view of men in general and fathers in particular,” the authors write. “The child is repeatedly reinforced for fantasizing throwing Daddy in jail and is trained to hate and fear him.” A San Diego grand jury investigative report found that false accusations during divorce were positively encouraged by government officials. “The system appears to reward a parent who initiates such a complaint,” it states. “Some of these involve allegations which are so incredible that authorities should have been deeply concerned for the protection of the child.” Such behavior by officials is driven by federal financial incentives. “The social workers and therapists played pivotal roles in condoning this,” charged the grand jury. “They were helped by judges and referees.”
Seldom does public policy stand in such direct defiance of undisputed truths, to the point where the cause of the problem — separating children from their fathers — is presented as the solution, and the solution — allowing children to grow up with their fathers — is depicted as the problem. If you want to encourage child abuse, remove the fathers.
That is precisely what officials do — not only social workers but also family court judges. It is difficult to believe that judges are not aware that the most dangerous environment for children is precisely the single-parent homes they themselves create when they remove fathers in custody proceedings. Yet they have no hesitation in removing them, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable for any harm that comes to the children. On the contrary, if they do not they may be punished by the bar associations, feminist groups, and social work bureaucracies whose earnings and funding depend on a constant supply of abused children. It is a commonplace of political science that bureaucracies relentlessly expand, often by creating the problem they exist to address. Appalling as it sounds, the conclusion is inescapable that we have created a huge army of officials with a vested interest in child abuse.
Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: Courts and Legislatures, News
|
Leave a reply
Stephen,
I appreciate your article. Anything that can be done to encourage fathers to take part in their children’s lives (even if they have to go to battle in a courtroom to do so) is so important.
I assume you are referring to the 2005 Shusterman and Fluke Study in pointing out that biological mothers are far more likely to abuse her child than the biological father. Here is the problem with that assertion: 79 percent of child abuse perpetrators are the caregiving parent. The father is much less frequently the caregiving parent, and so may be more likely to abuse.
What fathers need to know is that while children are most often abused in single parent homes, the numbers drop almost to that of intact families whne two parents share the responsibility for parenting (I attribute it to overwhelmed parents always being able to rely on getting a regular “breather,” though that is purely anecdotal).
Prior to becoming a child support attorney, I was a child dependency attorney. I am being totally honest here when I tell you that divorce is not the primary cause of child abuse and neglect: substance abuse is. Dads who are tweaking are just as likely to hit their kids as moms who are tweaking.
We tell both parents, whenever either of you test clean for 60 days and get through parenting classes, the child can be placed with you. It is very rare that either pull through.
Moreover, fathers are less likely to even show up at dependency proceedings. I would be appointed to represent fathers, and I would search high and low to find them, only to have them decline to participate in the proceedings. Even though they knew their children had been abused by their mother and now were in foster care, they would not come save their kids!
The most hearbreaking case of this type was one in which I represented the father (a wealthy professional man, not an addict) in child support proceedings. He did not want to be charged for support because he was provideing direct support (he paid all of the rent, utilities, and bought diapers and groceries). He did this because mom ( a former model) was a drug addict. If he gave her money, she used it for drugs, and the child would be without food or electricity. He did not want her to receive welfare because she used the case for drugs, and he would still have to make sure the
I tried to convince him to pursue custody. I assured him that under the circumstances, he would be awarded full custody. He refused. I was perplexed because he genuinely loved his son, and had no problem spending a lot of money supporting his son.
In the midst of the proceedings to stop child support, the mother overdosed and died in the home with the child. The child was alone in the house with his mother’s corpse for three days before the situation was discovered by neighbors.
Social services then contacted me to find out where to send the boy to live with his father. My client still refused to take his son, and now the boy lives with his maternal grandparents. He generously pays over $2000 per month in suppport.
I understand and support the cause for fathers having equal parenting time. In every single occasion that I have represented a father who wanted shared custody, I got it for him. Now, as a child support attorney, I consistently encourage the non-custodial parent (regardless of gender) to seek a shared parenting relationship.
In the courts in which I practice, only about 1 in 25 even request shared custody, most fail to even show for their alternating weekends. I believe that shared custody will become the standard when the majority of fathers request it.
Regards.
Little Lawyer Girl:
I hope that shared custody will be the standard. Currently, a bill (A330) sits in the Child and Family Committee in the NYS Assembly despite an overwhelming response urging the committee to push the bill for a vote.
It is refreshing to read from someone in your profession that is not interested in perpetuating the acrimony between the parents.
Bless you
In response to littlelawyergirl:
I have fought to be in my daughters life, and because of this fight, endured incarceration, bankruptcy, and mental and emotional anguish I could never fully relate to anyone. But, I’m still fighting because I can’t imagine not being able to to be a father to the child that I had at least a “small something” to do with bringing into this world.
Every effort, motion, maneuver that I have carried out to be in my child’s life has been shot down by the family court on my ex-wifes behalf (I won’t get into the the details but suffice it to say that the blatant bias in family court against men is unbelievable) And, when things would start to look like I would get even a little semblance of normal time with my daughter, my ex-wife would bring out the woman’s “ace up the sleeve” – domestic violence.
There was NEVER a single iota of physical proof on any of the false DV charges my ex-wife filed against me. All of the charges were either dismissed after my ex and the police did everything they could to make them stick, or were adjudicated with me being found not guilty. But, although it would have been icing on the cake for my ex-wife for me to have been convicted of these charges, that was not really her main reason for having done this. She knew that the moment the family court judge heard about the DV allegation, my daughter would be taken away from me. And that is exactly what happened. The small amount of visitation I had was taken away and I had to go to DV “reeducation” classes for months before I could see my child for a supervised hour a week.
Okay, so now I’m seeing my daughter an hour a week supervised. I play their little game and jump through their little hoops like a good little poodle and the time gets worked up to 5 hours a week. (I forgot to mention that the false DV charges became so frequent on my ex-wifes part that the court forbade unsupervised contact between us any longer) So, I’m seeing my daughter 5 hrs a week. And, this is eating my ex-wife alive. Why? Because she took everything else, my house, my car, my money, and theres really nothing else to take. But, none of that was the important thing to me anyway. All that is important to me is to be able to be in my daughter’s life as her dad. So, my ex’s mind is grinding away tring to come up with some way to get to me the only way that she can and presto, she figures it out.
