Courts Without Justice: Dads On The Custody Battlefront
Jim's wife served him with divorce papers -- and a temporary protection order based on allegations of domestic violence. It took him 15 months to be allowed to see his son, even though his wife never claimed that Jim had ever hit or threatened her or their son. Nina Shapiro writes for the Seattle Weekly:
Had he been charged with domestic violence in criminal court, where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the standards of due process are high, this might not have happened. But Jim's fate was decided in a very different venue: family court.It's a court like no other--a hugely busy and rancorous place where the most personal aspects of people's lives are not only on display, but judged and reshaped in proceedings that often last no longer than 20 minutes. Appointed commissioners, rather than elected judges, make many of the most crucial decisions. And the standard of evidence (known as "preponderance of the evidence") is the lowest allowed by law.
For years, dads'-rights groups have claimed that family court overwhelmingly favors women, particularly when it comes to custody. In former times, when dads generally did far less hands-on child-rearing than moms, those claims tended to be viewed as the ranting of bitter misogynists.
But parenting roles have changed. And the "judicial system," says veteran family-law attorney Deborah Bianco, "is way behind the culture." Bianco is one of a number of mainstream family-law attorneys--representing both women and men, and often female themselves--who now say they too see a bias against men.
Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a "women and the law" class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioner's courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. "She ruled against every single man," Rolfe recalls, "and two of them were unopposed."
"In any other arena, the evidence gets you the ruling," observes attorney Maya Trujillo Ringe. "But in this particular arena, the dad has a much bigger uphill battle." So much so, she says, that she and other attorneys often joke that "if you put a skirt on the dad, same facts," he'd win primary custody. "You can overcome the bias," Ringe adds, "but it takes a lot of work and a lot of resources."
Check out the evaluation of one of these guys:
Given their extremely rushed proceedings, family-law commissioners often punt to such "expert" evaluations to make recommendations that can be heard in later hearings. Smith did that in Richard's case, ordering a "risk assessment" from a counselor who specializes in domestic violence.Richard says he welcomed the assessment. "OK, great," he says he thought. "Now I'm going to go to somebody whose job it is to ferret out the truth." He says he didn't even mind paying the $1,000-plus fee.
But when counselor Doug Bartholomew came out with his report a month later, Richard was even further in the hole. The counselor did say that he couldn't determine whether Richard had assaulted his wife. Yet Bartholomew still recommended that Richard attend a domestic-violence treatment program, as well as a class called "DV Dads."
Why? For one thing, he held out the possibility that Richard was dangerous. He attached extreme importance to the engineer's attempt to have the counselor look at a mental-health self-evaluation his wife had done. "Since submitting someone's private records against their will is so inherently antisocial, it raises the question of whether or not he's capable of similar 'stop at nothing' behavior," Bartholomew wrote.
Richard's personality and background were also suspect, according to Bartholomew. For one thing, he was successful. "The downside of success, and he's been very successful, is that we tend not to learn compassion, empathy, or insight." Richard, he wrote, "has never experienced tragedy."
Imagine being evaluated this way -- and having your ability to see your kid depend on that evaluation.
Yes, the judges will do anything not to have to make a decision and so punt to "experts". And the experts are so worried about the worse possible thing happening, they always seem to take the most conservative, cover your ass approach.
So I was accused of being a danger to my kids.
Went to the court appointed psychologist.
Showed that no one, not neighbors, police, friends, clergy, teachers, anyone except my ex thought I was a danger to my kids. No police records, nothing from school, etc.
Showed that her claims always came up, and only came up, when we were going back to court. Court issue? Boom, there would be a claim I was a danger.
Shrink goes to court and say, and this is almost a direct quote: "There is no evidence to show that Mr. Anon is a danger to the kids. The evidence shows that Ms. Ex-Anon is making this up."
"STILL. THE ACCUSATIONS ARE SO SERIOUS that at this time I recommend we do nothing to the schedule or TRO but postpone this for a four months and re-examine."
These charges, regardless of how clearly bogus, have magical trump like charges. But there is never any feedback, and so no reason not to do nothing.
Almost a decade later, and she pulled this shit again just a week ago. In that decade, it goes without saying there has never been the slightest incident reported by the kids or reported by anyone. But still, the claims of danger persist and no one in the court has the decency or intelligence or guts to tell her to stfu.
"STILL. THE ACCUSATIONS ARE SO SERIOUS...."
anon at January 25, 2012 12:50 AM
Hell I was accused of beating a girl up that I was allowing to stay as a houseguest, she claimed she was my "significant other" (nothing significant about her) tried to get me evicted from my own property and obtain financial support, and got me arrested on an allegation that was backed up by precisely nothing, I was nonetheless processed without an interview, without evidence, and brought to trial having had to pay for a lawyer out of my own pocket, all while the accuser herself had a well known history of making false allegations to try to extort money or housing and support from men that were sympathetic to her song and dance.
My case was dismissed at trial after she wouldn't show up to court unless the prosecutor's office paid her to appear.
It took weeks to get the whole domestic violence BS dispensed with through the military system.
Man = dangerous when cases involving women are in the courts.
