Pajamas Media

53 Comments

Jeff:

I find this interesting. Yet so true. One problem I find is the portrayal of men in the media. Have you noticed that we are all Bumbling Boobs who dont know anything ? We dont know how to cook, wash, clean, we cant even survive without a female being our Babysitter…Oh PLEASE give me a break ! Its perfectly OK to give the impression that men are beer drinking goofs who are totally useless, but turn the tables and of course we are all Chauvanistic Pigs ! And the courts, why do men not bother to show up in divorce cases ? Because we have no rights ! In child custody cases the woman has the advantage, its a slam dunk. We know we’ve lost everything anyway, why bother. Just take it all, let us visit our kids and leave us alone.

Oct 8, 2007 - 3:10 am br549:

I agree, men don’t show up. Perhaps because we have mistakenly thought that men were in legislature, and would therefore automatically protect their own rights, as well as other men’s rights. Oops! My bad!

Jeff, gotta tell ya, buddy. If I felt as you suggest, not only would I have lost everything I own (I did) but my kids as well. Their lives would have ended up quite differently. I could not let that happen. Hopefully, you won’t either, and it ain’t over yet.

I have yelled this from the top of every tree I can climb. If a male, and considering marriage to the woman of your dreams, take a week of vacation. Go sit in the last row, against the wall, of a local divorce court for the entire week. Pay attention. Listen to everything, watch the faces of the people involved. At the end of that week, you will certainly have gained much perspective. It will also be your only time in life that you spend in divorce court, because I doubt a man will marry after seeing all that.
Even if the female is not all the bad, that vindictive, the court system and the lawyers are incredible. The idea is to shaft the male. It is unreal.

Oct 8, 2007 - 4:21 am RJ:

Same old story: Pay attention to that woman you wish to marry, look at her with clear and rational eyes…if possible. Communicate prior to marriage and kids.

Remember, it is the child who is really going to be hurt by a family breakup: What kid ever asked for this?

As to lawyers: They thrive on conflict, it’s the grit they live by. You’re just fresh meat for them.

As to social services: Just visit their offices and count the men versus the women working within. You’ll soon get the picture.

Bottom line: Learn how to make a better choice in mates by learning more of who you really are. If you don’t like some of the “you” then fix that first before marriage and child creation.

Then again, who ever listens when one’s pants are on fire with desire?

Oct 8, 2007 - 5:25 am David Thomson:

“This is happening because men are letting it.”

Men have been essentially told by our politically correct culture that they are scum of the Earth. This is especially true if they are white. These males therefore feel inhibited from defending themselves. After all, what right do scumbags have? Such an obviously guilty person should simply shut their mouth and endure their justified punishment.

Oct 8, 2007 - 7:17 am Darleen:

I realize that anecdote is not data, however, I’ve worked in a criminal DA office (so cal) for 9 years and I haven’t seen this anti-male bias vis a vis domestic violence. (we have pursued DV cases - PC273.5, PC243(e)(1), PC422, etc - against all manner of couples- married, divorced, dating, former-dating, straight, gay)

Our victim/witness advocates help anyone who wants it and they are pretty savvy about who are the flakes trying to game the system.

Women, especially SAHM’s are particularly screwed in the divorce courts, so for every man who thinks he’s a target, I’ll find you a woman who has been evicted from her home and is being stalked and harassed because her ex is pouring money to lawyers instead of child support.

For every silly RO issued, there’s one that is refused and the seeker ends up in the hospital or worse (we just had one of those a few months ago)

This isn’t about “sex wars”, its about the contradictory and fragmentary way our society now views the institution of marriage. It’s about how it may take two to make a marriage, but it one takes one vengeful one to make life a living hell for the other.

And then, its up to people like me to clean up the mess.

And regardless of the “equality” of aggressiveness, men still murder their women partners at a much higher rate. ONE THIRD of female murder victims were murdered by an intimate while only 3% of male murder victims were murdered by an intimate

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

Does anyone want to minimize that?

Oct 8, 2007 - 7:24 am AB:

Darleen, your statistics are a complete non sequitor, so yes, I’ll dispute it.

You say that 3 percent of men who are murdered are murdered by their spouses and one third of women who are murdered are murdered by their spouses.

So if 100 men are murdered, 3 will have been murdered by their spouses. If 9 women are murdered, 3 will have been murdered by their spouses. See the problem with your stats?

The relevant statistic would be: Of all people who are murdered by spouses, what percentage are men and what percentage are women?

Oct 8, 2007 - 7:38 am Richard Ohge:

Some years ago, a friend and I were talking, when my brother stumbles in the room with blood pouring down his face. It seems his domestic partner, a woman, three inches shorter and 40lbs lighter, had just knocked him out and drove away in his truck. ( The truck was retrieved later with the windows broken out and four flat tires…I digress.) They DID have loud verbal exchanges, at times, but the blow that put him out was delivered without warning.
According to the laws you’re discussing, he would have been taken to jail, lost his truck altogether, and been watched/harrassed and achieved a reputation as a woman abuser. ( Even after this, he could never bring himself to hit a woman.)

Oct 8, 2007 - 7:39 am syn:

How can there be ‘justice in the legal system’ when the legal system uses meaningless words to establish law?

For example, even though the word ‘fetus’ has yet to be defined the legal system has established all sorts of laws based on an undefined entity.

Another example, how will the justice system deal with the meaning ’same-sex union between a man and a woman’?

I understand the esthetical desire for the happy however, when have emotions ever been reasoned?

Oct 8, 2007 - 7:46 am David Thomson:

“This is happening because men are letting it.”