See, like I said before, me and my ex were no longer having unsupervised contact, so my ex would have to be mad to try and file another false DV charge. But, my little girl is 4 now. She can talk and follow instructions and boy does she love her mom. When I was having time with her, she was a very good little girl and would always do what I asked her. So I imagine since she is so much more close with her mom, she would do anything her mom asked of her. So, thats exactly what happened. Her mom coached her to tell stories of me abusing her and I haven’t seen my daughter in 5 months. The crazy thing is that, I read the report of the allegations and in one part of the report, where my daughter is asked a simple non-leading question as to whether I abused her, she gives a definite “no” answer. But, when she is asked a question where it’s phrased like “your mom says your dad did this to you” she responds with a “yes” answer.
There is not one bit of physical evidence of abuse the only thing that they have based taking my child from me on is a verbal accusation from my ex-wife, and a conflicting report from a 4 year old child who has obviously been coached due to inconsistency of her answers. But, either way, whatever legal consequensces come of the allegation, my ex-wifes goal has been reached – once again taking my daughter from me based on lies.
I’ve taken good care of my daughter for the little time that I have had with her, I’ve taken her fishing, I’ve taken her kite flying, I’ve taken her to the “Dora the Explorer” show, I gave her her first puppy, I take her to the park to ride in her “Barbie” car with “Mickey” her puppy as a passenger. I’ve done all these thing and want to be in her life to do more. But, I dont even know where my daughter is at this moment or if she’s even ok. Thats what happens to a father that wants to be in his kid’s life, their tortured with their own flesh and blood.
You make it sound so simple when you say “In every single occasion that I have represented a father who wanted shared custody, I got it for him.” I’ve had lawyers and represented myself pro-se and the result was always the same. Shared custody would be a dream to me now. I would like to just be able to see my daughter at all. I dont know what state you live in, but around here in New Mexico, if you’re a man and your involved in family court issues, you’r screwed.
Wanito happens to be very correct. I am going through something nearly the same in CALIFORNIA. It is sure Hell!
Since “Mom” moved “our” son 3000 miles across an Ocean.
I (the Father) live in and own my home in Hawaii.
This doesn’t mean I’m rich. I just got in at the right time. My son was born here (in Hawaii) and had lived here in my very same home for two and a half years before “Mom” said she wanted to visit her parents for the summer, THEN NEVER RETURNED! She dodged and hid for the “6 months” needed that all women are taught to have you legally able to remain wherever you are.
I do NOT see my son now and my “one”, one half hour phone call, one day a week, ordered by the “court”, is a set up diaster and gets worse each time. I also have to pay for “supervised visits upon 10 days notice to the mom which can change her “plans” at the last moment with the courts blessing, after I have paid and made travel arrangements. This is expensive to do and is only part of the abuse “Mom” enjoys doing. All ordered by the court since they (the Court) says I don’t know my son so there “needs” to be a “reunification period”. This is really a joke but isn’t funny!
I have to pay to travel from Hawaii to Calif. to visit my son once a month at the mothers schedule which has to go through both our attorneys or the visits don’t happen.
And expense isn’t the word. I did it for 1 year already and cannot do it any longer. Borrowed the money from my home and created debt for me.
Now I am “accused” of not wanting to visit my son. It was 50/50 joint custody across the board at the “final” divorce. Now it has been changed in Calif. only by a say-so by the mother.
She now has 100% across the board and wields it like the death hatchet.
Now that she has the POWER given TO HER BY THE COURTS WHO ARE NOT THE CHILDS PARENTS!!!
Now I’m called by my first name by my son instead of Daddy as before.
My son says I am not his father. I am only his “biological father” which he tells me that mommy told him.
I could go on forever but nothing ever comes of it unless you have a very very large amout of money.
My son is being poisoned and alienated by the mother to have the child hate the father as was confirmed by the “court mediator” filed and signed by the “judge”, more on the report against the mom, and an unnatural hostility towards me (the father) which the “Mediator” found unnatural and with out logical reasoning in writing presented to the “court”…
Nothing happened at all in my being able to correct this child abuse by the mother even with my “attorney” who said it is the worst case he had ever seen.
Even after a court hearing on the matter which was NOW “refered” to “co-parent counseling” which I have to pay for in California with the mother when “her schedule permits it”…and…”if one of us disagrees with a “shared parenting plan” then all will be for nothing.
ONE GUESS…Guess who will bleed me dry of all the money posible,(hint…she…).
“SHE” will “DISAGREE”! As it has always been. She doesn’t love this child…Mom loves her “power” given her by the “Court”. It is the only way she can hurt me with her anger towards me.
I didn’t have the affair, I didn’t have bi-polar disorder and didn’t take the meds the doctor said to take, I didn’t take “our” Child 3000 miles away on a lie, I am not the one who told lies after lies in most of our relationship, (with her “agreement” that it would be better if we divorced and “shared” in our childs upbringing), I agreed that a divorce would be best. She said “it would be a peaceful divorce” which it was anything but wance it was final and she was in California. I almost forgot one of the thousands of bullshit lies, “She found an “attorney” who could do all the papers and file them for us so we won’t have to go through all the expense of “two” attorneys and we wouldn’t have to appear in court! Boy was I stupid and trusting!
As a lawyer, employed as a racketeer, littlelawyergirl needs to tell her stories to rationalize her existence. NOW will later use her anecdotal evidence in their statistics. I can see the headline, CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY REPORTS, ONLY 4% OF FATHERS REQUEST SHARED PARENTING.
As far as doing battle in court. You can’t beat a stacked deck. At my last hearing in Oregon, I was the only one to participate, but the racketeers in Oregon fronting for their cohorts in California, obtained a judgement against me. They now claim a hearing was held in California. Considering the judgement, they may have convened a Star Chamber in California. In a society where lying is considered a women’s prerogative, a working legal system is out of the question.
