Alec Baldwin Discusses Family & Divorce Court on 20/20

“Corrupt, Inefficient, Lazy, and Stupid” is how Alec Baldwin describes the lawyers, judges, and others who are part of the Divorce and Custody Industry. Yes, it’s an industry which generates billions of dollars of revenue and income for the states and all of the players within the system.

And so opened the story featured on ABC’s program 20/20 on September 19th, 2008.

Alec Baldwin is stepping up to the plate and is making a concerted effort to do something about what he calls the “delays and manipulations” that serve to destroy and divide divorcing families more than the circumstances at hand often do. I believe that this is something that we all want to see happen in our lifetimes. Baldwin’s struggles were apparently so bad that he had even contemplated suicide. When one stops to consider that more the 25,000 men in this country commit suicide each year, you have to wonder how many of those men were in the midst of a bitter divorce and custody battle that saw them marginalized as a parent, stripped of their right to be a parent, and relegated to little more than a wallet, from which states strive daily to extract the maximum amount of money “in the best interests of the children.” Men commit suicide at a rate that is 4-times greater than women.

Throughout his lengthy struggles in family court and the years he lost with his daughter, Ireland, he struggled with depression and despair. These types of feelings and experiences are repeated tens-of-thousands of times over in this country and abroad.

Diane Sawyer, even at the very outset of the interview, sought to label Baldwin’s rather low opinion of the divorce & family court system as a “scorched earth” attitude. Baldwin wisely countered that such an attitude defines one who actively seeks the negative in a particular situation. This is not what he did, but in reality, the situation was “thrust” into his face. It is his experience that brought him to these realizations. Again, this is a point with which I agree. My own attitudes, for reasons even unknown to me, led me to believe that things had changed in divorce & family court for the better for fathers since my own parents split up. I would soon learn that nothing could be further from the truth.

He describes his feelings for the love of his love, daughter Ireland – “When I’m with her, I am happy.” Aren’t we all when in the company of our children who we love unconditionally? His marriage to Kim Basinger began to fall apart when Ireland was 5-years old.

When asked about the warning signs that signaled the end of his marriage was near, he refused to divulge details, laughing at one point when telling Sawyer that Basinger would probably be a lot more “chatty” about warning signals about him manifested themselves to her. Then, Baldwin made a statement that I suspect will ring true throughout the overwhelming majority of divorced men in high-conflict situations.

“The harshest thing I could say is I was married to someone for whom all dissent was abuse. If you had your own opinion, you were abusive.”

This describes my psycho ex-wife in a nutshell. It encapsulates her attitude about everything and like many other words that serve as lightning-rods for those with an agenda, the definition of what is “abuse” has been so bastardized today as to make it’s true definition completely meaningless. If you are divorcing someone who takes this attitude – you’re in for a long and difficult divorce and custody process that will be rife with accusations that you probably think are unimaginable to be attributed to you.

While asserting that he and Basinger did not argue all the time and, when they did, it was his belief that nothing he ever argued about was over something that was insignificant, he maintains that nothing occurred in the marriage that was deserving of anything that took place in its aftermath. The dreaded high-profile custody battle lasting 8-years… 365 documents… 91 court proceedings… 8 lawyers… 4 judges… 3-million dollars.

It started, as many do, with the mother removing the child from the marital home and moving some long distance away, in this case, from Los Angeles to New York, with Basinger citing Ireland’s “health” as the reason. Once a “court sponsored mediator” began to analyze a custody arrangement, Alec Baldwin didn’t see Ireland for 2-years (except for very infrequent arrangements during the process) and, Baldwin asserts, he had done absolutely nothing wrong. He did what he could to remain in her life, volunteering at school and being local to her as often as possible. This type of story is played out every day an untold number of times by people with far less financial resources than Alec Baldwin. So, we can see where thousands of fathers fail where Baldwin, thus far, has been able to succeed, assuming you can call his mess a “success” at this point. Of course, the more involved he tried to be, the more Basinger, he alleges, began to turn Ireland against him and he spoke of parental alienation syndrome.

His forthcoming book, A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce chronicles his experiences and provides details of the horrifying and sad stories of the impact of parental alienation on his daughter and himself. “Mommy says you’re sick” is an exact phrase I’ve heard come from my own children and unlike Baldwin who told Sawyer that he said absolutely nothing to Ireland when she told him this, I would simply tell my children that what mom said simply wasn’t true and that I was sorry that they had to hear that.

Unsurprisingly, Baldwin was ordered into “anger management” classes, like so many fathers are on the simple accusations of the mother, and he followed the order to attend. And while being a public figure, Baldwin’s occasional outburst become tabloid fodder, for many low-profile fathers, that’s not necessarily the case and yet – they’ll be ordered into them just the same. The problem that arises with this situation is that once ordered into one, there is a perception that you have anger problems or are an abuser and that impacts the attitudes of those charged with making the life-affecting decisions regarding your parenthood. The typical anger-management class is predicated on the shameful “Duluth Model” which is a feminist-driven agenda item that blames all of the evils of society on men. (Perhaps a post for another day.)

Just as the court sponsored mediator was preparing to award joint-custody after these first two years of limited contact, the Basinger attorneys exercised their right to FIRE the mediator. They did this the day before she was to make her recommendation. The problem with this? It sets them back to the very beginning. The classic delay tactic of a vindictive, malicious mother. Off to court they go! When describing his feelings about the court experience Baldwin said:

“The lawyers are there to make money. It’s an industry. It’s a racket. Judges are like pit bosses in Vegas casinos. Their job is to make sure everyone stays at the table and keeps gambling.”

Folks, there exists no better description of the family court system at-large.

8-months later, the judge awards joint custody in his case. He would fly across the country every other weekend to spend his “court authorized time” with his daughter. He even went so far as to have phone calls scheduled right into the order. The incessant interference with these calls is what would lead to the now famous voice mail that Baldwin left to his daughter in a moment of frustration. Alec Baldwin even rented a home 9-doors away from Ireland. However, Basinger was allegedly already driving a wedge between he and his daughter.

A montage of father videos is shown with them speaking of the alienation from their children and Baldwin discusses this more in-depth. He calls the situation a “national crisis” and that fathers all over the country are paying a steep price, along with the children. His belief and the belief of many others, is that parental alienation is a form of child abuse. It is largely a woman-on-man “crime” and it’s furthered by the gender bias that exists in America’s family courts.

When normal male behavior is being characterized as abuse, even the slightest action demonstrated during a normal emotion can cost you custody of your children. He uses an example of having an argument with your wife and smashing your cellphone down in the driveway now being characterized as “abuse.” (There are actually worse examples of that and nowadays, just saying something that hurts your spouse’s feelings can be characterized as abuse.) On the flip side, Baldwin again validates the beliefs of most men who are involved in a custody dispute or close to some father involved in one, when he says:

“You gotta catch the mother, as I said in the book, with a crack pipe in one hand, in bed with her pimp, and the child chained to a radiator before they do anything.”

Much to my dismay, Joan Myer, professor of law at George Washington University claims, “Family courts are bending over backwards to bring fathers into their children’s lives.” Of course, she doesn’t substantiate that in the limited time given with any objective evidence of such. Further, my research, my experience, and the experiences of those with whom I interact on a daily basis and via this blog lead me to believe that nothing could be further from the truth. Further, she goes on to outright dismiss parental alienation syndrome and, much like the radical feminist that I imagine she is (and I will look into it) she further propagates the myth that parental alienation is claimed by people who are using it to “defeat abuse claims.” Sawyer cites the National Organization of Women’s cloak of defense with their (accurate, if misleading) claim that PAS is not a “recognized syndrome” and it’s not “legally child abuse” in terms of it being a chargeable offense. You’ll notice how neither denies that poisoning a child’s mind against the other parent is possible and easily achievable, especially when the target parent has been forced to the fringes or out of their children’s lives.

I concur with Baldwin’s statements and I’m certain that many fathers would echo the sentiment that fathers who wish to be fully involved in their children’s lives “loathe and despise” fathers who physically or sexually abuse their children… who have the means but willfully fail to pay reasonable support… who abandon women whom they’ve impregnated. However:

“It doesn’t change the fact that there are women who get divorced and in order to punish, out of this bitter, bitter hatred that some of these women have for their ex-husbands – they turn their children against them. Everybody knows that’s real.”