Dr. Helen is also inadvertently writing about the West’s response against the Islamic nihilists. Our leftists fell inhibited from combating these thugs because we presumably deserve such treatment. White males are the cause of all suffering and injustice in the world. Such disgusting individuals obviously have no right to defend themselves. At the very best, our guilt tripped “elites” can offer no more than a half-hearted attempt to defeat the terrorists. Once in awhile, like Bill Clinton, they might lob a missile or two at their direction.

Oct 8, 2007 - 7:52 am Carl Pham:

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as we don’t show up, Helen. In the first place, we probably are focussed on personal issues, not public issues. We’re busy trying to do what we can in our own lives to raise our children right, do our jobs well, be loyal and helpful to our friends. We don’t have time and energy left over to screw around doing PR, handing out flyers and marching, or lobbying legislatures.

It takes a certain screwed-up sense of priorities, actually, to take the energy you might spend working on your personal issues and devote it to the public sector. You have to value the televised praise of the multitude, the applause of the big audience, more than the heartfelt private thanks of one or two individuals.

Women more than men tend to suffer from such muddled priorities, which is why they’re more often found neglecting their own children in order to spend time agitating for Peace ‘n’ Justice for all the world’s children. It’s the dark flip side of one of your sex’s advantages, your superior ability to “multi-task.” Being good at multi-tasking is another way of saying you’re not so good at sorting out priorities.

In the second place, the nature of modern law, with its increasing reliance on rigid rules-based decision-making, suits women better than men. Men like systems based on personal judgment and clear lines of heirarchy, e.g. the Army. Women like systems based on rules and algorithms, where personal judgment is less important. As justice has become less a matter of the judgement of a local heirarch, and more the result of some massive computerizable algorithm, it suits men less and women more. Is it a big wonder that men tend to opt out?

As for the solutions…I suggest there are none. Late Western culture is simply in decline, over-feminized. It cannot defend itself, or sustain itself (witness the declining rates of marriage and birth). So it will be replaced (probably abruptly) by an over-masculinized, aggressive culture (Islam?), just as over-feminized late Roman culture was replaced by the over-masculinized Germanic culture to its north. Then the women go back to square one and spend a few centuries softening and “civilizing” that culture, and on and on, around and around we go.

Oct 8, 2007 - 9:25 am Tom Holsinger:

I’m a California attorney and agree with Darleen based on my personal experience. I’m a trial court research attorney with some but not a lot of family law experience from private practice, but we have a full-time family law guy here and rotation will put me in his place full-time in a year or so.

It is absolutely, 100%, true that misuse of restraining orders (RO) is only made possible by men not opposing them. I once got a woman to pay my male client’s attorney fees for misuse of a restraining order due for abuse of process - the temporary restraining order kept him out of the insurance office he owned, and the application did not advise the Court it would have that effect. I pointed this out to the lady’s attorney, who immediately realized her client’s peril, stipulated to amendment of the TRO without trying to get her client’s approval, and then successfully badgered her client to pay my guy’s attorney fees if he agreed to not oppose a properly worded RO. Admittedly my reputation as an aggressive litigator helped.

But lawyers can’t do anything for clients who cave at once, or don’t retain counsel at all. It’s called the adversarial legal system for a reason. Courts review temporary restraining order applications for form and content - they don’t have the resources to investigate the facts alleged.

The anti-male presumptions Dr. Helen mentions vary from state to state, and seem vulnerable to a federal constitutional “as applied” challenge absent rather detailed legislative factual findings and record, plus sunset clauses. City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469, 511 (1989), Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist. 377 Fed. 3d 949, 969 (2001). Statutory gender discrimination is not quite the same as that based on race and ethnicity, but gender is every bit as inherent as race and ethnicity.

I’m surprised no challenges based on these arguments have been brought yet.

Oct 8, 2007 - 10:30 am JHoward:

It is more than a little refreshing to see this topic finally making Right Blogosphere, especially complete with an interview of one of equal parenting right’s champions, Glen Sacks, and hosted by the lovely and talented Instawife– er, Dr. Helen. I always hoped this day would arrive, and here it is. Please, go get this topic, Helen and Glen Reynolds, and go ye and do likewise libertarian-conservative bloggers of all shapes and sizes.

Because this is tyrannical socialism - at its core, there’s no other way to see it.

By now we should (and must) all know that what’s happening in our own statehouse and in DC is a dedicated effort to remold society itself by way of bogus gender feminist dogma. While the chicken and egg question remains, it’s clear that at least much cause as effect is occurring daily in every burg in the country. The cause is indeed profit coupled with radical gender feminism and the effect is a vast incentive to break up the family.

Let me repeat that just to be sure all you reading this get it loud and clear: Your government is, at the behest of powerful special interests, conspiring to deprive your children of at least one parent, typically dad. To the gender feminist, dad is subhuman. To the family trial lawyer, either parent is prey.

Sound melodramatic? Let’s take a brief view of the money trail:

In family law, as Sacks highlights, there is no set of effective constitutional rights available to the litigant. This makes fertile ground for arbitrary proclamations, the kind of which handsomely serve both interests I just highlighted. In family law, there is no jury. In family law, there is a link between the judge, through the local legal association, to the lawyer, and from both to and within the legislature.

Got that? The divorce industry in your area almost certainly has trial lawyers and gender feminists lobbying your legislature, many times along with your local family court judges (against your state’s constitution, probably) for ongoing sovereignty over the division of your family.

Think you’re immune? Tell me, by what legal right? Can you define your rights, thoroughly, legally, absolutely? Do you think you have the right to due process, presumption of innocence, a right to property, children, the sanctity of your own home? Again, by what right that you can name? The Constitution? Forget about it.

In family law, you have no rights. In family law, you are dispensed with at the hands of strangers, and with you, your children and your family. You will have no meaningful say. You will take what you’re given.