I complained for years about the abuse to my children, but it fell on deaf ears. However for another child who’s father was not involved they finally removed the child from her custody. They acted only after it was clear a lawyer wouldn’t be able to milk it. Also since my ex had used up her entitlement, there was no cash to be scammed.
{I appreciate your article. Anything that can be done to encourage fathers to take part in their children’s lives (even if they have to go to battle in a courtroom to do so) is so important.}
Probably the most important thing that can be done to encourage fathers to be equal participants in their children’s lives is remove the need to “fight it in courtâ€. Fighting it in court only puts money in the “wrong pockets†and tries to validate the criminal-action they are perpetrating against families.
{79 percent of child abuse perpetrators are the caregiving parent. The father is much less frequently the caregiving parent, and so may be more likely to abuse.}
This statement shows me that you are the one interested in any “misleading†being done. To say that men are more “likely to abuse†just because they are less frequently the care giver is about as erroneous, misleading, and bigoted as one could be.
Your little spiel about parents who abuse their children by way of substance abuse is a bunch of flat-out lies. You base your assertions on your own “alleged†personal experience without any empirical evidence to back your claims. Most children, who suffer the affects of substance abuse, suffer them at the hands of the mother, before they are ever born.
You close your statement rambling-on about this rich guy who didn’t want custody of his child. My impression of this drivel is that you are trying to paint a picture of all fathers wanting to abandon their children. You appear to me to be an evil and vindictive wretch who would best be suited to another occupation. Perhaps that’s why you have chosen your field, to do all the damage you can, to the men anyone can see you clearly hate.
By far the best thing that could be done to encourage fathers to be active in their children’s lives would be to eliminate having to deal with a biased and corrupt legal system that treats them like criminals and exploits their children for profit.
Kevin Merck
Ron,
As I said, my estimate was only anecdotal, as is every story in this blog. However, if I am wrong, that would be the very best evidence fathers would have, and they should take it to their respective legislators..
What would have to happen is a review of all of the custody orders in any particular courthouse (random sampling) filed in the past 12 months. Simply count how many in which father actually requested shared parenting, how many times father was denied, and whether he was denied outright, or after failure to comply with court orders, such as parenting classes, or after failure to show up for court ordered visitation.
I know how some of you folks like to villify me, and I am ok with it, but the truth is, I am one of the strongest advocates of father’s rights and responsibilities you will find. My husband is a stay at home dad. If we split up, shared parenting would be the standard, I and I would have to pay him about $1800 per month in support in order to assure that he could continue to stay home with our son until he is in school.
I print articles from this website and present them in our staff meetings to make sure every case manager in this office understands how non-custodial parents feel, and know how we are perceived.
Even fathers who do not like the support order generally report that they feel like my staff and I have dealt with them fairly, once we have actually had interactions with them.
I understand that many child support attorneys have a scorched earth policy with regard to non-custodial parents, but I believe it to be slowly changing as time passes, as child support attorneys are more frequently family law attorneys, like myself, and not district attorneys, who were placed on the child support rotation as “punishment” for poor performance.
Your charactarizations like “racketeer” and “star chamber” would be even be humorous to you if you were actually on the inside. The federal government puts thumbscrews on the state to collect the uncollectable, and comply with bizarre performance measures, the legistature makes laws to comply with the swaying public opinion, the state dcss develops policies to try and avoid federal financial penalties, which may or may not comply with state statutes. And with all of this, the local child support agencies try to comply with every department policy, state law and federal regulation.
The question of whether the conglomeration described above actually is in childrens and families best interest rarely enters the picture at higher levels, but it does for me and my staff, whether you choose to believe that or not. Not a day does by that we don’t have the policy vs. law vs. justice argument.
If you are so concerned with father’s rights issues then I suggest you educate yourself on what the problems truly are. Unfortunately, it’s next to impossible to see the forest in your case, because you are a major part of the problem and in no way any part of a solution. You are a criminal, first and foremost, and will be dealt with accordingly when the time comes.
Why not stop hiding behind that “littlelawyergirl†smokescreen and tell us who you really are. If you represent such a just and fair system as you claim, there should be no reason to want to hide your identity. I bet you are more likely a “skankfromnow†than a “well-meaning†attorney.
It is not a victimless “racket†you are in the business of defending. These are “real crimes†being perpetrated against real “United States Citizens†and your treason will be dealt with appropriately. You and your cohorts will not succeed in causing the deaths of so many innocent people and just walk away unpunished.
May God have mercy on your twisted souls, because I doubt if very many men who have been the victims of your persecution for so long will find it in themselves to show you any.
Kevin Merck
littlelawyergirl:
What it seems like you don’t understand is that many of us that post on websites like this are doing so because, after running up against the “brick wall” known as the domestic relations system of the US, it is the only forum that we have left for expressing our views and trying to get someone in power who might be able to help, to listen to us.
We have gone through the “proper channels” and contacted our “legislators” and many other officials concerning the very real violation of our rights to the response of either indifference, contempt, or outright blatant discrimination.
I’m sure you heard of the case where a fathers rights activist’s book was banned by a family court judge. C’mon now, if this family court system can so directly and brazenly violate the constitution, you think our “legislators” care about the violation of the rights of a “few” fathers.
You suggest getting a “random sampling” of custody orders from our respective courthouses. This has been done and more. In my town of Albuquerque New Mexico, it was even uncovered that a family court judge was actually doling out physical property of the non-custodial parent behind the scenes to all the attorneys involved and to the custodial parent. I mean actually having them come in and get a handful of precious stones handed to them by the judge. The point I’m trying to make with this story is, I take it by your advising us to get this sampling of custody orders, that your suggesting if we find inpropriety, then we can do something about it. But, proving the impropriety and the crime being commited against us has never been the problem. They have gotten away with it for so long, they don’t even try and hide it anymore. I have stacks and stacks of photos, police reports etc proving not only the crimes this system has committed against me but the crimes my ex-wife has commited against me as well. No, the problem is, holding those responsible for these crimes accountable.