Still, the interference with Baldwin’s custodial time with Ireland was granted with the full support of the court, on the 2nd-hand claim that Ireland said that she “felt unsafe” around Alec. Another investigation, another extended period of no time with his daughter, charges dismissed, custodial time restored. I’ve experienced these same types of claims repeatedly from my own psycho ex-wife. The children don’t like spending time with me. They are afraid of me. They don’t want to come to be with me. They hate it with me. It’s indescribably disgusting.

When speaking about the phone rant towards his daughter, he described the experiences and frustrations of the reality that less than 25% of his phone calls were getting through or returned or otherwise being facilitated by the other side. It is a moment he regrets. Still, in the face of hard questioning by Sawyer, he stood by his claim that there was an expectation of privacy and, that the bigger picture is that the voice mail was released to the tabloid website TMZ. While Kim Basinger denies being the source of the leaked tape, one can probably safely assume that Ireland wasn’t the one who sent it to TMZ and the larger tragedy is as regretful as his voice mail may have been, what kind of person/mother furthers the embarrassment suffered by her daughter by releasing it to TMZ to be broadcast all over the world?

I gotta say, I have to agree with him here. Why? Not that he was justified with his angry words towards his daughter. It’s because I am of the firm belief that there isn’t a mother or father alive (or dead, for that matter) who hasn’t said something inappropriate, unnecessary, or downright wrong to their children during the course of their lives. Let that person or persons (if they exist) be the ones to sit in righteous judgment of Baldwin’s message to Ireland on that fateful day.

A quote from Basinger along with her denial of releasing the tape to TMZ went something like this… and tell me if you haven’t seen these words in any number of emails I’ve posted from the PEW:

Her sincerest wish “is for him to finally address his unstable and irrational behavior so at some point he can potentially create a relationship with his daughter.”

It’s as if all of these women are operating from the same playbook with the same glossary of terms to use in court, in public, and in this case – on television. I’m certain Alec would read this blog as so many others have and write the same thing to me… “My story is almost exactly the same as yours. In some cases, it’s literally verbatim!” I’m sure when I read his book, I will say the same damned thing.

Alec Baldwin is launching a crusade to change the way the divorce process operates. As an example, he will push to see that if there is no evidence that the father has been abusive to the school-aged kids, he gets equal custody of the child right away. He would also like to see co-parenting coaching in an effort to prevent the types of alienation of children that he’s purported to have experienced with Ireland at the hands of Basinger.

One of his closing quotes during the segment is one that I repeat in some way, shape, or form at least 2- to 3-times per month:

“Everything with my daughter now is fine. Everything with my daughter is great, so long as the mother stays… out… of… the way.”

It’s my feeling exactly. Despite knowing the answer, and that is, I believe my PEW is truly ill, I often ask myself why she does and says the things she does. Why does she treat me the way she does, despite now having her divorce and distance between us? Why does she persist in the chaos and terror when all I want is the minimum contact necessary on matters of importance and relevant to the children? Why does she persist when I couldn’t care less what she does or is doing with her life provided it doesn’t negatively impact the children?

The bottom line is that if the psycho ex’s of the world would simply carry on with their lives and share custody of the children and limit contact to only what is absolutely necessary – life would be so much better for everyone, including them!

 Subscribe in a reader

Stay-At-Home-MOMS (SAHM): Worth $130,000+ ???

Only because I have never seen an article on what the working-dad is worth to the marital home, I’m going to take a stab at it.

Before I get into picking apart this annually regurgitated propaganda by Salary.Com and spread via other media – I will give you my position on stay-at-home parents. While it’s a wonderful consideration to demonstrate the importance of any stay-at-home-parent – their contention and calculations have holes one could drive a truck through.

They’re invaluable. They’re priceless. Regardless of which parent stays home, I believe it’s better for children to be primarily raised by the parent(s) rather than a daycare. I have a great deal of respect for stay-at-home-parents and it’s top on my list of jobs I’d really want to do… if I could make ends-meet while doing it.

“Stay-At-Homers” are overwhelmingly moms. In some of the internet circles I’ve frequented, it’s clear that there are times when they are devalued (ironically enough – a majority of the time in feminist circles) and not given enough credit for the valuable work that they do. For the record – so are stay-at-home-dads, if not, moreso when dealing with challenges to their “manhood” or alleged lack thereof.

Let’s examine some of the jobs and pay-rates used in determining this calculation:

Child Day Care Worker – $20,259

Teacher – $44,824

Taxi Driver – $27,346

Facilities Manager – $73,239

Short-order Cook – $27,477

Laundry Attendant – $17,917

Janitor – $22,440

Counselor – $27,638

CEO – $545,268

Administrative Assistant III – $37,143

Accounting Clerk III – $34,842

Licensed Practical Nurse – $38,111

Plumber I – $33,155

Automotive Mechanic I – $30,725

Cake Decorator – $21,340

Nevermind that no mom, unless specifically trained to do the daily tasks for a minimum of 8-hours per day – has anywhere near the necessary education, training, nor experience to “qualify” for the large majority of those jobs. Fact is, without it – they aren’t entitled to use those average salaries as a basis for determining their “worth” to the household. (For the record, no dad is, either – but to my knowledge – there isn’t any website that would attempt to do this and pass itself or the article off as being completely serious.)

With only the fewest exceptions, most of the items on that list, fathers do exclusively in many households, if not, in tandem with their spouse, while also working a full-time (plus) job. On the flip side, there are number of items on the list that could be attributable to moms that are rather questionable, either exclusively or even in tandem with their spouse.

I’ll avoid a prolonged argument about the “tasks” above, but spin a couple of them this way:

– Clearing hair out of the drain or pouring Drano down the drain: ISN’T akin to being a plumber.

– Calling AAA when the car breaks down: ISN’T akin to being an Auto Mechanic.

– Giving your kids a “high-five” for good work: ISN’T akin to being a CEO.

Get my drift? Now, before you go berating me about how frigging hard being a stay-at-home mom is and all of the things that you do and how you’re running non-stop from the moment you get up until the moment you lay down at night – I know stay-at-homers do plenty of work, but I call bullshit on anyone who claims how hard it is… especially if the child(ren) are of school age and spending the large majority of their day in school.

Cooking isn’t hard. Cleaning isn’t hard. Doing the wash, isn’t hard. Washing dishes isn’t hard. Managing the children can be a pain-in-the-ass, but generally – it isn’t hard. I could blather on and on and you, the reader, can roll your eyes until you sprain them. I’ve been there. I’ve done it as a single parent – if only a portion of the time (but full days) while unemployed. I’ve done it as a single parent while holding down a full-time job. I’ve done it married when PEW was working evening shifts and was walking out the door while I was walking in. I simply never found it to be what she always seemed to compare to hard-labor in a federal prison.

Collectively – it’s hard work and it all can be accomplished with some meaningful planning and execution. Yes, there are some days when careful planning and execution goes right out the window – but over the long haul it’s all pretty manageable, especially when you have a spouse out in the workforce earning enough money for the household so that you are able to do what you’ve chosen to do.

In any event, when Salary.Com gets around to doing an article about the worth of the working father on that same familial household, they should tack at least some of the following onto the list they used for moms: carpenter, floor installer, toilet installer, auto mechanic (for real), landscaper, woodworker, referee, judge, jurist, banker, stock broker, financial planner, assembler, metalworker, roofer, sports coach, furniture repair, electrician, appliance installer, trash collector, gas station attendant…

Of course, I say all this slightly tongue-in-cheek. The point is that the Salary.Com assessment is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Frankly, I think that the worth of the Stay-At-Home-Parent is something you can’t put a dollar figure on – let’s not pretend that being one is akin to being “some portion” of any of those jobs. Before you go up to your spouse looking for a $10,000+ check at the end of the month, the reality is – it’s simply not the case and Salary.Com is doing no household any favors by performing this annual “study” which is rife with flaws. They really should stop doing it, but I guess the attention that their website gets as a result makes it all worth it.