Robert at January 25, 2012 2:11 AM
I don't envy the job the "experts" have to do in these situations. A friend of mine is an attorney and a child advocate for the court system in Colorado. She always seems close to burning out.
She says the vast majority of people who come through the system really ARE beating and molesting their kids, men and women alike. And in situations that aren't quite clear, it's very difficult to tell when a practiced liar is lying. She was representing one woman who managed to convince her completely that her husband was beating her and the kids, and she was scared. It took months for my friend to find out that the woman was the one abusing her husband and kids. My friend isn't an idiot, and I would never question her integrity. It's just hard when most of the people you see are both guilty and lying to you.
My friend has since tailored part of her practice to helping men she believes are innocent get s fair deal from the system.
MonicaP at January 25, 2012 7:39 AM
this would be the precise reason that I have rolled over on a number of occasions [including financial ruin] to avoid family court...
because family courts always can, and often do, make everything worse.
The saddest thing that's ever happened to me is when my #1 son told me he will never marry and certainly never have kids... I have taken great pains over the years to present this life to him in a neutral way, to show that whatever happened between his parents, that wasn't the endall of everything. That there are many people have good lives together, and good marriages.
He can't see it, and who am I to argue with him?
SwissArmyD at January 25, 2012 9:00 AM
The whole "Family Court" system is an abuse of constitutional rights.
There is no due process or a right to a trial by jury.
There is no presumption of innocence.
There is no standard of evidence.
And there is a disparate impact problem. In any other area, if the results were skewed 10:1 against a single identifiable racial, ethnic, or gender group, it would be considered evidence of discrimination and remedies would have to be implemented.
The solution to this is to get rid of this system and return these cases to courts presided over by elected judges and give all parties the full legal rights they'd have in any other type of case.
If there is physical or sexual assault, it should be investigated by the police, subject to standard rules of evidence, and prosecuted as a crime. If the DA does not have enough evidence to prosecute, sorry, but no case and it cannot be brought up in a divorce proceeding without the person making the charges being liable for slander and defamation suits.
~ ~ ~
Men have to get smart and realize that marriage or even a serious girlfriend is like playing Russian Roulette. Unless you have evidence that her sanity and character are of the highest order, you are risking everything you have when cavorting with women. At the first spouting of feminist claptrap, victimology, martyr complex, or story about how her ex did this or that to her, you should walk away. These are the types of wpmen who will ruin your life.
The truth is, women are much more of a danger to men than men are to women. It is the men who should be scared on a first date. The more assets you have, the more you should be afraid.
The safe path for young men is to become some type of expert technician, like an auto mechanic so you never work in an office and face sexual harassment charges. Always use a condom. Never marry. Always use a condom. Live a life of beer, football, and video games. Always use a condom. Never buy a house, because those are just wife/divorce bait. And don't forget, always use a condom.
Did I mention, always use a condom? That's important; the kid is a woman's secret weapon to enslave you.
Old Guy at January 25, 2012 9:08 AM
The "counselor" in the letter should have any license he has revoked, and he should not be permitted to deal with people.
"The downside of success... is that we tend not to learn compassion, empathy, or insight. Richard, he wrote, "has never experienced tragedy."
This could not have come from someone with any sort of real training in psychology. I cannot believe that anyone involved with this case read this and did not see red flags going up all over the place. This "counselor" should have his license revoked with no possibility of reinstatement.
Oh, and arrrrggghhh I'd rather be drivin' a pirate to work, but the mileage on them things is terrible, mateys! (this comment due to the question to eliminate bots).
alittlesense at January 25, 2012 9:17 AM
@Alittlesense,
Sounds like that counselor takes great pride in his owntotal total lack of compassion and empathy. Success certainly led to sociopathic and abusive behavior in his case.
Matt Walker at January 25, 2012 9:58 AM
The daughter of a friend of ours specializes in representing men in family court.
nonegiven at January 25, 2012 10:08 AM
Now I wasn't alive in the 1950s and 1960s when divorce became more prevalent and pervasive bias against fathers came to be. So I only have popular culture images to go by, but those images (Father Knows Best, My Three Sons, Andy Griffith, etc.) do not seem to reflect a culture of fathers who only went to work and returned home to eat dinner and barely acknowledge his progeny. Maybe those images are idealistic, but if they were not realistic those shows would have been laughed off of the air.
kbiel at January 25, 2012 10:16 AM
In former times, when dads generally did far less hands-on child-rearing than moms
Women generally do less hands-on home and vehicle maintenance. The men I know do most of the following work; lawn mowing, gutter cleaning, sidewalk shoveling, electrical and plumbing repairs, auto maintenance and dealing with garages, car washing, bicycle repairs, carpentry projects, painting, landscaping, computer repairs, assembling Ikea furniture, taking out the trash, leaf raking, tree trimming, and furniture moving.
I grew up in the 50s & 60s, my dad worked and I had a stay at home mom, who had dinner ready every night. He still did all of the above, and he did it all without complaint, while my mother, who had time to spend a few hours each day napping and reading romance novels, acted like she deserved her own chapter in "The Lives Of The Martyrs" because she had to clean the nice house and cook the food my dad worked to pay for, and do laundry once a week. (I won't mention the psychological and verbal abuse, because we all know only men abuse children.)