I don’t villify you. You seem like one of the few women I’ve heard that is not of the “scorched earth” attitude you spoke about. And, some of the things that you write (if you are who you say you are and your’e being truthful) seem to make sense. But, just some. I get the impression from what you say that you’re unaware and inexperienced with, or are simply denying the existence of, many of the issues of discrimination and criminal activity on the part of the domestic relations system against fathers. If it is the former, then possibly, like I stated before, it is because of the region of the country you live in. If you live in a large metropolis, then a lot more fathers have been complaining for a lot longer than in less populated parts of the country and laws have been changed. Or, possibly, if the latter, then you support our argument even more. Because, maybe as a female family law attorney who seems at least to have some desire to allow fathers in their children’s lives, your gender allows you to fall on the right side of the “woman good, man bad” fence, and the system sides inordinately with you as opposed to fathers represented by male attoryneys.
You also say that if you split with your husband, all would be equitable. But, it would be equitable as long as you the woman wanted to keep it that way. In this system the tone and the atmosphere of the divorce and custody issues is set by the female. If she wants it to be civil and fair, it will be civil and fair. If she wants it to be contentious and ugly, it will be contentious and ugly. And, there are many weapons that the female has at her disposal if she chooses it to be the latter (as my story above attests to).
You think the terms “racketeer” and “star chamber” would be seen as humorous from someone on the “inside.” I can see where someone on the “inside” of the industry would take those terms being used to describe judges and family court officials as being extreme. In a way, it speaks again of your inexperience with the spirit-crushing, life-destroying stories that all of us as fathers have experienced first hand. I have to agree that some of us use terms that are not truly accurate and are based more on anger and negative emotion than reality. But, I would hope that you see as well that, in terms of crime and punishment, all should be labeled equally and punished equally regardless of whether it’s a common gangster commiting extortion, or a state child support enforcement agency enforcing collection of false arrears.
And, just out of curiosity, and because maybe some day, you will be sitting on a bench that one of us stands in front of, or you’ll be one of the legislators that a father goes to for help, which one of the three that you argue about wins?
John Alvarez
j5alvr@aol.com
littlelawyergirl
While it is refreshing to hear a woman, ANY Woman, express ANY slight support for men, you are clearly ignorant of the wide spread abuse fathers receive across the board
There is a bill, as others, have pointed out, in NY, with the presumption of joint custody. Father’s groups are overwhelming supporting it, writing letters to their legislators etc. You alude that fathers that you “represent’ do not show up for dependency hearings. On the surface, that would make it appear that the father was not interested in pursuing the shared parenting. However, I did not continue with forenscis when it came time to discuss parenting withi my ex. In fact, we went (at my insistencee) to a shrink to mediate parenting time. My ex bolted from the mediation because the woman mediating saw the viciousness that my ex was doing to me through or child. I did not go to forencis. Why, because my ex wife, (after experiencing the mediator), did not want to be told again that what she was doing was wrong. SHE NEVER SHOWED UP! Did anything happen to my ex? Did the shirnk or mediator report back to the court how my ex acted? what she was doing as destructiive? Absolutely not! The point I am making is your father did not show up. What’s behind it.
Secondly, I went down to family court shortly after my divorce became final requesting custody.. My 6 year old son (at that time) left a message on my home answering machine. He said that he had just woke up and no one was home. I put in a motion for custody (I have none, although I wanted it badly). An attorney was assigned to my son to investigate the allegation. The attorney came to my home, spoke to my son for maybe 30 seconds. He was leaving and I asked him, incredulously if he wanted to hear the tape recording. He said ok. HIs response after hearing it was, “What are you trying to prove by this? The judge will do nothing. Just pay your child support”
When I got to court, in the judges law clerk’s office, my son’s lawyer said the allegation was “ambigious”. He never mentioned the existence of the tape. Outside the judges chambers, my ex admitted to me, in front of her lawyer, my son’s attorney that the allegation was true. She said “it’s no big deal!” My son’s attorney said to me, “you can go through with the hearing, but you could lose time with your son.”
I KNOW OF NO OTHER JUDICIAL SETTING IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF BRINGS AN ALLEGATION , THE DEFENDANT ADMITS THE VERACITY OF THE CHARGE AND THE PLAINTIFFF IS THREATENED WITH REPRISALS FOR GOING THROUGH WITH A PROCEEDING.
littlelawyergirl: YOU ARE DREAMING IF YOU THINK THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS OR IS EVEN INTERESTED IN THE CHILD. IT IS SCREW THE FATHER PROTECT THE MOTHER.
THERE IS YOUR ANECTODAL EVIDENCE.
As any man that has gone throught he court system to gain custody of his chldren knows the futility of it all. The lawyer that claims to have fought for men shared custody may or may not be telling the whole thruth. I would like to know how many others have fought that battle and lost. As one can see from the replies above, the system is biased against men and favors women. I ask why is it so? Who wrote these biased laws that the courts are following? Was it men or women? We men have no-one else to blame but ourselves for allowing the corrupt system to flourish. We need to unite and fight back by getting the laws changed. We need to organize into a powerful army of angry men willing to fight, to bitch to the right people-our legislatures- We need to call, write letters on a daily basis to our legislatures, our newspapers, our radio talk show hosts and to anyone that will listen. We need to force the change of our laws to shared parenting, elimination of alimony, and shared financial support for our kids. We need to fight for our kids. We men fight wars, we build monuments, we erected buildings, and we created complex systems but we have failed our kids. Why are we allowing this corruption? We need to take it to the streets. We need to get protest signs and signatures in front of all court houses. We men need to regain our manhood, our masculinity, our dignity our equal rights. We need to regain our kids. We need to break the monopoly women have on our kids. United we must stand to achieve our goal. Women just carry a kid in a water bag for nine months and it doesn’t give them lifetime custody. We need to fight for our kids, men. We cannot leave it to women alone to raise our kids. They will brainwash them against us. Unite men for our casue. Let a leader arise form the many men that are discontent. I ask, if a woman cannot take care of her man, what makes society think she can take care of our kids.