One of the other claims that often accompanies these types of articles is that stay-at-home-moms do “all of that” for nothing. That’s a lie. Here is my list of “somethings” that stay-at-home-moms get for their efforts (in-whole, or in-part):

Free housing

Free health-insurance

Free life-insurance

Free car-insurance

Free automobile

Free gas

Free water

Free electricity

Free clothing

Free food & drink

Free entertainment

Free real-estate

EVERYTHING THAT IS PAID FOR by the working spouse

In addition, legally (in most states), the stay-at-home mom is entitled to at least half of all of the assets: autos, real-estate, retirements, future earnings, paid training to get back into the workforce, education, the children primarily (if divorcing)… and the list goes on.

I’ll wrap this up with these final thoughts… take the article for what it really should be: show appreciation for the value and efforts of the stay-at-home parent. Recognize the important role and significantly positive impact it can have on children, marriage, and the partnership. It’s hard work that is rewarding on levels that probably could never be matched in the workplace. Conversely, appreciate the partner who is in a position to give you and your family that opportunity.

I’m really not interested in seeing a Salary.Com article about stay-at-home-fathers or those in the workplace and their total financial worth with the other jobs that they may do at home. I’m interested in seeing their article where it belongs…

 Subscribe in a reader

Child Support: The Fallacy, The Fraud, And The Failure

Child Support: The Fallacy, The Fraud, And The Failure

The American Legal System At Its Worst

A Historical Perspective

The fundamental changes in American Law that lead to the body of law we now call, “Family Law”, arose in 1960’s, born of the Feminist Rights Movements. Let’s make it clear from the start that the flaws and failures of the “family law” system are not of the making of that movement, and that both their intent and causes were good and just.

A sociological study done thirty some years ago found that only 40% of “fathers” nationwide paid any support for their children. Somebody in government got the bright idea that we could save the taxpayer scads of money, paid out in welfare, if those fathers were “held responsible” for supporting their own children.

The theory wasn’t half bad, just founded on a fallacy. Multiple studies, beginning from that point and continuing yet today, demonstrate this. Today, even the author of that study made more than thirty years ago, admits that the “statistical model” used to analyze that data was fundamentally flawed. In fact, the statistics showed that, back then, 80% of fathers paid child support. Yet even today, that study is widely quoted in numerous articles and legislative hearings regarding issues of child support.

Today, we know a whole lot more. Today, those same statistics show that currently 80% of fathers pay child support. Further, we know that another 13% of fathers simply cannot afford to pay anything. Another 3% acknowledge a “responsibility”, but refuse to pay because they are denied access to their own children, and another 3% claim they are “forced into hiding” by the child support enforcement system and unable to pay for fear of revealing themselves. Total: 99%. Ergo, only 1% of men actually qualify as what could truly be considered “bad dads.”

Please note that the percentage of men paying support for their children more than thirty years ago is identical to the percent of men paying that support today. The system itself has failed by that very fact, because it has not reduced the demands on welfare at all, as was its original intent.

The Fraud

Enter the lawyers. The entire “family law” system is founded on litigation, lots of it, and solely serves to feed the legal community. Much can be said about the scam perpetrated in that area of “family law” called the Child Protection Services racket, but this analysis will leave that to those more experienced and educated in that field. For these purposes, let’s focus on the “divorce industry,” a government-sponsored money-laundering scheme to enrich mostly lawyers.

Legal Fraud

Quite simply, the law, well supported by the US Supreme Court, states that the State must first demonstrate a “compelling interest,” and by which claim it may then, and only then, interfere with the “ownership and custody” of a parent’s children. Further, that such a claim must be demonstrated in all of the protections afforded through “due process.” That is, all the protections of both the State and Federal Constitution: An actual hearing with testimony, witnesses and statements of law, culminated in a “lawful” finding by the court that accounts to those facts presented and those laws stated.

It would appear that “everyone knows” that the State has a “compelling interest” in the welfare of children – i.e., the “children’s best interest.” This is the first fraud, because the State simply “presumes” that authority, without any of the above procedural due process – no hearing, no evidence, nothing. It is called “procedural fraud.”

The second fraud appears immediately thereafter, when they “presume” to assign custody of the children, presumed to be the mother more than 90% of the time. Again, the US Supreme Court says that “absent a finding of unfitness”, a parent cannot be deprived of the custody and ownership of their children, and that, again, all of the procedural rights of due process must be upheld. Ergo, custody may not simply be “assigned” and then just approved by the court. It must be “demonstrated” in the actual procedure of hearing, evidence, law and “finding.”

The third fraud follows post haste. They demand “child support” from the now disenfranchised parent, most notably fathers. This is the key; it’s for the money. Make no doubt about it; it is not the child support money, but the taxpayer’s money. Child support generally does go to the “custodial parent”, but it is the State and Federal funds that abound for the purpose of “enforcing and collecting child support” that are the real goal of those who “act for the government.”

This third fraud is, at law, no better than the first two. In Civil Law, a “contract”, “debt” or “obligation” is set forth in writing, but apparently not in the supposedly Civil “Family Law” system. They won’t show you a contract, and in fact refuse to discuss it. It is “presumed” to exist. They won’t show you the terms, nor discuss the determination of the amount of alleged “debt.” Again, the US Supreme Court clearly states that a “hidden contract is an abhorrent in law.”

The fourth fraud in law is that minor little detail called enforcement. “Failure to pay child support” is stated as a “civil contempt”, ergo refusing to obey a court order. In law, there are two forms of “contempt of court”, first, civil contempt, which is failing to do what the court orders you to do, and, second, criminal contempt, which is doing what the court ordered you not to do. The former is punishable by fiscal sanctions – fines; and the latter by incarceration. Except, of course, in Family Law, where the plain and simple standard is “pay up or go to jail.”

Both the State and Federal courts duly uphold that there must be proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that this alleged contempt was a “willful disobedience” of the court’s order, and further, that the burden of that proof is on the prosecution to show that “an ability to pay” exists, but was willfully disobeyed. Except, of course, in Family Law, where “pay up of go to jail” is enforced almost universally: No hearing, no evidence, and no testimony required.

The Practice of Extortion Fraud

In practice, it is a simple system of collusion and abusing the privilege of authority. The “prosecutor” for the child support enforcement system “just does it”, and the judge “just ignores it.” Lawyers, whether willing or unwilling, are caught between hell and high water, but fundamentally are an integral part of the fraud, and reap enormous financial dividends from it.

A couple gets a divorce, and immediately the “presumed non-custodial parent” gets a notice from the child support enforcement offices demanding that they “appear” and reveal their financial information. Many States have statutes that say this information must be revealed, under penalty of contempt. Federal, constitutional law however says that your civil rights to not answer, under the 5th Amendment, extends to all aspects of law, not just the criminal arena. “Too bad”, says the State court, “Answer or else!”

The “caseworker” determines who gets custody, and how much child support will be paid. Enforcement is immediate. The first three legal frauds discussed above are committed in one basic act, not by a judge, but by a caseworker. The court merely “approves” whatever the caseworker says. Supposedly, that makes it a “legal decision.” Note the lack of any hearing, any evidence or any actual “findings” issued by a court. This is the entire basis of their procedural fraud, to simply ignore any actual “procedure” that might demonstrate that essential “due process.”

Ostensibly, the caseworker is required to use “guidelines,” set by the State but regulated by the federal funding mandates, to set the amount of child support. In theory, that is 17% of your gross income for one child, 25% for two, etc. The trick is that they can “impute” your income. The original idea of “imputing wages” was to “catch” people who are making more than they claim or seek “under-employment to reduce the child support amounts. However, it is commonly and widely used to “up the ante” and increase child support revenues.

Your first instinct is to hire a lawyer and appeal this decision. Lawyers, as “officers of the court” are prevented from arguing for your rights in these supposed Family Courts! Either by “court rules”, a fraudulent misrepresentation by the lawyer in as much as the State’s own published Court Rules make no such mention, or by the retributions of the court and prosecutor aimed at all of that lawyer’s other clients. Basically, their sole function is to “cut a deal” for you, probably better than the original exorbitant imputation, but still more than “the truth”.

Since now you are under a court order to pay child support (or go to jail), the odds are that now you can’t afford a lawyer at all. Forget any deals. Neither the prosecutor nor your Ex will present any evidence to demonstrate this fraudulent imputation, and even though you have competent, clear evidence to the contrary, which neither the prosecutor nor your Ex will contend is false, the judge will “dismiss” your appeal. This is the procedural fraud of “administrative ruling.” No actual “finding” is made by the court, which would then have to include that evidence and testimony. Judges will even “wave away” documentation you have, making you just read it out loud, as a means of keeping it from being entered into your record.