From there, the aftermath speaks for itself: Approximately 85% of all divorces with children award the custody to mom, complete with large monthly cash awards. Approximately 90% of all divorces are initiated by women, at least according to a prominent female researcher speaking some years ago.

These stats are simply the result of severe anti-father, anti-male bias corrupting the entire legislative and judiciary chain of command. In your state.

For verification of these simple facts, I recommend the reader to Glen Sack’s extensive back library, to Dr. Stephen Baskerville, to Wendy McElroy and company at iFeminists, and the balance of the growing national voice speaking against institutionalized gender bias.

Divorce and custody is an industry that depends on, well, divorce and custody to make its billions. The tentacles run back upstream into Washington DC where they receive enormous incentive by liberal kickbacks to the states from federal government for every child support dollar collected. They involve the NOW, Joe Biden’s VAWA, the DHHS, welfare and TANF, and virtually every level of social government.

Single parenting pays. Single parenting is motivated by trial lawyers and gender feminists. Your government is leveraged up by these entities to destroy homes. It’s today’s effective law and it violates all the moral standards you thought protected you and yours.

If you want to change it, you can; easily, in fact. Get to your state capitol and meet the enemy. Then act.

Oct 8, 2007 - 11:13 am Jim:

I agree that men have to fight for their rights. But what is not considered is that men have to work, society rarely allows for men to stay at home and use their free time for political causes.

We will have to wait until enough men see marriage for what it is, a bad deal. Then opt to not marry at all.

If you are a man heading for divorce, get a good woman attorney and follow her advice to the letter. When she says draw a hard line on a point that seems small, follow her advice. I did and I will always be grateful to her.

Women judges and lawyers are really the antithesis to this imbalance. Male judges and lawyers are more of the problem. Male judges especially, have far more sympathy for any woman then they do another man. When 80% of family law judges are women, men will have a chance.

Oct 8, 2007 - 11:35 am Trent Telenko:

>Statutory gender discrimination is
>not quite the same as that based
>on race and ethnicity, but gender
>is every bit as inherent as race
>and ethnicity.
>
>I’m surprised no challenges based
>on these arguments have been
>brought yet.

This is a mindset issue.

Men generally don’t fight these sorts of things for social/identity issues.

I saw this happen with my brother even when he had the moral and financial support of his mother and father to fight for custody.

Then you have the male judges and another poster mentioned.

When you have the confluence of financially well off men willing to fight with smart trial lawyers willing to use those arguements, things will start to change.

Oct 8, 2007 - 11:58 am Larry:

Let me throw one more issue into the mix. I believe that one of the reasons why people are so shocked when they learn for the first time how bad things are is the fact that most people can’t fathom how vindictive and cynical the feminists are. Not only have they been at this for a long time, but they aren’t interested in fair. They never have been. In a word, they’re evil. That catches people by surprise, because we’re not used to imagining organizations, much less women’s organizations, dedicated to the project of creating unfairness.

So when you finally end up getting smacked by the system, you have to go through the five stages, before you finally face the rude truth; that evil people have been working perniciously and tirelessly to not only get legislation passed, but to indoctrinate law enforcement and the courts. This bramble has much deeper roots than it appears. And like it or not, we have to face the fact that they grew, because we were too naive to understand that we’re dealing with evil people with evil intent.

In that sense, the analogy to islamofascists is perfect.

Oct 8, 2007 - 12:15 pm Larry:

Jim, I have to agree. On balance, I have to say that I’ve generally gotten a better shake from women judges than men. I think there’s some remnant of chivalry that prevents men judges from seeing things clearly. I think that’s also true in law enforcement. I think the cops are inclined to arrest the man because it’s somehow unchivalrous to arrest the woman who actually did the violence.

And even though I had a male attorney, some of the best ones out there for representing men are women. In fact in the Seattle area, a woman attorney who specializes in family law runs the local men’s right group (TABS)!

Oct 8, 2007 - 12:28 pm maja:

I would like to point out that women have had to fight for many of the rights we now enjoy, which men have always had. Most politicians are male, so I don’t see how you can say that men just didn’t show up when supposedly unjust laws were being passed.

Oct 8, 2007 - 10:57 pm jw:

Back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s we fought a battle to get reasonable rights in the new Canadian Divorce Act. I was concerned with getting reasonable rights for lone fathers and for the most part did. However, most men were not interested in getting involved and to this day complain about the errors in the law. Women were hardly innocent! The women’s groups pushed through every anti-male idea and innuendo they could find.

Darleen & Tom Holsinger: Your attitude is so very common: “Everything is just fine.” All the while innocent men die because of intent bigotry in the law. I’ve NEVER understood your attitude, never!

We get the same attitude every day as we push to try to get even the most basic of human rights for male victims of violence here in Canada. It’s always ‘everything is fine.’ Even though we have laws on the books that kill male victims and no possibility of services and and and an….

Oct 9, 2007 - 12:34 am poiuyt:

Any one else notice that the two posters who make their daily bread from the very system in question see things from a point of view that guarantees their continued pay and employment from the system.

Darleen worked in a criminal DA office for 9 years whilst Tom Holsinger is a California attorney and they both agree with each other and no doubbt the mutual parts they play in it!!!

Oct 9, 2007 - 2:00 am Eric:

There is a definate gender bias in the US legal system. I was a DV victim, police reports, material damage to the home the works. Just when you think you will free yourself from a vicious person she goes to family court and gets me tossed from my own home while the court never looked at her violent history. Then the harrassment started, denying the visitation but doing it in the driveway in front of crying kids. This went on until the oldest ran away at sixteen and the fifteen yr old was simply abandoned when she took the youngest and moved 1200 miles away. The children were physically abused, mentally tortured and forced to call another man dad that they hated. Likely because he was a sexual deviant. He was actually fired from a school custodial job because he had bragged about how he watched kids doing things in areas of the school that were supposed to be locked up during night time events.