Here is something to think about.
If a woman cannot take care of her husband and keep a family together, what makes the judicial system believe she can take care of our children? Most divorces are filed by women. Men are builders. Women are destroyers. What does the word menpause mean? men-a-pause- Does that mean that it is biological pre-determined that a woman will not need or want a man during that life cycle of hers?
All I cna say to our young men is not to get sucked into a marriage, and not to have children. Aman doesn’t need to get legally married to have kids but be aware that you will pay for it for at least 18 or more years. I say to men ,Unite and change the laws, or suffer the consequences.
Right on Wanito, Kevin, and the others who know this is all political bullshit! Just take our kids away, make us pay, then make us pay some more (in more ways than money) if “we should complain or disagree” and go to (JOKE) “Court”.!UH! So Stupid!!! The “Judges” don’t know let alone apply everyones “RIGHTS” and law! Our “rights”… a joke also?
I thought about it, and you are right, if my husband and I were to split up, the resulting shared custody would be because I would “allow it.” But the thing is, I don’t believe it is because of my gender, it is more because he just doesn’t know how sound sane when he is upset, and I could easily take advantage of that fact.
I had never considered any of this before, and I think I might be on to something. When women are overwhelmed by the court proceedings, they just break down and cry right in the courtroom, not intimidating anyone, but engendering sympathy. Men might feel like crying, but they never do. They just get red and taught, and look like they are about to explode, and sometimes they do explode. They look, to the outsider, to be repressing a violent rage that will unleash on the women and children the moment they are alone. The judge immediately refuses to even consider leaving a child in the guys care.
I do recall that when I would have a man do the first draft of his declaration, then we would sit down to finalize it, I would often think, what he worte here makes him sound nuts! We would have to do substantial revisions to takeout all of the crazy angry stuff, and put in content that allowed the judge to visualize this man as a loving parent. (I called it “softening” and included happy memories, the birth of the children, vacations, jokes shared witht he children etc.)
So perhaps it is the case that what people perceive is not actual. Certainly, there are lots of you here who are so angry at this point that it is impossible not to appear intimidating in court (or worse yet, have come to believe that appearing intimidating might be helpful somehow).
What do you think would happen if you allowed yourself to be fully vulnerable in court, to express your grief, hurt and lostness openly, and not mask it with anger.
Let me tell you two ways that I have helped men win custody. If what takes place in mediation or counselling is misrepresented to the court, then you need to have the tape recording of the session in your hand ready to present it as rebuttal evidence. (note, that sort of evidence is not admissible on direct, it is only allowed to be used to impeach the mediator or therapist-to prove they are lying. also, the mediator will not allow you to tape the session, so you need to keep the voice activated tape recorder in your pocket.)
You need to tape every interaction between you and your ex. I represented a gentleman who had been fighting for custody for years when I took on his case. I finally convinced him to tape record his ex. When I presented the tape to the judge, she was taunting him with the fact that she had screwed him, and he’ll never get to know his kids, and the court believes her whatever she says, that she could tell the judge the “sky was green” and he would believe her. I used a Catherine D. vs. Dennis B argument, and father was awarded full custody. I am sure all of you guys would have liked to see what it is like for a judge to realize that he had “misjudged” someone, and been taken for a fool (not to mention the look on mother’s face when she realized that she was caught). The judge’s full wrath came down on her, and it seems that he was never so quick to assume the woman’s story was true ever again.
Finally, I want to say something about the advice to young men to never get married or have children.My husband and I are both in our late thirties, and have been together 7 years, and just had our first child . My husband and son are so happy together that I cannot even imagine not having a child because you might break up; however, neither can I imagine taking that relationship away from either one of them.
I wonder if the fear of getting hurt, the fear of vulnerability is at the root of the “lack of intimacy” that so many women report to me as the cause of the marital breakup…
littlelawyergirl:
What a load of crap! When I filed for divorce, my wife had moved out and left me with our children, and insisted I raise them. Her leaving just made my life more pleasant. It was only after being served that she wanted her meal tickets. Her response was a restraining order, which as it turned out was all that was needed. I wasn’t angry through the various hearings and trial because I believed that the truth would make it right.
As far taping conversations. The restraining order ended up being a mutual one. She was constantly calling me so I started taping her calls, so I could prove that she was violating the restraining order. I taped one of her wanting me to take the kids because “I can’t handle it” (this is after she claimed I was a threat to them and testified to that). This did make the judge angry, at me! I exposed him for the corrupt scumbag that he is. The family law courts exist for the best interest of the lawyers, including yourself.
We also went to mandatory mediation. I didn’t need to tape that because the mediator determined I should get custody because I was more stable. he testified to that at the trial, but it didn’t matter because the case was decided before I walked into the door.
Typical of a lawyer and racketeer you insist there’s nothing wrong with the system. And typical of a redfem, it’s always the mans fault.
Maybe the reason men get angry in these family court situations, is because of a little quirk peculiar to mens constitutions called “not being able to stomach injustice and tyranny.” You’ve’ heard of it haven’t you. It’s what has us speaking English now instead of German or Russian. Pretty conveniant this “anger” and “violence” in us men in certain situations huh, but held against us in others.
Maybe there’s another thing you haven’t considered. Maybe men are expressing their “grief” and “hurt” but plainly and simply, no one cares and they aren’t being listened to. And, maybe the anger is the natural byproduct of those very real emotions and trauma from the loss of their children being ignored.
You make suggestions to help men “win custody.” And, although I may be wrong and the opinions expressed about you by the other guys might be more accurate, I believe you’re telling the truth. But, either way that still doesn’t change the fact that you seem to be either blissfully unaware of, or consciously denying what is so blatantly obvious.
All of us have walked in to family court or child support enforcement or the children youth and family departments of our respective states with irrefutable evidence proving our cases ( I even had videotape ) and have had the decision come down on the side of our ex. So, what difference would making and audiotape make? Most of us, jaded by the realities experienced in family court, see it as just a waste of time.