Judges are commonly known to “go home and do some research” and enter that alleged evidence in support of their dismissal. This is a further fraud, this time called “substantive fraud”. The judge is “acting for the prosecution”, and “entering evidence outside of the courtroom.” Both are fundamental violations of every State’s Court Rules, and a fundamental denial of any constitutional rights toward due process.

Needless to say, you appeal that decision again, but of it is within the same court as before, and of course the result will be the same. In fact, you are required to appeal twice before that court before being allowed, and told you can appeal to a higher court, the State Court of Appeals. For 99.9% of the population, this is a daunting task beyond their knowledge and comprehension. Without a lawyer, it seems impossible, and the cost of such an appeal can run $15-20,000. Now, six months of excessive child support payments has made you nearly or completely destitute.

It is called “adjudication by fiscal attrition.” When you go to that Appeals Court, they will not “refund” the excess, nor cease those collections, but merely, and only possibly, reduce those payments to what they should have been all along. “The Law” becomes a matter of whether it is bottom-line cheaper to pay their “buddy lawyer” for “justice”, or to pay their extortive demands. The bottom line is that most people cannot afford either.

The Extortion Fraud

Ultimately you reach a point where you cannot pay. These courts know that, and expect you to reach out to friends and family. They are using you as “bait” to “shakedown” the money any way they can. Again, US Supreme Court rulings state that this is clearly illegal. But ultimately, you will end up getting a Show Court Order, demanding that you appear in court and explain why you haven’t paid.

When you appear, the prosecutor will not show evidence that you can pay this money but refuse to do so. Instead you are required to show why you cannot. There is ample federal case law that says you don’t have to “show what is not” because it is nearly impossible to do! More case law that says the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and more case law that says “an ability to pay” must be demonstrated before the penalties of incarceration can be applied.

The prosecutor has access to all of your records, such as employment, banks, etc., and is well aware that you can’t pay the money. They will not present that evidence even though, by law they are required to. Arguing your rights to due process or suggesting they have no evidence of an “ability to pay” will end up getting you put in jail for contempt anyway. Many States have limits for contempt proceedings, like a maximum of $500, yet it is common for them to demand far more. The only answer the court has is “pay up or go to jail,” and that answer was decided long before you entered the court.

Of course you can appeal this decision too, and of course it is in the same court. You know the answer to that. In some cases, they are known to enter that appeal or objection into the record of your case, but then simply refuse to answer it, not denying, dismissing or setting it for hearing – just ignore it! This is gross violation of every State’s Court Rules. Of course you can appeal to the Court of Appeals, but you can expect that to be after you have already done time in jail. Nor does “doing the time” relieve you of the financial demand, and in fact more support “debt” will accrue while you are in jail. They can, in most States, keep putting you in jail, up to a total six months in any given year, making it just that much more difficult to even make any payments.

They can, after three “offenses” put you in jail for up to ten years. After accumulating more than six months worth of child support debt, they can take away your driver’s license and any other “professional” licenses you may hold. Both of these would seem contrary to their supposed goal. You can’t find work or maintain a job without a car, and usually those professional licenses are the means you have of making any money. To understand all of this, go back to the statement back at the top, that it not about the child support money, but the Federal and State funding.

Paternity Fraud and the Welfare Mom

Two of the most critical abuses of this “Family Law” system involved how women are abusing it. Can’t really blame them, like in the Federal Tax system that provides “loopholes”, this system has holes you could drive a Mac truck through.

Paternity fraud is all too common. Most laboratories that do DNA paternity testing record that nearly a third of those tests come back as “not a match”. This includes married couples. No doubt there are thousands of cases that never get tested as well. Thousands of married fathers have discovered, only after going through a divorce, that another man fathered some of their children. Yet the courts claim that it would disrupt the children’s lives to discover that and is therefore not in the “children’s best interest”. The husband is ordered to continue to pay support for them, and even prevented from telling them on penalty of contempt.

It is common for an unmarried woman who had multiple partners during “the right time” to simply “pick a likely victim” and start prosecuting for the money. Many victims, because they did have sex with her, will not question the claim. While it would seem with the advent of DNA testing that it would be a “logical place to start”, most courts are resistant to insisting on “evidence,” commonly work to prevent testing at all or even just reject it under the guise of “the children’s best interest.” Also common, where the first “victim” turns out to not be the father, the women will just keep “going down the list”, until they get one who doesn’t “resist” or is actually proven to be the father. That list of “alleged” fathers, individually all get to pay the costs of testing and attorney fees, not to mention the traumatic disruption of their lives.

Recent cases have also shown that some women have “retrieved” used condoms, even from men they never had sex with, and used the contents to impregnate themselves. The issues of a man’s right to choose to be a father go far beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that, without a wink of consent of the father, a woman can choose to have an abortion, put a child up for adoption, abandon a child at the nearest fire station or hospital, or keep it and make the father pay for its support, often never even seeing his own child. Men have none of those choices, and are limited to the one and only choice, “pay up or go to jail.” The courts have long ignored that this is a clear violation of 14th Amendment rights to “equal treatment under the law” by hiding behind that ever present “the children’s best interest.”

Another common trick women use is to have multiple children by multiple fathers. As stated above, child support for once child is 17% of the father’s income, but only 25% if there are two children by the same father. For women, the solution is simple, by not having more than one child per father they can substantially increase the amount of child support they can receive. The Family Law system is actively discouraging marriage and family unity, and financially encouraging the “bastarding” of our society with fatherless children .

The Failure

Remember that the original intent of these laws was to reduce the costs to the taxpayer by reducing the needs for welfare. As a matter of statistical fact, it has not reduced the role of welfare even by 1%. The same percentage of fathers pay child support as did thirty years ago at its inception. Here, however, is where it gets truly ugly, and reveals that these government programs are the most destructive, debilitating and even deadly ever devised by our “public servants.”

The Basic Costs

While government child support advertises that it collected $18 billion in 2003, it also claims that the “administrative costs” were only $4.5 billion, or $1 spent for every $4 collected. This is a hidden lie. True, the administrative costs were as claimed. False, because they are only the beginning for the multiplicity of hidden costs.

One of the big keys to understanding this problem lies in understanding the money, or, as they say, follow the money trail. Caseworkers get a “bonus” for every case they “handle”, as do the agency heads. This commonly leads to, not only overburdening caseloads per caseworker, but also intentional acts to “create animosity and conflict” between couples to get them to “duke it out” so that there is a clear winner and a clear loser who pays child support. Joint custodies and equitable settlements are not in the caseworker or agency’s best interest. Bonuses are tied to some amount of child support being paid through their offices.

The Family Court judges get a “judicial award”. Every State has constitutional law that prevents a judge from being paid in relation to the “performance on his bench.” So it is commonly paid as an “award” to the judge’s retirement fund. Whether now or later, the judge personally profits by his acts. Further, that over-imputation of wages now comes into play, where the alleged amount owed is directly relevant to the amount of State and Federal funding. The higher the amounts owed, the bigger the paychecks.

Much of that State and Federal funding also goes to the courts and offices, which run the Family Law system. Besides these personal incentives, their professional “enterprise” gets more money to employ more people, and get new technology to pursue “the money” more effectively.

Virtually every responsible economist recognizes that the billions of dollars of child support supposed unpaid is not likely to ever be paid. Most experts agree that at least 90% of it is the product of the zealous fantasies of the public servants running these programs; and that the people who supposedly owe this debt simply don’t have the money and never did.

The Primary Hidden Costs

Even with extensive research, it is nearly impossible to discover the “hidden costs”, very likely because they don’t want us to know the real devastation being wrecked on the taxpayer. Hidden costs start where the judge “puts you on probation” for failing to pay child support. Ultimately this leads to a warrant for your arrest. Neither the caseworker and agency head nor the judge care much whether or not you actually pay, because they get even more State and Federal funds for putting people in jail for failing to pay child support.

The number of people in jail for failure to pay child support is a secret; and estimates range from 25% of all those incarcerated to 50% of all county jails. Either way, the numbers are staggering. First, the cost of incarcerating one person for a year is between $30-50,000. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, at 1 person for every 147. If a quarter of those people are held for child support charges, the taxpayer for imprisoning “bad dads” is approximately $20 billion, or more than all the child support collected.