The youngest is still in therapy and may never recover thanks to the blind activist men and women in this country who think nature blessed women with kindness and men with violence. What a load of bull! I hope they sleep well knowing the pain they cause children to endure simply to serve their egos.

Oct 9, 2007 - 3:46 am Helen Smith:

Poiuyt,

How true. I have talked with many attorneys who go on and on about the system being fair to men–all the while, screwing the guys out of cash and calling them deadbeat dads. One day I talked with an attorney who told me that one of her clients was a just a poor mom whose husband just went off one day and left her for no reason and he wasn’t willing to pay enough child support and alimony. Funny thing is, I knew the guy and had seen him for years outside of his house where he had been relegated to the garage as the wife didn’t want him inside. He didn’t just “snap” one day and leave. He was in the doghouse looking miserable for years.

Oct 9, 2007 - 4:06 am Dad in IL:

Dr. Helen,

I have personally experienced the humiliation of being falsely accused. My wife had access to the money, she took it ALL and left me nothing for my own defense. She lied to the police, perjured herself in court, obtained an OOP with zero evidence, etc., etc., etc. Men are presumed to be guilty by police, prosecutors, attorneys and judges alike.

She had no evidence. She did not have to pay for an attorney. As she’d taken ALL the money, I had no money for an attorney. Because I made “too much money” (irrespective of the fact that she’d taken every cent in all our bank accounts) I was not permitted the benefit of legal counsel.

My civil and constitutional rights were trampled on, I was jailed, my reputation was ruined with family, friends, and colleagues. All on her word, with ZERO evidence to support either the (very flimsy) charges or the conviction that followed. Due to the conviction, my second amendment rights have been taken away permanently (I have never owned a firearm of any kind, fyi.)

Despite all this, I am still married to the same woman! Those days are (very thankfully) more than 10 years gone. We have both come to terms with the roles each of us played in the drama. It may be cynical of me to say/write, but the only people getting rich out of the system are the lawyers and advocacy groups.

I believe there are some good reasons you have not considered as to why men “don’t show up”:

1.) Men have to work to support their families. We have much less time available (in general) than our significant other who is not working outside the home to be at these things.
2.) There is a cultural backlash with men, i.e., men don’t cry, men don’t air their dirty laundry to the world, etc. along those lines.
3.) Advocacy organizations are kept informed by paid lobbyists (for lack of a better word) whose very job it is to inform their constituency (that is, their bread and butter) of the issues. These “lobbyists” raise the ire in them either by outright lies or manipulation of the facts and issues that are involved.

It is an uphill struggle for men, especially white males (witness the Duke rape case, as you also have mentioned.) The laws as written contravene both human nature and the constitutional and civil rights of men.

I applaud your reasoned and reasoning responses to the injustice you perceive in these men’s issues. Please continue to speak out on behalf of those men who are being victimised (I hate to use that word, it’s offensive to me to be considered to be a victim) by a rotten, unfair system that has a deliberately tilted paying field. (yes, I did mean “paying”, not “playing” field…) The tendency of our legislators to punish the ignorance, sin and crimes of the past by preying on unprotected classes of citizens must stop. Man or woman (other genders), black, white, yellow, small, tall, famous or infamous, the promise of America is that all who come here (and all that are ALREADY here!) will receive justice from our judicial system. Let us all continue to work to make that promise a reality for EVERY PERSON.

Dad in IL

Oct 9, 2007 - 5:53 am Pete:

Most men (like I used to) give strong credence to domestic violence propaganda. One can easily figure that with such a large DV industry, there must be a problem.

REALITY CHECK. When my wife got caught cheating on me, the easiest way to fix the situation was to dispose of me and vilify me to our children, friends and family. She falsely claimed I abused her. This made me the de-facto bad guy. She got more rights as a result; I got everything stripped away from me.

What a wake up call! The DV industry came down on me hard, and it seemed that the judges, the DA’s, the police, the local paper (police log), all the advocates in the court and even the administrators where intent on making me a villain despite lack of evidence, no injury, no history of DV or anything illegal. I was told by the judge that I “fit the profile” of a batterer. I spent a week in jail trying to get bail set, and got a year long restraining order and max probation which cost me my job.

People worry about their rights concerning the Patriot Act. Give me a break. Just by being a man (especially a father) the VAWA obliterates every aspect of due-process.

VAWA has to get de-funded. Sanity has to get restored to our flawed justice system.

Oct 9, 2007 - 6:17 am Ken Brewer:

I simply ignore the women who say tat they have fought for these “rights.” They are not the problem. The real problem is the law and the shysters who profit from it, to include the corrupt judges, and they are all corrupt because they enforce an unconstitutional system of persecution for profit. Texas now has an amendment on the ballot for November 6 which gives these corrupt judges the power to incarcerate men for violation of even misdemeanor ex-parte restraininmg and protective orders! If this passes, I likely will drop my blog, because there will no longer be any point in reasonable discourse. There is very little justification for it right now, as these comments amply demonstrate.
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com

Oct 9, 2007 - 7:07 am Helen Smith:

Dad in Il,

I am sorry to hear about your situation; I hope things are going better for you. Thanks very much for exploring the reasons that men don’t show up.

Pete,

I am reading a good book now that explores the issues you are discussing. “Taken into Custody” by Stephen Baskerville looks at how the courts and government hurt fathers, children and some innocent mothers. He also has a lot of good information on the DV industry.