And, maybe the advice being given to young men involves “fear” but, not the fear of “getting hurt” or the fear of “vulnerability.” But the fear of investing procreatively, financially, essentially, investing everything we have into something that, at a woman’s word, can be taken away with the swipe of a pen by something called Family Court.
John Alvarez
j5alvr@aol.com
Ron said,
“Typical of a lawyer and racketeer you insist there’s nothing wrong with the system. And typical of a redfem, it’s always the mans fault.”
I do not think thereis nothing wrong with the system. I never said that, and to attribute that beleif to me is dishonest. I wouldn’t be here letting you guys malign me every way possible if I thought the system was fine and everything is just the man’s fault.
I am listening to your experience. I do not doubt the reality of your experience.
I am telling you my experience. You can accept that I am accurately reporting my experience or not.
What I would like to happen is that eventually we can compare experience is a detailed and rational enough fashion to understand why your experiences are so different from mine.
I said that my husband “just doesn’t know how to sound sane when he is upset.” That doesn’t mean that he isn’t a perfectly sane individual.
If “not being able to stomach injustice and tyranny” (not disputing that is the case) makes a man so angry that he appears threatening and intimidating to the judge, and that results in a custody situation that is not in the best interest of the child, then what is to be done?
You can’t say that the court should ignore the fact that the man appears threatening and intimidating. You could give people the right to request a jury, but I have to tell you, the jury will (a) be even more likely to award mom full custody than the judge (b) withness the same behavior that made the judge decide that way in the first place.
Is there anything the man can do to “soften” his presentation? In my experience, absolutely. Other than the things I have already mentioned, like recalling happy personal memories, do put the entire argument in writing, and leave little for oral argument. Write it, let it sit for a few days, then go to a trusted female who knows your qualities, and have her help you say what you mean in a way that will engender the trust of the court.
Also, engage the services of an NLP coach to learn how to lead the judge to be able to “see” you as the primary custodian. NLP works!
Do you realize what you are saying. You are conceeding to the argument that essentially, the court “holds” men’s children as the “incentive” for us to remodify our behavior as masculine beings to a state that the court and all involved see fit before we will get justice. That essentially would have been like telling a black defendant in the1950′s South, ” you know you’re gonna lose this case because your skin is darker than the plaintiff’s, you better turn white and then you’ll have a chance.” Or, telling an asian railroad worker in the 1900′s ” your pays lower that the white workers because of those slanted eyes you have, unslant them and we’ll give you a raise.”
You know I weigh 215 lbs and am 6′ tall. I have a square jaw, large hands; most of the male characteristics. If I am put into a situation where the ones I love are or I am in danger, then I become aggressive, and if the situation escalates I can and will resort to violence if necessary. I can’t help how I am made. If this is intimidating to someone, then that is their problem. But, all of the characteristics that I just described don’t predispose me to violence. They are simply things that were put in place by nature, or god, or whatever you believe in, for the man to be able to protect his family and his food and his territory for thousands of years before the “civilized” police or family courts existed.
You cannot tell me as a woman that you have not walked down some dark street and saw a stranger approaching you, or were home alone and heard a noise outside sometime in your life and did not feel fear. But, I guarantee that fear was not there when a man, with those “intimidating” characteristics was with you in those situations. But, like I said before, the characteristics and traits that have been biologically and socially a part of men through human history, and which were seen as a positive in terms of survival for he and his family, are now used as a liability against him in family court situations. And, it is this view that fuels the feminists and women’s groups condemnatory rallying cry of “don’t allow men in their childrens lives, see how angry and violent they are.” How easily some women malign the “agressiveness” of men after their lives and freedom have been protected from foreign enemies, and after their lives have been made more prosperous and convenient by men subduing the Earth to offer up it’s riches and resources.
You know I have police reports and court transcripts where, the police and judges have directly stated, and have made allowances to not arrest or prosecute my ex-wife for battery and domestic violence because I outweigh her by a hundred pounds. Now, I have researched our laws on battery and domestice violence in the State of New Mexico, and there is not one reference to the gender, weight or size of the perpetrator or the victim being a factor in considering whether a crime took place or not. But, I know what the factor was. The factor was the social indoctrination and belief that women are smaller and weaker than men and men should not fight with women no matter what. Every man who had decent parents knows what I’ talking about. We were all told from a very young age ” don’t fight with girls” or “don’t hit girls.” Now, none of this has anything to do with the letter of the law because as I said before, it’s illegal to decide whether a crime took place or not based on gender. But, these policeman and judges made allowances in their decisions that were contrary to the letter of the law because society recognizes the biological fact that women are weaker and smaller and no matter what the law says, society believes a 215 lb man should not be fighting with a 115 lb woman. The point I am trying to make is, the law is recognizing a physical trait that is part of being a woman – being physically weaker and smaller than a man – and making allowances based on on that trait. So, why does the law not recognize and make an allowance for traits that are biologically and societally a part of a man’s makeup. Because a man reacts physiologically and psychologically different, or as you stated with a “red and taught face” to a threat that a woman does, does not mean a man is more predisposed to violence (we have intelligent reasoning minds and can control our actions). It simply means that he has been biologically, and societially conditioned to respond to a threat this way to ready himself to protect his family from the lion about to attack, or the marauders coming to take his food and territory. The difference is, it is not lions that come to take his family now, but judges and state child agencies. And, it’s not marauders he must fend off to protect his food or territory, but support enforcement agencies and special masters appointed by the court. And, another difference is, where before a man could fight to protect what was most precious to him, now he must feel all the same feelings associated with these attacks, but must suppress them because there is nothing he can do aganst an enemy that is not only too powerful, but corrupt.
I hope you were not including me as one of the “maligners.” Although I have questioned your true understanding of the issues we as men deal with, I don’t believe I have been disrepectful towards you or called you any derogatory names. And, I truly feel that, intelligent discussion not only with a woman, but a woman in the family law field, might get someone to look at these issues we as men deal with, in a different perspective.
