Family Court has become a nightmare for men in the United States. Each and every day, thousands of men stand inside courtrooms waiting for their lives to be determined by people who don't even know them. Attorneys, psychologists, court appointed guardians, and judges; all of these have the power to change a man's life, to decide who he is, in a few court appointed hours. Every representative of the Family Court has a part in judging the men who enter its parameters, and their opinions and decisions have a profound effect on the dissolution of not only a marriage, but more importantly a family. Mens rights have been diminished to nearly none by so-called Family Court. Women have all the advantages at Family Court, which violates mens rights, and proves detrimental to children.
When men are shut out of the lives of their children by Family Court, society suffers greatly. It is well known fact that the presence of a child's father in the family home makes an enormously positive contribution to the future success of children when they become adults. There is no argument that the most desirable state would be for children to be raised by both of their parents; hopefully in the same home. Family Court's supposed purpose is to work out arrangements that are in the "best interests of the child." But what are the child's best interests, and what precautions are taken to make sure that the "child's interests" are truly taken into consideration?
At the least, Family Court should make a smooth pathway for a father to maintain an active presence in his child's life. Divorce and separation are difficult. It's hard enough for a child to comprehend, "Daddy doesn't live here anymore;" how much harder to comprehend, "You can't see him anymore." Family Court should acknowledge mens rights. Yet Family Court works actively against men by denying that mens rights exist, and thereby deprecates the relationships of fathers with their children.
Domestic Violence Law
Studies show that domestic violence is perpetrated in equal numbers by and against men and women. Yet it is rare for a woman to be arrested for this offense because of domestic violence law. I know a man who was attacked maliciously by his wife twice—and both times he went to jail. It didn't matter that he hadn't raised a hand to her. The jail cell was waiting for him.
What happened was simple: a woman was angry because Dad was out with his friends. When he arrived home; she kicked him, slapped him, and clawed at his face with her fingernails leaving welts that streamed blood. When she was done, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door and called 911.
The man sat down calmly and started watching television; he was completely unaware that the police were on the way. He had no idea what she'd done. Moments later, two squad cars pulled up and the police came into the house. Their presence must have given her confidence, as upon their arrival she made her way out of the bathroom and declared, "He is angry and I'm afraid of him."
The man was bleeding from the clawing on his face and arms. The woman had not a hair out of place—but that was of no consequence. The man went to jail. He protested he'd done nothing wrong, that he hadn't threatened her or physically hurt her, but the police just shrugged and told him, "Whoever calls in, the other party goes to jail, pal. That's the domestic violence law." So they took him, and he was put into a 10X10 cell with maybe 20 crazy crackheads for the evening.
Meanwhile, victim's rights counselors visited the woman, and they told her it was imperative she file a restraining order. Why? Because in their words, "lots of men want revenge when they get out of jail." These counselors are well spoken, and may even seem to be well meaning, but if a woman hesitates, they apply pressure such as by asking, "You didn't file a false police report did you? Well, if you were afraid of him then you need to sign this paper now."
Domestic Violence Law
The woman's initial lies, combined with the visit from the victim's rights counselors, resulted in the man being banned by law from coming within 100 yards of his own home. Worse than that, he was charged with violating domestic violence laws and ordered to stand trial. He hired a lawyer and told her emphatically, "I will fight this to the Supreme Court!"
But the lawyer knew the system well and told him, "You don't want to do that. You can't win." The man was incredulous! "I didn't do anything," he protested. "That doesn't matter," the lawyer said. "When you go to court there will be women's rights groups present who keep score on judge's sentences for domestic violence law cases. Mens rights are next to non-existent. The judge will have to give you a year in jail to placate the women's rights groups."
"But I'm innocent so I won't be sentenced because I'll be acquitted, " the man reasoned aloud, believing that all he needed was the truth. But the lawyer who knew better left him no hope when she responded, "Men rarely win any of these domestic violence law cases. The 120 pound woman gets on the stand and bawls her eyes out; the jury has 8 women on it. They look at you with a cold eye, 200 pounds and a man!"
In reality, there are many women who actually want their man to come back home. It used to be that many of these domestic violence cases were dropped because recalcitrant women refused to testify against the fathers of their children. It's the Feminist groups who have dramatically changed domestic violence law in the past decade or two (depending on the state).
Nowadays, the state prosecutes the man regardless of what the woman wants. They just use the police report to gain the conviction; it's all they need. Mens rights are negligible.
In this case, the man copped a plea to disorderly conduct, went to anger management sessions, and was placed on probation. If he would have gone back home, the threat of her calling the cops again would have hung over his head like the Sword of Damocles.