Oct 9, 2007 - 7:09 am David Perry Davis, Esq.:

She is so 1000% correct - we have a DV industry concerned with bashing males - not actually ending or even addressing violence. And the reason is that we (men) “don’t show up” all too often. We have, literally and figuratively, run into the machine gun fire without complaint.

I’ve been involved in this for 15 years (its what sent me to law school), and the change - men FINALLY beginning to speak up - is slow but growing and encouraging.

Can’t ANY of these “anti-violence” advocates grow a conscience and speak out against ALL domestic violence? (Posted in memory of Phil Hartman, funniest man who ever lived, murdered by his wife with permission / encouragement of the anti-male DV industry)

Oct 9, 2007 - 7:43 am James Cameron:

Men don’t stand up for themselves because they are programmed to feel protective toward women. Many men still find it difficult to wrap their minds around the concept that they may now be the ones in need of protection: From predatory women and a tilted playing field that enables/encourages such women to take advantage.

Many men are deeply uncomfortable with playing the “victim” role in court or in politics but, sadly, this is the only way to protect your rights in our brave new nanny state.

Marriage (and our birth rate) will suffer most in the end because men don’t want to fight women but nor do they want to be screwed to the wall by “family” courts.

Oct 9, 2007 - 8:12 am Tom Holsinger:

I represented mostly men in my few family law cases/harassment cases, and they came to me because I was aggressive, and because they had decided not to simply give up.

But most men do give up in these situations, even when they have the money to fight. Now that I’m working for a court I hear about that over and over. When they do fight back against such abuses they tend to win. I’ll be looking at that first hand when I go into the family law rotation.

What is going on here is that the instances of true contests are resolved in court and so don’t make the news. Furthermore each man fights his battle alone - there is no continuity or institutional memory for true contested actions beyond that of the litigators and judges.

As Mr. Sacks noted, women have support groups and foundations which spend money on lobbying legislators for their side in these matters. Men don’t. I repeat, most men don’t fight these abuses and those that do fight them as individual battles within the judicial system. There simply is no institutional opposition to the abuses described.

Consider the possible reasons for that, particularly in light of the fact that most men don’t even oppose this stuff as individuals.

Oct 9, 2007 - 11:03 am Ian Mitchell:

Why should I fight? I fought, I spent over $30K in lawyer fees and the only thing I accomplished above not showing up was the elimination of the Alimony. Outside of that, my ex-wife received everything she wanted including the custody of my children. And all I wanted was joint custody and an equal amount of time with my kids. It doesn’t matter if you fight, the only thing you gain is lawyer bills. We need to remove the fight from the court room and provide for a fair and balanced role in our children’s lives.

And as for the purpose of this article in relation to the VAWA? The only person in my former relationship who was ever violent was my ex-wife. They did nothing to help me, before, during or after the fact.

Oct 9, 2007 - 11:06 am Dr. David Vandenberg:

There are many fine comments here and a few rants, but overall the situation is clear: there exists the perception of discrimination against men in family court. I have been involved in this drama for ten years now, with a ten-year-old daughter, with whom I am very close, and I have found that a few factors made all the difference in how I fared in the system.

1) While the playing field is slanted, there are distinct advantages one has as a father in court. My perception has been that most men give up early on and refuse to do what is necessary to prevail. I have found the officials of the court to be highly prejudiced; however, I have that judges have been very fair and perceptive as to what was really going on.

2) Venue is highly important. My Ex did me the great favor of moving from Massachusetts, a very liberal state, to New Hampshire, a conservative state. This allowed me to take advantage of more favorable statutes.

3) Get the best lawyer in the world. Great lawyers usually don’t cost an arm or a leg, but a man with a sense of justice and the ability to do something about it and a heart will set you free. The Courts are complicated and difficult to negotiate. You really need a hunting guide who knows the territory. Would you start taking parts out of your car, when it stopped working if you didn’t know mechanics? The same thing will happen when you try to fix your own court case: you could very well destroy everything by accident.

4) Document, keep a good memory, you know the story better than anyone.

And most importantly 5) fight for your rights at every instant and with everyone. When the police officer refuses to write a report with blood running down your face from the bottle cracked over your head, get in the car and go to the precinct. DEMAND to speak with the CO. Take pictures. Do not let them forget you. If you don’t have money for an attorney, get online and learn the law. Stand before the judge and demand your rights, don’t let anyone dissuade you from your God-given right to have your own children, be that judge, police, social worker. When the child-support enforcement people want to screw around with the formula to your ex’s advantage, tell them you will report them to their supervisor as far up the chain as you need to go to enforce the law fairly.

I have been through it all, false allegations, arrests, assaults, finding the ex-wife disappeared with my daughter. I have been firm and polite and absolutely insistant that the law be followed.

Yes, the system is unfavorably balanced, but in order to tip it in your direction, you need to pick yourself up, stop whining, and be a man. For two years, in pre-trial hearings I took a beating, went through five poor attorneys. But when we got to court, we slammed them. And we did this, because we played fair, we played smart and we behaved like men.

If every father stood up for himself, like the Chinese man in front of the tank at Tianamen Square, this nonsense would end in two years. Why are men buying this feminist propaganda and selling their children and lives away?

Oct 9, 2007 - 11:24 am JS presbyterianparent@yahoo.com:

I would like to say abou this whole women versus men in divorce and child custody cases that here in Michigan mostly Macomb County area that the Judges here are especially bias and are all for the mother. Let me start out by saying that I lived with my EX-Wife for several years before we got married, she seemed to be normal and a great woman but she changed after our first child. We argued alot and I tried to walk away to calm down, I would try to go outside she would sit down in front of the exit door she would grab me to try to talk to me I pleaded with her to let me leave and calm down so I could think. I would be at work I was a truck driver at the time and everytime she had a problem with my oldest son she would constantly call me and say she cannot deal with it well after a while of this I had to quit my job and become a stay at home father which made things even worse. She would always defer to me for any punishment to my children.