John Alvarez
j5alvr@aol.com
John,
I appreciate that you have been particularly respectful, and have taken me at face value when I say that I am looking for answers and solutions.
This is such an interesting point you are bringing up. When we had our son, I noticed a distinct change in my husband’s personality. I have been a family law attorney for as long as we have been together, and, as you can imagine, I have been threatened and even attacked.
He would always expess his concern over the situations by getting angry, but ultimately my work was my business and I know how to handle my own business (I’m no shrinking violet). But when our son was born, it was a horse of a different color. I can see that my otherwise ultra-liberal, pacifist sweet guy, nurturing stay at home papa, could kill someone if our son’s life were endangered.
I would not want it any other way. We don’t ask that women change their natures in order to be parents, nor should we ask that of men.
So how could the family law system be modified so that men would not be misperceived in this fashion?
There is no modification that can be done to legislate peoples hearts and minds obviously. But, in terms of the present domestic relations system, it must be completely scrapped. Some of the laws still in effect in this system, such as, laws requiring men to pay child support to children that DNA tests have proven are not their own, simply because they were wed to the mother, are laws that were put in place hundreds of years ago when DNA tests did not exist.
In the same way that in the 60′s, laws on the books that were discriminatory against and disregarding towards certain minority races were scrapped, and new laws made, That is what needs to happen with the present DR system (domestic relations system entails – family court, court clinic, children youth and families dept, support enforcement, domestic violence laws, restraining orders, etc)
It needs to be scrapped. And then, an equal, diverse cross section of fathers and mothers must be directly involved with government in the process of recreating US DR law. Then, and only then, when both parents views and input on not only the future of their children’s lives, but the future of their own lives, are listened to and regarded as equally valid and vital, will laws be enacted that will genuinely support the system’s present stalwart cry for it’s unconscienable actions of ” in the best interest of the children.”
John Alvarez
j5alvr@aol.com
Eliminate federal funding for child support enforcement, which will eliminate the child support enforcement agencies. Child support should only be paid by parents unwilling or proven to be to dangerous to take physical custody, and that should be decided on a case by case basis. Shared parenting should be the goal.
Eliminate VAWA , it exists only to benefit the lawyers, and the industries it’s spawned. Domestic violence issues should be decided in open court, again on a case by case basis. Enforce perjury laws.
Outside review of the legal system, it’s clear that judges and lawyers are incapable of policing their own.
Deny welfare benefits to anyone, if the other parent is willing to support their children. Also while on welfare people should lose their right to vote. When you can’t run your own life, why should you be able to run somebody else’s. Politicians wouldn’t be able to use our money to buy their votes.
Eliminating federal funding for child support enforcement will not end child support enforcement. The federal government gives us money to recoup the money they send down to the states for welfare. If we didn’t get federal moneys, we would still do enforcement, because it is a cost effective program (we collect about $3.00 for every dollar spent on enforcement.).
Were the feds and all of their inconsistent regs eliminated, we would be even more cost effective, because it is the feds that make us pursue support from the poor, which is not a cost effective enterprise. (That is why suggestions that we privatize child support enforcement has gone nowhere-no private enterprise would attempt to collect support from people they know have no money.)
Keep in mind, money moves up and down between the states and the feds and the municipalities. Some states get more from the feds than they pay, some get less. Then factor in federal taxes paid to the feds, then redistributed to the states, it gets really complicated.
California is a state that is in a bad money in/money out ratio. We would do so much better if we were an independent financial entity. We could virtually end poverty in California if we retained all of our own money and ran our own social service programs.
In California, shared parenting is the statutory standard, but it hasn’t resulted in widespread actual shared parenting, perhaps because of the biological/social differences we were discussing above, and because of commonbiased on the part of all parties involved. How we can change that is what I am interested in.
With regard to the DV issues/VAWA, I just have not had the experience you guys describe. In our court, the judge always asks the defendant if s/he wants a hearing, and if it is requested, it is granted. It is just very very rarely requested. Usually the defendant doesn’t show up. Except, the strange thing about it, if a restraining order is sought against a woman (whether the person requesting the restrainig order is the male partner, or another femaile caregiver to the child, or whoever), the female defendant will ALWAYS be in court, and ALWAYS demand a hearing, and ALWAYS fight it tooth and nail. WHY WHY WHY the differences?!?!?!)
The perjury thing, I totally agree with you on a priciple basis. People lie in family court so much, it just blows my mind (do not think this is limited to gender). It is a huge factor in the undermining of the fairness of court proceedings. Early in my career, I attempted to get the DA to pursue perjury in the most egregious cases, and they refused, because (a) they said they would have to have a dedicated staff for all of the perjury allegations, and (b) they said it is too hard to prove (in family court, lots of what is said is perception). If I can prove the person lied, go ahead, and the court can make orders to square things up (of course that isn’t true!). If I can’t prove someone lied, why should I think the DA can?
You don’t have to deny welfare benfits if there is a parent willing to support, as soon as the support amount is one dime more than they can get on welfare, the custodial parent goes off aid. When I spoke of cost effectiveness above, I was referring to the cost spent collecting versus the dollars collected. If we went by dollars paid in aid versus dollar collected, it is a totally different story. People always go the route that gets them the most money.
Usually, a single child will bring about $440 in welfare benefits to the home. If the non-custodial parent earn minimum wage (or is found to have the abilty to earn minimum wage), the order is $255 per month, based on CA guideline and zero visitation. To get to guideline support that exceeds the welfare grant, non-custodial parent would have to earn at least $2200 per month. It is VERY RARE that I see a case in which the father earns that kind of money, and his kids are nonetheless on welfare.
The reason you don’t often see a welfare mom and a dad that earns $2200 in court is because a guy that earns that much money has his sh*t together enough that he got the kids.
I want you to be very careful about advocating for the denial of the right to vote. First of all it is pretty much moot, welfare moms, like the poor in general, rarely vote. The reason you are treading on bad territory is because there is a radical contingent on the other side that wants to take away the right to vote from NCP’s who don’t pay support.