Those people sitting in jail are not earning money, and therefore not paying taxes, ergo creating “lost money.” Many people have to hire lawyers, not to defend themselves from their Ex, but to defend themselves from their own government. The “divorce industry” is booming for lawyers, and is primarily why both the American Bar Association and Trial Lawyers Association have been instrumental in developing this system, and have a fundamental interest in promoting its continuation. Remember that the judges and prosecutors are lawyers too.

Conservative estimates put these hidden “legal counsel” cost figures in the $100 billion range, and some experts suggest it may be as high as $200 billion. If incarceration costs run another $20 billion – or higher, and supposed “administrative costs” are about $4.5 billion, the American Public is paying a minimum of $125 billion to “collect a debt” of $18 billion. Remember that it still has not reduced welfare by a single iota and while the receivers of the child support do get “most” of their $18 billion, the primary receivers of the other $107 billion are not children, but lawyers and other members of the legal community.

Approximately 25,000 men committed suicide last year. While we do not know the exact reasons why, because they are not here to tell us, we do know that 80% of them were “recently involved” in a Family Court case. That, on average, is almost 400 men for every State. We can’t even begin to estimate that price tag, except, sardonically to say, that none of them are paying taxes anymore either.

Thousands more men languish in jails for crimes committed when the “snapped.” Having your children stolen from you, your house and all your property, often losing your job and then being put in “debtors prison” has a way of driving even a “reasonable man” over the edge. The recent events of the “East Coast Snipers,” whose story began in a Family Court on the West Coast, are only a small sample of the vast extent of this horrific policy.

The Grotesque Hidden Costs

It is our children who are and will pay the truly hidden costs, both in taxes, and in the quality of their lives. These programs are systematically, and intentionally, disenfranchising children from their fathers, because well, because it is good for big-government business.

Those who have an interest in perpetuating this system would have us believe that this is the fault of “bad dads” who don’t care to act as good parents to their children. Of course, now we have more tax money being spent to encourage fathers to act like better dads, but have not yet recognized the true source of these problems never was the dads.

Most dads do care very much about their kids, but these government programs are very much designed to drive them away in droves. Teaching “parenting skills” to a man who cannot afford to eat because of governmental extortions, is a futile scam, aimed solely at political pacification of “the masses” and not a purposeful address of the problems.

Children who are so disenfranchised from a father’s “guidance and counsel” are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape: This applies to boys of course.
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more like to end up in prison.

All of the above are serious societal problems that, of course, require more tax money; but now to deal with all the bad kids they have purposefully created. Incidentally, those “bad boys” are also significantly more likely to become “bad dads” themselves. It is a downward spiraling system that can only ultimately get much worse. We cannot even begin to estimate the future fiscal costs to taxpayers, much less to the “fiber” of our society.

Band-Aids For A Cancer Patient

Recently, many states have announced legislative “studies”, introduced new legislation, or “amended” some of their “family law” system. Virtually all of it is akin to putting band-aids on a cancer patient. These committees consistently are composed of “family court” judges, family law attorneys, and caseworkers; and all are the very people whose greatest interest is in continuation of the status quo. A recent legislative study in Ohio is a prime case in point – the committee members were exactly as that stated above.

Beyond that, one of the most powerful key components is the Federal “guidelines and standards” which dictate formulas and rules to the State. Failing to meet those Federal formulas and rules means the reduction or complete cutting-off of those crucial Federal funds. It is these Federal funds that drive the States, and the incentive/bonus system, paid from those funds, that drives the people working for the legal system. Lawyers are driven by the lucrative hoard of litigation it all creates.

Many students of socio/economic political systems now acknowledge that the current system of Family Law in this country is nearly identical to the system used in the “old USSR.” Many also maintain that that system was, in large part, responsible for the collapse of that government. Our Family Law system is an abject socialism, not just “a little” socialistic, but a disease-ridden, corrupt socialism that will ultimately destroy us.

To suggest “something must be done about it” is woefully inadequate. “Who” is to do this “something”? Would we have more laws, rules and guidelines, and by the very people who are instrumental in designing and perpetrating this existing “plan”? Would we have more and bigger, big-government rule our lives? The answers to this are well beyond this author’s ability to even begin to suggest.

Except that this author will say: Simply eliminating the entire child support system would save the taxpayer at least 100 billion dollars every year. It might also just save our society.

This article was published without an author associated with it and it was on A Matter of Justice Coalition’s website. Reprinted with their permission.

 Subscribe in a reader

Public Awareness Campaign for Abused Men

The organization known as the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women is always working to raise awareness of domestic violence, especially that perpetrated upon men. Their latest campaign is a poster effort drawing attention to domestic violence.

As part of our ongoing effort to bring more awareness to society about abused men and the availability of our toll free helpline and services for men in relationships with abusive women, we have had a public awareness poster designed. This 11 x 17 poster has “tear off” sheets attached at the bottom right hand corner with the agency’s name, helpline number and website address printed on them so that someone can easily tear off a sheet and stick it in their pocket to take the information with them.

We are hoping that these posters (when placed in various public places along side of other information re: domestic violence) will help men realize that when they are emotionally, psychologically and/or physically assaulted by their intimate female partner it’s also called domestic violence.

Would you like to put some of these posters up in your local area to bring more awareness to this much ignored and hidden side of domestic violence? We are now taking orders. The suggested donation for each poster is $4.50 which covers shipping and handling and the minimum order is 10 posters. Please write us at dahmwagency@gmail.com or call 207-683-5758 to place your order.

This organization is also sponsoring the Men’s Experience with Partner’s Aggression Project, which is still an active effort. I urge you to read this article and participate. When laws and legislation such as the Violence Against Women’s Act serve to label all men as abusers and only women as victims (purporting oftentimes as many as 95% of perpetrators are male), it’s efforts such as those undertaken by the Domestic Violence Helpline for Men and Women that are working so hard to bring a sense of reality and true equality to the situations. When it comes to establishing the necessary funds and support mechanisms that are so desperately needed to assist men suffering from domestic violence – it is up to men to report their experiences at every opportunity. Not only are you protecting yourself, you set the wheels in motion for many others to receive protection and assistance as well.

Forget about being embarrassed about reporting an intimate partner for domestic violence. It’s not necessary to “man-up” and just deal with it, no matter how much ridicule you expect you might receive. There is a reason that false accusations against men and restraining orders based upon same are so effective at separating men from their freedom and family (and oftentimes much more). It’s due to all that “manning-up.” It’s due to a life of being taught to “never hit a woman.” Men have been trained to avoid doing anything that will bring “harm” to a woman. In the interim, the level of violence perpetrated by women is becoming more and more public. Even though they may not be punished to the same level as men, only a continued effort to expose violence, no matter the gender, will see slow changes come to the mindset of men = perpetrator, women = victims.

I ask you, which situation makes men appear more foolish?

Option A: Your jackass friends laughing at you for reporting that your wife/girlfriend beats you up?

Option B: Sitting in jail when you when you finally defend yourself, leave a mark, and then you explain the situation to your jackass friends from behind the glass at your local prison?

If she’s being violent, take action. Call the police. Call the help line. Report it. Report it every single time. I just dealt with it and did so for a long time. When I look back and think about how many times things could have turned out so horribly different… yes… even moreso than what you read about here… I suddenly realize how worthless “manning up” really is.

 Subscribe in a reader

Look Out! A Femi-nagger Is Angry With Us!

Our efforts at bringing attention to Parental Alienation Day (April 25th, 2008) has brought me one (so far) bizarre email exchange. More of the same from some circles of feminism – males are the root cause of every problem in the history of ever for females. Nothing is ever their fault, they’ll find a way to blame a male or the “patriarchy.” It’s a can’t-lose for those who don’t want equal responsibility to go along with their (alleged) equal rights.

Eden writes:

Please be aware that fathers alienate as well. If you’ve ever read the Battered Women’s study published by Wellesley college, as well as many other incidences. Do not focus just on mothers, because they are not the only one’s not acting in the best interest of the children. I guarantee, I can provide a story that shows a man crazier than any of the cases you have. If you are not willing to look at the whole picture, you are not against parental alienation….you are just another “father’s rights group”.