She worked for a bank at this time and when she tried to go back to work at the same bank after taking leave for having our first child they wanted to put her on roaming teller were she did not have the ame position she would have to drive around to different branches to work and with the baby we looked into child care and it was very expensive I was making 10.00 an hour and she was making about the same but my hours would put me were we could not pick up our child before the childcare closed for the day and the same went for her the banks closed at 6pm and 7pm if it was located in a supermarket. I as a truck driver had to work long hours like sometimes I would start work at 6am and not see my front door of my home till 9pm at night so i stayed home and took care of our child then she got tired of doing the roaming around from bank to bank so she suggested that we consider opening the first ever in our area 24 hour daycare She would work the day shift and I would work the night shift we would have children in our home from 4am till 2am I would sleep after the last child left but when the children started showing up at 4-5am in the morning she could not handle them and keep the ruckus down so I could sleep well one thing lead to another and I had a heart attack and then became diabetic and could not work a real job anymore which put me into alot of stress a depression but for the sake of my children and their safty i choose to stay in the marriage for my children. Then we had another child and he was born with a severe heart problem which he needed open heart surgery he spent 65 days in Childrens Hospital of Michigan.

Well anyway one thing led to another and our relationship with each other got worse and worse.

She always blamed me for our children not being normal and that becasue i was ADHD and I had a bad heart and diabetic that I passed this condition onto my children.

Well we would argue more and more and I would say do you want a divorce I am tired of this and I am tired of being blamed for everything this went on for about 4 more years.

Now I know domestic violence in tht domestic violence and i have never hit a woman in my life I dispise men that do I have even pulled over my car or if it was in a supermarket or what not if I saw anything like that i would step in and interviene.

Well any way my marriage ended in december 2004 due to domestic violence I never hit her we argued severely and she pushed me and I pushed her only to get past her and try to walk out the door well it all ended up her walking out the door and in 5 minutes the police were at the door to talk to me about what happened now please understand this is the first time the police have ever been called to my home EVER in regards to any kind of arguement even when our arguements were so harsh we never had CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES at our door or the POLICE.

Well as you can guess I was the one arrested and spent 10 days in county jail she served me with a personal protection order I never broke that order but she got the police and the courts to believe becasue she had been studing up and divorce and DV and even got legal aid to defend her in the divorce that she already had it set up and ready to go 6 months before this ever happened this was a planned manuver.

Well I went threw a divorce for 5 months with out a lawyer cause I could not afford one I was disabled and only making $700.00 a month try living on that their is no way you can pay your rent and all your utility bills and food and what not on $700.00 a month.

So anyway getting back to the matter at hand i finally found a Legal aid lawyer threw the Salvation Army in Southeastern Michigan the only one around, I could not use the legal aid service she was useing cause it was considered supposedly a conflict of interest or was it, the legal aid service was all women now why would a female lawyer defend a man in a divorce if their was DV involved so they hide behind the law of conflict of interest.

Well anyway the Divorced happened and I had to prove to the courts that I was not a danger to my children even when I had several reports from court counselors saying I was not a danger. the court referred to what up here in Michigan Call FRIEND OF THE COURT in all actuallity it is called FRIENd OF THE C***. Sorry but that is what it is called here in michigan by all people here this supposedly FRIEND OF THE COURT is so biased that it does not matter how good you are and what proff you can show your the better parent no matter what experts you have proving that you are the better parent.

I love my childen very much I would do anything for them but the system does not see it that way. Even if the mother puts the children in HARMS WAY everyday.

She live next door to a convicted drug dealer she hangs out with him she lets my boys run around the neighborhood where their are atleast on record 29 pedophiles living in the neighborhood.

My oldest is so mad at her for what she did to me and what she continues to do to him and my youngest she has called the police on him he is now only 11 years old.

Now think of this at the time a 9 year old goes into a rage and starts throwing things at MOM and so forth that she called the police and had him committed to a mental hospital.

No let me alaborate a little further the daycare center closed after we had our youngest child cause of all the medical problems he had so the parents went to other providers.

Sorry for the confusion but I am trying to remember as much as possible at the time I am typing.

Now if your wondering were 29 pedophiles how they are living in our neighbor hood it is becasue it is a trailer park.

Now if your wondering why have I not done anything about all this stuff going on I have I have tried to inform the court and friend of the court and child protective services and they refuse to do anything about it.

My oldest son has been alienated he has no friends no one want to be his friend and the ones that do are trouble makers. I want so badly to take both of them from their and give them a new start in a new town in a new school with new people to make good friends but no one will listen.

I still make under $800.00 a month and i can not afford an attorney I have tried ever legal avenue to get help from a lawyer but none exist that does not want atleast $5000 down to start that could run into thousands more with no guarantee that I will win or get any kind of better result.

Now while I can say that I really do not know if my EX really loves my boys or not but the one thing I am sure of is the only reason she fights for them is becasue of the SSI Disability she gets for them. oh by the way did I mention she does not really work at all she lives off the boys money.

I have tried to talk to local newspapers and Tv stations I have even called and talked with my senators and representatives but all anyone cares about in the State of Michigan is keeping the status quo.

I know this has been a long winded story and i am sorry for any incovience this has caused but here it is the truth and nothing but the truth. If anyone out their has any ideas or where i can turn to for help and support especially a lawyer that specializes in child custody please contact me at

presbyterianparent@yahoo.com

Thanks for reading and listening to my story.

I pray and hope all who read this that is truely concerned for their children may our Lord Jesus protect us all from our corrupt state laws and court system.