You just cannot stigmatize poverty in that fashion. People are not poor as a simple result of poor character. I stand in the middle on this issue, between the people who believe people on welfare are bad people and should be punished, and those who say people who don’t pay support are bad people and should be punished.
They are poor people. Few would gladly choose poverty for their offspring. The poor are often people who lack basic literacy skills, have various cognitive and psychological disabilities that render them unable to earn above a poverty level (if they can earn at all), and they were most likely raised by poor people, and therefore never learned how to live differently. And saddest, they are so often addicts.
As a self-supporting working person, it is very hard to understand the psychology of the poor (I am still struggling to understand it). As a person who waited until my late thirties until I felt I was emotionally and financially stable unough to have kids, I cannot conceive how ANYONE (male or female) who cannot support themselves has intercourse without rock solid birth control, much less procreate on purpose!!!! And yet they do AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN!
I know you have said that I think the system is fine, and I am here to tell you, it is more broken than you even know.
So your still don’t collect the support, that the federal funds were designated to collect. No kidding, they’re uncollectible. You don’t mention that you’re including support that would be paid without your interference, to arrive at your 3 for 1 ratio. It doesn’t factor in money not being paid (myself) because of scams run by your racketeers.
I lived in California for better then 20 years, and I’m not surprised to hear you’re one of Willy’s Brown noses. They finally managed to gave him the boot. but it will take generations to undo the damage. He makes my point about the vote issue. Like a typical Marxist you think the taxpayers should be paying a welfare sponge rather then a parent supporting his children directly. Welfare sponge’s, sponge welfare because they think they’re entitled, and their only obligation is to breed.
Your rhetoric about family court is just that. Once men figure out how corrupt they are, they refuse to be insulted by them.
I just wanna see my kid. I don’t say what I do on this website because I’m trying to get someone to agree with my philosophy or to have intellectual debates about abstruse topics or what I think is the pathology behind other social problems in the US. I post here, along with the other things I do, because they took my daughter from me, and all I want is to be allowed to carry out my God-given right to be a father to my child. Why is this so difficult? Why does it have to be debated? And, what the hell does “the poor” or “welfare” or “voting rights” or anything in this world for that matter, have to do with me seeing my daughter?
My fight and my argument is to have my rights as a father recognized and to be able to be the father that my daughter needs whether her mother and I would’ve stayed together or not.
wanito:
Cause and effect. The denial of contact with your child is an effect. The cause, in the short term, can be traced to L.B.J.s Great Society (the beginning of the end). The beginning probably goes back centuries, rooted in Old English law. You should become familiar with a doctrine called “parens patriae”. Here’s a link with a definition.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=of%20it%E2%80%99s%20parens%20patriae%20power%20%20&fw=2&fc=3&gwp=16
This might explain why you can’t see the states child.
It was more of a statement than a question. Because I’ve asked the question of myself a million times. And, the bottom line answer I’ve always come up with, despite all of the theories, is the same – there are individuals and groups that have justified to themselves, that they have some moral or ethical right to make decisions about other people lives, not because it is right, but simply because they have the power (riches) to do so.
The majority of the worlds philosophies, governments, doctrines, laws, etc, from the beginning of history to today, fall into that definition. So, there is no need to specify or distinguish between them.They are all the same.
I just had the “good fortune” to get “marked” by one of them. And, I will most likely, fight it to my grave. Would that I could just go fishing and have a beer with the blissful ignorance of this system existing like I used to. But, for me the “hell” that I became aware of when I got sucked into this system, is most likely, here to stay.
The family court routinely ignores the facts presented documents about women in DV, Custody and support. My ex-wife’s brother paid his caucasian employee $25k to go to China to “Entering into a marriage to circumvent immigration laws” to obtain her visa to come to USA. After she arrived in U.S. She and her supposed husband never lived together. She lived with her parents all the years she is in U.S. As soon as she obtained her green (Alien) card. She divorced him. She came to this country without any respect for our laws in the first place.
She was aided by our prejudice family law court in San Jose, CA. She committed DV on me and was booked in jail one night before her brother bailed her out the next day. I was granted an Emergency Protective Order by the family court judge. She pleaded “No contest” in criminal court with the help of her attorney. The criminal court judge issued a retraining order for 30 months till 02/2007. The family court judge who had previously retired from the appellate court has no prior experience in family court refused to issue the “Restraining Order” in his family court Dept. 71. He further reduced my visitation granted by his predecessor from Monday 10am to Friday 7PM to Monday 10am to Thursday 7PM as a result of the emergency screening order. The emergency screening order was neccessitated because she took my son back home to Oakland to live with her parents and refused me visitation for 17 days. My ex-wife deliberately caused her own termination after her manager reprimanded her with a letter of reprimand for 10 items she was responsible for. The reprimand memo gave her 90 days to correct these 10 items. She further ignored her manager’s instruction closed to 90 day to mail a package UPS overnight. She was terminated at 90 days.
At the restraining order, custody, visitation and support hearings, the judge was so bias that he refused to issue the restraining order. The judge reduced my custody. The judge ordered me to pay her alimony of $700.00 per month for 12 months for a short 1 year 10 months marriage. The judge doubled my income to order me pay her child support which amounts to $1463.00 per month. When I picked my son up one Monday morning about 2 months ago, my son took me that his mother hit him in his face. Previous to that my son told me that she scratched his forehead while backing out her car in the front yard, caused bruises in his legs and forehead. His grand father hit him in his face and his grand mother hit him in his stomach.
What a disgrace to our country that proclaims democracy principles
“Justice For All” and to aggressively promote democracy around the world over this judge mis-represent !!! I will forever lose faith in our country to uphold justice for his own countrymen. I applaud other countries for not believing in our democracy principles.
I have read over a few of your current blog entries and I had been itching to know if you were interesting in swapping blog site links? I am often looking to trade links with websites about related themes! I look forward to hearing back from you in the near future.
you wish you could have a sweet comment like 8901571529 this!
you wish you could have a sweet comment like 4305066486 this!