Why don't men call the cops first when they are assaulted by women? Because most men have no idea the danger they are in, and even if they did, most men are culturally conditioned to think it unmanly to complain about a woman battering them.
Eventual divorce opens another Pandora's Box. The presiding judge will see an arrest for domestic violence law on a man's record and take that into consideration when determining child custody. Every cop that ever pulls the man over for speeding will be apprised of the prior arrest for violating domestic violence law. And if the man ever runs for public office, the press will have a field day with it.
How long will a domestic violence law violation be on his record? Forever. 300 years after he is dead, it will still be on record somewhere that Joe Smith was a wife beater. After all, he copped a plea, so he must have been guilty.
The biggest weapon given to women by family court, though, in the midst of an acrimonious divorce—and the most egregious violation of mens rights—is the big gun: to suddenly charge "suspected" sexual abuse of their children by their father. Despite having had no such suspicions during a ten-year marriage, all of a sudden, when the relationship is irretrievably broken, some women show just how capable they are of dirty, lowdown, excremental behaviors.
All a mother has to say is, "My 2-year-old daughter doesn't act right [big surprise when her parents are separated]. Something might have happened between her and her father."
Immediately, the father's contact with the child (and its mother) is terminated, and he is barred from his home. If he is lucky, he won't go to prison convicted on a false charge (after all, child sexual abuse by a natural father is extremely rare).
But the charge will be made public to both sides of the family (and others). The accusation alone is horrific, enough to taint a man forever by suspicion. Social workers will be brought in who have never met a child who was not sexually abused. The cops will investigate and tell the man, "OK. We believe you. We don't think you did anything. You're in the clear." Is it over? No, it's not."
A police investigation is only the prelude, Child Protective Services will then step in. They are the spoke in the Family Court wheel with the power to determine that a father can only have supervised visitation with his child. No matter that he hasn't laid eyes on that child for six months or more. In order to see his child, a court ordered 3rd party must remain within earshot of both he and his child at all times for another year or so.
The man will ask Child Protective Services, "Why? I have been found innocent of any wrongdoing!" Their pat answer: "We must err on the side of safety."
In other words, if they make one wrong choice out of a hundred, they could lose their jobs. So it all boils down to CYA.
In the mean time, Social Services will bring in their psychologist, who suggests things to children, and who leads them into giving the answers they want to hear. The psychologist embraces the word "maybe," and often keeps children hostage for hours, waiting for them to wear down. The method is to express disappointment with the "wrong" answers, and display absolute delight (with rewards) for the "right" answers. Younger children may think its a game. And a confused child might well say exactly what they've been programmed to say. The psychologist can then declare that the father could be a danger of some sort (as could any person, of course). They may even tell a child, "Your Dad does bad things to you. We have to protect you from him."
And why does this have to happen? Why would a woman go to such great lengths because she feels scorned, or has found another man? What purpose does it all serve? In the former case the motive is revenge; in the latter, the motive is to start life afresh without the excess baggage of a former marriage. The end result being that the relationship between a father and his daughter is ruined forever. A man can't relax and enjoy his children in the company of a court appointed babysitter who's job it is to "look for mistakes" and construe his motives. How long does it take for men to act normally around their children (or nieces and nephews for that matter) without fear that something or anything might be misconstrued.
And if a woman is proven to have filed false charges, what happens to her? Generally nothing.
In Family Court, mens rights get the short shrift regarding custody, visitation, and child support. The unfair advantages given to women these days regarding the first two are a well known fact, but what about child support?
In many states, men have been forced—under threat of prison (at the barrel of a gun)—to pay 18 years of child support for children who are not even their children; conceived in adultery. In many states, husbands have no right to demand a paternity test at all. We might be talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars over 18 years paid to an adulterous wife.
And visitation has been completely separated from child support in Family Court. No matter if a man is allowed, or illegally denied, or hampered by his ex-wife from seeing his children, he still goes to jail if he falls behind on his child support—even if unemployed!
All of this is much worse if a man and woman have a child out of wedlock. In such a case, the man has virtually no rights at all.
The moral for men? Be careful who you breed with!
How about abortion? Well, an unborn child is half of each parent biologically, right? The man has no rights whatsoever. If a woman decides to kill a man's child—even if he declares his willingness to raise it on his own—he has no say what happens to his offspring, his heirs, whatsoever. But if a man wants an abortion to be performed and the woman doesn't, he still has no say about the 18 years of child support he must pay.
All of this is even more interesting if one considers that women file for 67% of all divorces. Why not? If they have found another fella, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. And then she trains her child right away to call the new man "Daddy."
Additionally, it is well known that step-fathers (and live-in boyfriends) commit ten times the physical abuse and sexual abuse than do the natural fathers of children. How can a father stop this? He can't. He is helpless to protect his child.