Eden

To which I reply:

Eden,

If you’ve read many of my posts, you would know that I understand that both genders are guilty. I accept input from all folks regardless of gender. You have to see past my own personal story to get at it, but it’s there.

And while I am certainly “just another” father’s & families rights proponent, I take exception to such a clearly disdainful characterization. There is nothing wrong with “father’s rights groups” (generally) and I would certainly back up my position that “women’s rights” groups have far more to be ashamed of than MRAs.

Feel free to not only tell me your story… but direct anyone else who has an alienation story they wish to share in my direction… you’ll see that I will GLADLY post them on April 25th regardless of gender.

Feel free to re-read my announcement regarding PAS and cite where I have spoken only of mothers.

Parental Alienation Day – April 25th, 2008

A quote from our “About Us” page:

“We realize that these issues are not gender-specific and hope you’ll understand that our posts will very often be rooted in our own experiences. With that in mind, we hope you will stick around to the end – a lot of the information we offer is helpful to both genders!”

Might I also add that Wellesley College (Center for Women) is hardly the picture of objectivity?

Good day,
Mister-M

Eden sent me another email:

Mister-M,

The Batterer’s Report from Wellesley Women’s center is a study on women who were abused my men and then in our probate courts. It doesn’t hide from being a women’s report. So pointing that out is moot. In general, many of the men (in father’s fights groups) are complaining because they have to give their ex-wives child support and they complain they do not see their children as much. Many of these men are mostly angry about the money and yelling “father’s rights” not taking into consideration that the stay-at-home mom who hasn’t worked in years has to go out and find a job with no current work experience. We work with men who’ve moved into their parents home and helped their ex’s out with the house so their children would not have to move, even if the wife is “being difficult”. We also have women who’s children were ripped from them because the men did not want to pay child support and figured if he had the children it would be less of a financial burden. We are trying to create justice and harmony and not point fingers. Even the name of your organization is derogatory and promotes anger. What good are you really doing??

Eden

Eden – thanks for supporting my point.

The Batterer’s Report from Wellesley Women’s center is a study on women who were abused my men and then in our probate courts.

As I said, hardly the picture of objectivity. I appreciate your agreement. I’m sure your stance is that men are never abused by women or the courts, and any fathers/mens rights group that points such instances out is simply trying to get money.

It doesn’t hide from being a women’s report. So pointing that out is moot.

Actually, it’s not moot. It’s the point. It’s not objective. It’s common knowledge that the Wellesley Women’s Center is an anti-male organization who pushes the anti-male, anti-father feminist agenda.

In general, many of the men (in father’s fights groups) are complaining because they have to give their ex-wives child support and they complain they do not see their children as much. Many of these men are mostly angry about the money and yelling “father’s rights” not taking into consideration that the stay-at-home mom who hasn’t worked in years has to go out and find a job with no current work experience.

The NERVE of fathers! Complaining about not seeing their children as much! Bastards!

No, not really, but when you only have a feminist organization’s “study” on which to base your version of reality, it’s not hard to figure out why you believe this to be the case.

Fathers are generally angry about the clear-cut anti-father bias in family courts. They are generally angry about being pushed out of their children’s lives by these biases and being relegated to a work-slave to the child/mother-support that is often unreasonably high and not in line with the real basic costs for raising a child. They’re angry that they can not provide love and care under their own roof (assuming they can afford one with the child support assessments that are granted), but financial assistance as well. Research shows that Fathers AND Mothers provide almost the same financial support for their children for college even when NOT ordered to by the courts. I wonder why that is?

Eden needs to realize that stay-at-home-mom’s aren’t the only women who are abusing the court system for financial gain. Gainfully employed women are, too. I also wonder how she feels about the rising numbers of stay-at-home-fathers who will be petitioning the courts for full custody and expecting to receive child support when they are faced with divorce. My guess is she’ll be telling them to get a job.

We work with men who’ve moved into their parents home and helped their ex’s out with the house so their children would not have to move, even if the wife is “being difficult”.

Too bad for those fathers because they would do their child more good by being in the children’s lives, not just setting up a bitter, angry, vindictive ex-wife to keep everything he’s worked all of his life for in order to have and raise a family.

How many women have you worked with to help move into her parents’ homes so that a willing, fit father could raise the children solely or primarily in the marital home and pay child support? My guess is ZERO. Why am I not surprised? Here’s a question for you, Eden… if the money is at or near the top of the list of important things “in the best interests of the children” – why don’t you push to ensure that the primary custodian of the children is the person who makes the higher income? That makes sense, doesn’t it, assuming the father is a fit and willing parent?

We also have women who’s children were ripped from them because the men did not want to pay child support and figured if he had the children it would be less of a financial burden.

Eden – if a fit, willing father has the child with him on a shared or primary basis, he incurs expenses associated with raising the children, right? Isn’t that what “child support” is? Money to take care of the children? So if a father is paying child support, and then gets custody of the children, that child support he was paying to the mother for the “care” of the children, will now go into his household expenses that are associated with the children, right? Or are you telling us that child support is really mother support and it doesn’t actually cost that much to raise a child and the father is being “financially raped?”

Your quote above is accurate – most reasonable human beings realize that the overwhelming majority of child-support orders aren’t realistic. Since you’ve acknowledged that reality in the quote above, why don’t you help push for legislation that doesn’t assess child support based upon the consumer price-index, but on reasonably estimated costs for bringing up a child or children? For instance, why does a Foster parent in Indiana only get $5,000-7,000 a year to raise the foster child, yet the courts say a family with an income of $50,000 a year needs to spend $24,000 to raise a child, most of which will have to come from the Father?

Or better yet, call the willing father’s bluff. Ask your women to tell them that they’ll drastically reduce or eliminate child support and see if the father’s back off from their desire to have custody. I guarantee you that you’ll be shocked by reality.

We are trying to create justice and harmony and not point fingers.

Eden, you’re a liar. Even in what little you’ve written to me, you make no mention of fathers except in derogatory, negative terms and speak nothing of any interest nor care for loving, willing fathers who suffer at the hands of spiteful, vindictive mothers. According to you a father can only want his children for one reason, financial incentive, not because he could actually LOVE his children! Why doesn’t your organization work hard for abused parents regardless of gender?

Even the name of your organization is derogatory and promotes anger.

The name of my organization more than accurately reflects my own experiences. It’s not derogatory. It doesn’t promote anger. It’s factually based and if that makes you or anyone else angry, you should consider taking an anger management class. It should also be pointed out that we own the domain ThePsychoExHusband.com as well and plan on launching it in the future.

Further, I would also argue that the name of your organization [unnamed here] is fraudulent when it appears that you are only concerned about furthering a feminism-fueled, woman-only, anti-father & family agenda.

What good are you really doing??

We’re doing a lot more than you truly care to know and a lot less than we really wish we could.

(Both DW and LM contributed to the commentary after the last email highlighted in the text.)

 Subscribe in a reader

Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA) – A Scourge on Society

Contrary to the relentless dissemination of anti-male hysteria by well-organized feminist groups, their political action committees, and spineless legislators led by lead feminist Joe Biden (D-De) – the reality is that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence. They are most likely to neglect and kill their children. If they’re not doing it, someone with whom they’ve shacked-up are involved is doing it with them or because they allow it to occur. In almost every case this is more than likely after the Divorce Machine has unceremoniously kicked the father out of the family and his children’s lives. Biological fathers are the least likely to abuse, neglect, or kill their children. The creation and passage of the Violence Against Women’s Act, a completely unconstitutional piece of legislation, has ensured a disgraceful level of funding and has put in place the tools any woman needs to destroy a man’s life. She has the full support and resources of federal and state governments to accomplish this, while misandrist organizations such as N.O.W. pat themselves on the back for a mission accomplished.

Their motto: “No matter the transgression – it will always be a man’s fault.” As a result, the man must pay.

– Men pay with the loss of involvement with their children in an overwhelming majority of the cases.

– Men pay with inordinately high child support orders in an overwhelming majority of the cases.

– Men pay with higher sentences when convicted of crimes than women who commit the same crimes.

– Men pay unnecessary punitive measures when they fall behind in child support while women rarely are punished in any meaningful capacity for custodial interference.