GOD BLESS

JS

Oct 9, 2007 - 1:07 pm Greg:

In response to Darleen, who claims that her SoCal DA’s office measures out blind justice to all, you must not be from LA County. Following years of verbal and physical abuse from my ex, guess who got arrested and prosecuted? The assistant DA prosecuting me wasn’t interested in truth or justice, however she was very interested in hiding the truth from the jury, to try to gain an improper conviction. Go ahead, ask me if I was surprised by the complete absence of integrity displayed by police and the prosecutor in the Duke LaCrosse team “rape” case. Well, duh . . . NO!

When I refused the plea bargain offer, and when the Court ruled that testimony from my TWELVE witnesses would be heard, including a neighbor woman my ex had previously assaulted, the case against me was immediately dismissed by the prosecution, not because it was the right thing to do, but because the DA did not want the embarrassment of having a jury wondering why the wrong party was on trial. Of course, rather than invite the truth, the assistant DA fought hard to keep my witnesses from testifying. Through 9 years of absurd melodrama and lies from my ex, including false allegations that I abused my children, Parental Alienation, forgery and theft, I have continually encountered bias against men. Feminists need to check their hatred at the door, and open their minds to the truth, that domestic violence is wrong, and is just as likely to be perpetrated by a woman as a man.

Mr. Sacks is very much aware that fathers in divorce cases suffer, and even worse, their children suffer when loving fathers are no longer present in their children’s lives. Although I love Dr. Helen’s line regarding “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, my experience is that as a divorced father, I have no constitutional rights. I have fought long and hard to maintain my standing as a loving and involved father, to the point of bankruptcy, but nine years later, I still must respond to lies and false accusations. The family law system in my state already has sanctions needed to put a stop to the BS, but I have NEVER, EVER seen any judicial officer bring accountability into the equation. So the lies just continue on . . .

I am not understanding, how I or other fathers “just don’t show up”. Frankly, that’s an INSULT. I stand up for my daughters every day of my life. My state legislature provides for sanctions needed to stop the family law insanity, the law is already there, in California Civil Code and Family Code. The family law system is perverted and incompetent, permeated with bias against men, with marginally competent, timid judges that refuse to take needed corrective action. Family law judges are clueless about personality disorders and the agenda of hatred that many disturbed people (Borderlines, Narcissists, and Sociopaths) bring into family law courts, and far too often, these angry and disturbed individuals succeed in manipulating the Court to feed their anger. I once had an attorney actually advise me that its OK to lie in family court, “everyone does”.

Millons of fathers STAND UP in this country, every day of their lives. Few take notice or appreciate it.

Oct 9, 2007 - 1:47 pm Harley Honey:

Men haven’t a chance with the system the way it is. To many judges and lawyers contribute to the abuse men suffer from the women they were married to or lived with.
The men not only have thier lives destroyed,NOTHING AT ALL HAPPENS TO THE WOMAN, no matter how many state laws she blantly breaks. The judges are no better by allowwing the women get away with it. knowing the women are dishonest and only out for themselves.
LAWS NEED TO BE PASSED so these woment WILL GET prosecuted for all laws they violate for their state or the Federal Government. These women know they can get away with it so will continue to destroy a mans life. Just for revenge on the man who wants out of a real bad relationship. I have experienced what judges let women continue to get away with. To report the judges or lawyers doesn’t do any good at all.
PASS LAWS TO PUNSIH and imprison all these women who deliberately make the false accusations against a man and file all the false police reports, which cost taxpayers billions of dollars for what. Because some incsecure women can’t handle the fact she ruined a relationship with her evil, clinging, jealous, malicious actions. I am a woman and think they should all be put in jail or prison. Then maybe a woman would think before she does the illegal actions because she will finally have tio account for her criminal activity instead of the court and legal systems contributing to assisting them in doing their illegal actions and breaking the laws of their states and Federal laws. Women have been getting away with it for too long and its about time for reform so it will stop. Its even worst when the women exploit their children in their illegal actions, not caring the lifelong effects it will have on the cildren.
The children will be much better off and be able to lead safe, happy and healthy childhood lives like every child deserves. Seems like ther is no one to protect the children from their mothers who destroy their fathers for caring for the children and not being able to have a good relationship with the mother for any number of reasons.

Oct 9, 2007 - 1:48 pm Tony:

Thank you for this discussion Dr. Helen. I had to grow up without my Dad. I realized that all the stories that were told me by my mother was so distorted that I resented my father growing up. Out of curiosity, I decided to find my father only to realize that most of the stories were without merit. The child support and money for college my Dad was ordered to pay had been spent by my mother. I had to work hard to get my BA and I’m finishing my Revenue management Certification from Cornell University in November. Now I have a good relationship with my father, but he has cancer and I’ll loose him again for ever. Please love your fathers, brothers, sons and friends you grew up with. Fathers do more than what they receive credit for. My dad is a great guy. I would support anyone who protects a son as much as their daughter. Men deserve the same protection under Equal Protection Laws. Let’s stop the Misandry and protect our sons, brothers, fathers and friends.

Best Regards

Tony

Oct 9, 2007 - 2:29 pm tosf:

What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to pursue contact with a person who clearly does not desire that contact, whether or not the person filing the restraining order is lying (seriously, though, get a grip, few people lie about such things).
In all honesty, the effect restraining orders have on a non-abusive person are minimal; all they (aim to) do is prevent contact between two individuals. If you are not an abusive person, why would you want to have contact with someone who lies about you? If you were of sound mind, you would understand that the person who filed a falsified order is better out of your life, of course, if you have control issues this would enrage you. As far as children are concerned, there are many legal ways to maintain contact with children even though you and your (ex) spouse are estranged.
The sputtering rage at the notion of someone placing a restraining order on another strikes me as fraught with serious control issues (ie someone who is so rattled by this notion must have little to no self control and seeks to exert control arbitrarily over others).
In a nutshell, restricting restraining orders to preserve someone’s feelings (whether they are abusive or not) is really a pithy goal, and pales in comparison to the damage that will be done if restraining orders cannot be filed.