Old Guy at January 25, 2012 11:00 AM
Old Guy: I'd be careful arguing that MGTOW approach in front of divorced guys with kids. Re-read SwissArmyD's comment for an example of what withdrawing from healthy adult relationships can do to the children. My personal approach is to become more dependable and reliable myself so I can attract dependable reliable women.
smurfy at January 25, 2012 4:39 PM
Old Guy: I'd be careful arguing that MGTOW approach in front of divorced guys with kids.
Why? I bet he knows the enormity of the mistake he made and why. The advice is for the young guys who still have a chance.
Re-read SwissArmyD's comment for an example of what withdrawing from healthy adult relationships can do to the children.
Nowhere do I say men should abandon their kids. I am saying be careful who you have them with.
I would recommend at least three years after you begin having regular sex with a woman before you offer marriage. Until then, you are under the influence of powerful brain chemicals that are generated by a new sexual relationship. Only when they wear off, which takes about three years of regular sex, can you accurately appraise the woman in question. Her trying to avoid sex and hurry up the march to the alter after sex begins are a female strategy to lock you down before the chemicals wear off and you start thinking logically.
My personal approach is to become more dependable and reliable myself so I can attract dependable reliable women.
Good luck, you'll need it.
Old Guy at January 25, 2012 5:02 PM
"Now I wasn't alive in the 1950s and 1960s when divorce became more prevalent and pervasive bias against fathers came to be. So I only have popular culture images to go by, but those images (Father Knows Best, My Three Sons, Andy Griffith, etc.) do not seem to reflect a culture of fathers who only went to work and returned home to eat dinner and barely acknowledge his progeny."
I think it existed -- but it was mainly an upper-class thing. I'm going to give away some intel on myself here. I attended a private high school that is well known in this region of the country. (Had an academic scholarship -- no way could my parents have afforded full tuition.) The school had a mix of boarding and "day" students. I was one of the latter, but I got to know some of the boarders and hung out in their dorms a bit. A few of them were children of celebrities whose names you'd recognize.
A lot of the upper-class guys were basically dumped there. The parents didn't much care how they did in school (as long as they didn't get themselves expelled); they regarded the school as a very exclusive babysitting service. These boys had next to no relationship with their fathers. To them, their father was an unattaniable ideal and their family name was an albatross around their necks. I felt sorry for a lot of them.
But as I said, this was pretty much an upper-class thing. I think that's why the glitterati assume the truth of it: because in Hollywood and the Upper East Side, it's really true. But of course, they live in a culture that has isolated itself from the rest of the America that they live in but despise.
Cousin Dave at January 25, 2012 5:58 PM
This is a whole industry, just like the DUI/OVI industry. If you get dragged into the system they then get to extract money from you for the lawyers, counseling classes, and all the rest for a long time. Why wouldn't they find you "guilty"?
Jim P. at January 26, 2012 6:43 AM
Just wondering Smurfy, why you think I withdrew from a "Healthy" relationship?
OTOH, I have been suggesting to both my kids the real importance of "Choosing Well" in a way I was never talked to when I was young. When I was young, I didn't have much experience with people who could refuse to see reason. So I made a naive assumption that for a shared goal, you could work out differences. Is seems crazy to me that there are people who would let the goal be destroyed, rather than not get their own way...
But I have talked to my kids about that, so that they will be prepared, moreso than I.
SwissArmyD at January 26, 2012 8:58 AM
And if you think you're out of the woods when your kids turn 18, think again. My wife of 30 years (who is on disability for her mental illness) just had me served. I've found out that the guidelines in MI recommend "Spousal Support" (to a spouse I will no longer have) that amounts to about half of my monthly salary, leaving me the the princely sum of about 1500 bucks a month. Awarded to her for the REST OF MY LIFE. My only choice in the matter is how long "the rest of my life" will be.
JustMe at January 26, 2012 12:39 PM
If shes on disability for mental illness have her commited
lujlp at January 26, 2012 2:36 PM
for the REST OF MY LIFE.
Or hers, I presume.
Whichever ends first.
dee nile at January 26, 2012 4:54 PM
Whichever ends first.
By natural causes, it should go without saying.
dee nile at January 26, 2012 5:48 PM
"OTOH, I have been suggesting to both my kids the real importance of "Choosing Well" in a way I was never talked to when I was young. "
This, exactly. Both sons and daughters need to not only get the talk, but see their parents walk the walk.
Cousin Dave at January 26, 2012 6:55 PM
To have her committed requires that she must have exhibited suicidal or homicidal behavior in the last 14 days. Although she has attempted suicide 5 times previously, she hasn't been suicidal recently.
JustMe at January 27, 2012 10:00 AM
I don't think a judge will buy an argument for homicidal behavior just because I feel like she's holding a gun to my head and threatening to "end my life as I know it."
JustMe at January 27, 2012 10:05 AM
Holy shit, I am NEVER marrying.
Urban at January 28, 2012 7:45 PM
Leave a comment