– Men pay through paternity fraud (many unknowingly) which is an absolute crisis in this country, oftentimes saddled with decades-long financial penalties supporting children that were never theirs. Women are rarely arrested for paternity fraud and penalties are rarer still and weak at best.

– False domestic violence accusations are an epidemic and mandatory arrest policies further the life-affecting damage on men. Women and children are adversely affected as well. Children lose a parent. They may lose their homes. Men may lose their freedom. Worse, people who do truly suffer domestic violence are at greater risk when when people waste the resources when making such fraudulent claims.

VAWA violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution by providing obscene levels of federal funding to protect only one gender – women.

VAWA violates the principle of federalism of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, infringing on state sovereignty.

The Civil Rights violations are numerous and yet this “act” is current law.

This systematic demonization of men has been 30+ years in the making has been shockingly successful. The message has been clear and drummed relentlessly into the public consciousness. There is no excuse for domestic violence against a woman! What has been missing from that equation are children and most especially – men. Men need to wake up and organize to reverse this mythology before it’s too late, assuming it’s not already too late.

Reality Check: WOMEN ARE JUST AS LIKELY AS MEN TO COMMIT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Many recent, reputable studies have reinforced this reality.

From Martin S. Fiebert out of the Department of Psychology at Cal-State Long Beach comes such incredible information from References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners, including:

• Women were more likely than men to “use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.”
• Men suffered serious injuries in 38% of domestic violence cases.
• Men were 9-times less like to report domestic violence.
• 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.
• One comprehensive report of findings from international dating violence study which collected data from over 11,000 (70% women) college students from 50 universities in 21 countries. Subjects responded to the revised Conflict Tactics scale, gender hostility scales and injury scales. Findings reveal that women perpetrated greater partner violence than men, that women were more seriously injured than men and that hostility toward the opposite sex was significantly and similarly correlated with partner violence for men and women.

These are just a few samples from in excess of 100 which demonstrate the realities of domestic violence. This is reality, folks. For more reality, I strongly recommend the series of posts at Glenn Sacks’ site: From Ideology to Inclusion – Evidence-Based Policy (Domestic Violence Conference).

My message to men? It’s time to shed the tough-guy, I can deal with it attitude. If your partner or spouse batters you, call the police. Deal with the comments and snide remarks. If you’re not believed, call again next time, too – and keep calling. Don’t drop the charges, even though, for now, she may only get a slap on the wrist. If there is still time, participate in The Men’s Experience with Partner Agression Project. The figures above are very likely low due to the male penchant to avoid getting help. It’s why there is no “Violence Against Men’s Act.” It’s why there is no “Violence Against Person’s Act.” It’s why a “Men’s Domestic Violence Shelter” is as common as pregnant man. It’s why not one penny of the billions appropriated for VAWA is spent on equal protections for men.

I often wonder that if I didn’t see fit to hide my embarrassment and shame for what I was embroiled in and called the cops when the few times things got physical, I *might* have faired better in the early days of the divorce & custody battle. Maybe I wouldn’t have chosen to endure these experiences as long as I did. At least towards the end, I was smart enough to call the police when things started to deteriorate and escalate between us. It’s very likely why I managed to escape the false domestic abuse allegations that countless others have not.

On September 30, the Violence Against Women’s Act is scheduled to expire. This means that radical feminists and their misandry-pushing organizations such as N.O.W. will be engaging in a full-out media assault to dust off the false hysterical claims to vilify the male of the species and mobilize support for a renewal. Frankly, I’m saddened by the fact that so many follow leadership that has been so frequently embarrassed after having some of their scare-tactics and hysteria so effectively debunked by real facts.

Please don’t allow this to happen. What has transpired since its inception is nothing more than criminal and affects men, women, and children alike. It’s not too early to start contacting your state’s representatives and oppose any attempts to renew this unconstitutional travesty. Worse, Biden and his cronies in man-hatred, along with his radical feminist supporters have even considered spreading this scourge worldwide via I-VAWA which would see U.S. Taxpayer dollars spent overseas to spread this anti-male cancer across the globe. The rest of the world doesn’t need this type of poison spread throughout.

ACT NOW. Act against both the renewal of VAWA and the implementation of I-VAWA by contacting your legislators today, tomorrow, and as often as you can make the time between now and September. Click here to find out how to contact your representatives. If you care about men, women, and children in this country, your efforts are needed to defeat this. It’s devastating to families. It’s a burden on every citizen of this country. Help put a stop to it.

 Subscribe in a reader

More on the Propagation of the "Evil Male" Stereotype

Dalia Hashad is Amnesty International’s Director of the USA Program focusing on Domestic Human Rights. Given the excerpt I’m about to share with you, perhaps those “domestic human rights” apply to people who aren’t male? She’s supposed represent domestic human rights, not women’s rights.

Today, in a story on WJLA ABC News in Washington DC, Dalia was commenting about the use of tasers and their growing sales to civilians as a self-defense tool. There are some valid concerns about their use and misuse by law-enforcement and civilians.

I was immediately alarmed by her commentary as I watched the news broadcast.

Dalia said, “All a person who wants to HURT A WOMAN has to do is go onto the website, order this product, it appears on HIS doorstep, and the next day HE could be at yours.” Yes. That’s a quote. There is Dalia, fanning the flames of anti-male hysteria on the news in a major metropolitan area. (I added the obvious emphasis.)

She did so without hesitation. There was no pause. It was as natural as someone saying, “Hello, lovely weather we’re having. Have a great day.”

If you want to let Dalia and Amnesty International USA know how their bias is showing through in mainstream media reports, here is their email address: aimember@aiusa.org – write them and let them know that their Director is publicizing her biases as a representative of their organization – an organization supposedly championing the domestic rights of all.

This is not amusing considering 60% of people that order tasers are female. It’s not amusing since women are responsible for 33% of documented domestic violence according to the US Justice Department and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.

Men are just as affected by the issue of tasers, yet she chose to portray males as the ONLY abusive party, and of course, only against women. Fortunately, WJLA followed up Dalia’s quote with a report on 3 women that were arrested for using tasers against 3 other women, it’s sad that this report will not be remembered. Instead, feminist groups will latch onto this quote by Dalia as another tool with which to portray women as victims, when in fact women are just as likely to be abusive. Women are the ones having parties in their homes in order to buy tasers.

You can comment on this at WJLA using the link to the story above, too. I can only hope that these additional snippets of information might counter Dalia’s ridiculous hysterical commentary early in the segment.

 Subscribe in a reader

HIDE THE WOMEN & CHILDREN! IT’S SUPERBOWL SUNDAY!

Even today, one of the most ludicrous and methodically debunked hunk of bulldung trotted out into the mainstream media, the myth that Superbowl Sunday is day that “more women suffer spousal abuse than any other day of the year” is discussed as if it is fact. It’s not.

Lord knows, given my experiences, there were about 10 Superbowls during which I could have “snapped” and supported this assertion. But alas, I always managed to show restraint and spare us all becoming another statistic – false or otherwise.

Before the 1993 Superbowl, a number of representatives from various women’s groups held a news conference announcing this bit of unfounded hysteria. A big publicizer of anti-man myths is Lenore Walker, who further fanned the flames of burning piles of fiction by claiming she had undertaken a 10-year study supporting these claims.

Not unlike so many other falsehoods, embellishments, and hysteria – the media took the proverbial football and ran for the endzone with this one, never taking a look back. Of course, they ran the wrong way with the ball. It received so much attention that NBC created and broadcast a public service announcement before the game to remind “men” that domestic abuse is a crime. As if men and fathers in this country didn’t already know by this time that not only is domestic abuse a crime, false allegations against you for the same is also a crime against women (at least that’s how they’re treated).

The reality is, Superbowl Sunday is statistically no different than any other day in terms of domestic abuse. Further, I eagerly await the study that demonstrates how pissed-off female partners assault their male counterparts for spending so much time watching football.

The ensuing weeks and months saw a fair amount of backpedaling by those who had propagated the Superbowl violence myth, but – as usual – the retractions and corrections received far less attention than the sensational, but false, stories that everyone wanted to believe.

Today, I still encounter the occasional believer of this completely false statistic and they will swear up and down that it’s the truth. My how the radical crusaders of women’s rights (and hysteria) have managed to entrench this and so many other untruths about domestic violence to further their agenda (so successfully).

 Subscribe in a reader

A View From Canada – The Plight of Divorced Dads

A view from Canada…

Barbara Kay, National Post Published: Saturday, December 08, 2007

The Plight of Divorced Dads

No other topics I write about so consistently provoke passionate personal response as those dealing with systemic discrimination against men. When, for example, I point out double standards for boys and girls in the health care system, or expose the use of bogus statistics around domestic violence, my inbox fills with male gratitude simply for acknowledging an obvious fact: Our culture is profoundly misandric.

Of the myriad forms of discrimination men cite, one looms over the rest: The egregious treatment meted out to fathers in the throes of contested child custody following the “no-fault” divorces most of them did not initiate or desire. My files bulge with stories of disenfranchised fathers ripped from their children’s arms and lives. They have lost their homes, their careers, fortunes, friends and reputations, often on the basis of false allegations of abuse (for which their female accusers are virtually never punished). I wouldn’t mention such anecdotal evidence, if the anguish in these testimonials didn’t jibe with objective data confirming the shameful gender bias that dominates the family law system.

About half of all marriages end in divorce. Women are twice as likely to initiate a divorce as men, largely because they can be fairly sure they’ll end up with control of the children. Where shared parenting is the default template, divorce rates plummet. Men are six times as likely as women to commit suicide within the first two years after a separation: That they kill themselves from despair rather than their ex-wives for revenge is, ironically, a tragically eloquent rebuttal to the feminist credo that men are inherently dangerous to women. Although 25% of women make more money than their spouses, 97% of support payers are men (even in cases of shared parenting). Mobility decisions favour women: The psychological comfort to a Vancouver mother of moving near her Toronto-based family will be privileged over the psychological devastation the virtual loss of his children causes the Vancouver-bound father.

Misandry in family law begins with an ideology that views children as the property of women, even though many peer-reviewed studies show children want and need both parents, and no studies show sole parenting by a mother serves children’s best interests. This ideology is instilled in judges during training sessions featuring feminism-driven materials, and subsequently often plays out as unaccountable kangaroo courts. The result is that an adversarial mother who initiates a divorce against the will of the father –however indifferent her parenting skills, however superb his and even if the children spend their days with nannies or day care workers –pretty well has a lock on sole custody of the children. If she denies rightful access to the father, she will never be punished at all. Conversely, if he withholds money, he will be criminalized: His picture as a “deadbeat dad” may appear on government-sanctioned Internet sites, and if he goes to jail, as is likely, he will serve a longer sentence than cocaine dealers.

Most men think such kafkaesque scenarios can’t happen to them. Happily married men parenting with equal diligence believe in their hearts that men who find themselves savaged by the family law system are congenital losers, or were demonstrably lousy husbands and fathers. Many such “winners” are in for an unpleasant surprise.

“We want to pull away from the idea that parents have rights in relation to their children,” said Jennifer Cooper, chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s family law section, representing 2,200 divorce lawyers. “Parents” in this statement is the hypocritical lip service feminism pays to humanism: She meant “fathers,” for women’s rights today are never “pulled away from,” only supported or furthered. In the days when children belonged to both their parents, it used to be said that children were “hostages to fortune.” Today they are hostages to feminism and the state.

In his new, cleverly titled book, Taken into Custody, Stephen Baskerville, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, paints a bleak picture of the routine injustice a divorcing father can expect when a woman initiates a divorce. Baskerville baldly warns: “If I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today, it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.” His book, like many others of the genre, makes a persuasive case. Men should read them. If the system does not become equitable, don’t be surprised if men choose increasingly, and with reason, to play their trump card: Voting for equality with their condoms.

The Plight of Divorced Dads (Feminism, Misandry, Child Custody Laws, Disenfranchised Fathers)

bkay@videotron.ca

(Reprinted with permission)

 Subscribe in a reader

Federal Incentives Exist to Make Children Fatherless

Phyllis Schlafly
May 9, 2005

Why has Congress appropriated taxpayer money to give perverse incentives that break up families and deprive children of their fathers? The built-in financial incentives in the current child-support system have expanded the tragedy of fatherless children from the welfare class to millions of non-welfare divorced couples.

Americans have finally realized that providing generous welfare through Aid to Families with Dependent Children was counterproductive because the father had to disappear in order for the mother to receive taxpayer-paid benefits. Fathers left home, illegitimacy rose in alarming numbers and children were worse off.

AFDC provided a taxpayer-paid financial incentive to reward girls with their own monthly check, food stamps, health care and housing if they had illegitimate babies. “She doesn’t need me, she’s got welfare” became the mantra.

Congress tried to reform the out-of-control welfare system by a series of child-support laws passed in 1975, 1984, 1988, 1996 (the famous Republican welfare reform), and 1999. Unfortunately, these laws morphed the welfare system into a massive middle-class child-support system that deprives millions of children of fathers who never abandoned them.

As former President Ronald Reagan often said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”

People think that child-support enforcement benefits children, but it doesn’t. When welfare agencies collect child support, the money actually goes to the government to reimburse it for welfare payments already given to mothers, supposedly to reduce the federal budget (which, of course, is never reduced).

In 1984, Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement Amendment. It required states to adopt voluntary guidelines for child-support payments.

In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act, which made the guidelines mandatory – along with criminal enforcement – and gave states less than one year to comply. The majority of states quickly adopted the model guidelines conveniently already written by a Department of Health and Human Services consultant who was president of what was shortly to become one of the nation’s largest private collection companies, which makes its profits on the onerous guidelines that create arrearages.

The 1988 law extended the guidelines to ALL child-support orders, even though the big majority of those families never had to interact with government in order to pay or receive child support. This massive expansion of federal control over private lives uses a Federal Case Registry to exercise surveillance over 19 million citizens whether or not they are behind in child-support payments.

The states collect the child-support money and deposit it in a state fund, but the federal government pays most of the administrative costs and, therefore, dictates the way the system operates through mandates and financial incentives. The federal government pays 66 percent of the states’ administrative overhead costs, 80 percent of computer and technology-enhancement costs, and 90 percent of DNA testing for paternity.

In addition, the states share in a nearly $500 million incentive reward pool based on whatever the state collects. The states can get a waiver to spend this bonus money anyway they choose.
However, most of the child support owed by welfare-class fathers is uncollectable. Most of them are either unemployed or have annual incomes less than $10,000.

So, in order to cash in on federal bonus money, build their bureaucracies and brag about successful child-support enforcement, the states began bringing into the government system middle-class fathers with jobs who were never (and probably would never be) on welfare. These non-welfare families have grown to represent 83 percent of child-support cases and 92 percent of the money collected, creating a windfall of federal money flowing to the states.
The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money state bureaucracies collect from the federal government.

Follow the money. The less time that noncustodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they are required pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.

States have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers’ high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced and to hang onto the father’s payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers. The General Accounting Office reported that in 2002 that states were holding $657 million in undistributed child support.

Fatherless boys are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Fatherless girls are twice as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to end up in jail.

We can no longer ignore how taxpayer money is providing incentive for divorce and creating fatherless children. Nor can we ignore the government’s complicity in the predictable social costs that result from more than 17 million children growing up without fathers.

———–

Our commentary: Until I was eyeball-deep in my own contentious divorce and custody battle with my psycho ex-wife – I… had… no… clue.

The article above is one of many we will share and will shine a light on the reality of the billion-dollar Divorce Industry. I added emphasis on the word “industry” because that’s what it is – one of the biggest, most profitable businesses in this country and perhaps the world.

If the men of the world, and the women who love them, their children, and their families don’t begin to educate themselves on the depth of this curse on families – the future is bleak indeed. As with most everything in our world today – follow the money. When you offer incredible financial incentives which serve to encourage the destruction of families – the end result is: the destruction of families.

Think about the divorce cartel and the kind of money it takes to pay lawyers, mediators, counselors, custody evaluators, judges, clerks, staff, police, prison guards, domestic violence shelters, collection agencies… and the list goes on and on and on and on and on- you soon realize the sheer volume of people whose livelihoods depend on the divorce machine running at peak productivity… to society’s detriment.

They all do this while hiding behind the cloak of “doing what’s in the best interests of the children.” It doesn’t get more vile and disgusting as that.

 Subscribe in a reader