Oct 9, 2007 - 3:09 pm Tom:

I was granted full “temporary” custody pending a hearing due to my Ex’s drug and alcohol problems. Her response to this decision was to accuse me of abuse. Without any witnesses, medical evidence, evidentiary hearings or even testimony, the Judge reversed his own decision and gave full “temporary” custody to her. It took almost 6 months to get even a regular “visitation” schedule. It has been two years since it all began and I will share what I have learned.
1. Most Important… Offer to pay full child support despite and in exchange for Joint physical Custody. If she knows she will still get all the money she will be more likely to give you more time with the kid(s).
2. Many Lawyers are friendly and cordial with each other so they can and will drag it out if you have the money to continue to pay them. Try to find one with a proven track record of fighting for their clients. Ask around !!
3. Judges are mostly “older men” who believe that most “younger men” are not the same as “back in the old days”, and that we’re all lazy and “good for nothing”. These defenseless women must be protected from us men and we must pay for what we have done to them. (On a brighter note, as these older Judges retire and are replaced by younger Judges, the mentality slowly changes.) One of my earlier Lawyers who informed me that the current Judges were so old fashioned my ex would have to use drugs in the court room, in front of the Judge, for me to get custody, was elected as a Family Court Judge a few years later. I have heard he is pretty fair.
4. Sadly, I have learned that there ARE a lot of men who WILL just walk away from their kids or work under the table to avoid paying child support. The REAL men who stay and fight for their children have to face many biased and outright hostile agencies, child councilors, Judges etc… because of these “losers”.
I didn’t care what any of them thought. It has been over 2 years and over roughly 35 thousand dollars to get what I “tentatively” have now. I will continue to fight to be my children’s Father. I will not settle for the one day a week and every other weekend “Uncle”. With everything against you, sometimes simple determination will weaken their resolve. Don’t let them reduce you to nothing more then a weekly paycheck for her.

Oct 9, 2007 - 3:25 pm michaelJ:

Dr. Helen remarked - “What struck me most from the interview with Mr. Sacks was his reason for why men are sometimes screwed by unjust laws passed by the legislature - men just don’t show up. … This is happening because men are letting it.”

This comment is a not too subtle version of the “shame-and-blame” tactics that the DV Industry uses to beat men down psychologically.

In fact, it is evidence of a deep and unexamined misandry in the authoress.

Men DO show up, for divorce court hearings that expropriate their assets; for child support and visitation hearings that expropriate their children; for mandatory DV “treatment” counseling sessions that insult their intelligence with feminist bile and a litany of lesbian-inspired anti-nuclear family screed.

Dr. Helen would be better served by inquiring into why all the “non-feminist …. ‘I’m not like THEM’” WOMEN are NOT SHOWING UP!

Why no spotlight on the missing women in the valiant struggle for true gender equality?

Interrogate your own gender, Dr. Helen.

It’s quite fertile ground for a psychological critique.

Oct 9, 2007 - 4:23 pm Jay:

Great site; I wish I had come accross it sooner, one question and a statment.

In 1994 my wife and I had a dispute over money I took out of the bank to bury my mother, the conversation became argumentative, in my effort to silence the matter, I wrongfully covered her mouth from the driver seat of my car, in the process, my thumbnail scratched her chin, without breaking it, she cried, I apologized and gave her my sad expression of why I did it. two days later, she told me she spoke with law enforcement that came to her job, a co worker with a long history of domestic problems had called them after my wife mentioned it to her, she said they took a report, we didnt hear anything else about it until 1997 a traffic stop exposed the charges that had been filed against me.

Thank God it wasnt a felony charge, I thought sitting out the weekend on the charge would grant my freedom come court day, my court appointed attorney right away came into the holding cell offering a deal, my chin hit the floor when he mentioned six months in the county jail, 52 weeks of classes, 30 days of community service, restitution, and probation. Right away I hired a attorney, I eventually plead out to 30 days with time served, 30 hours of community service, and 32 weeks of the classes, because I was actually guilty of what I thought I was being accused of. I just got a copy of my own background check and the charges were listed in a catagory of someone committing attempted murder. had I known that in advance, I would not have accepted the deal.

I am currently in the process of having it removed from my record.

Now my question is this: had I not had the means to defend myself to the level that did, the likely outcome would have been much worse.

The Public Defender was obviously working with the District Attorney, the stated event was much harsher then the actual occurance and the punishment was cruel and unusual, in comparison, it was a first offense, have never happened since, and I cant help but imagine the statistical numbers mentioned earlier being based on convictions of individuals that were sold out by the Public Defenders office, or those too afraid to face trial when the have a prior history of DV or other felony conviction,

Remember the 3 strike law in California has gobbled up major victories over individuals that are no real threat to society, and during my weekend stay, I heard many cases of threat by 3 strikes, for long term plea agreements.

Oct 9, 2007 - 4:39 pm JHoward:

tosf, sadly your comment displays your ignorance of family law. The point of family law is ruin-by-system for the benefit of a proven great statistical majority of women, along with their lawyers, the legal associations, and the enabling women’s lobby.

Go watch who testifies on family law in your legislature. And why.

It IS an industry and it runs on breaches of basic, constitutional rights along with ignoring 200 years of precedent concerning parental rights.

Until you realize that reality, what you point out is mere noise. Bad family law is remolding society to a staggering degree. It’s simply not about daddy’s control issues.

Oct 9, 2007 - 4:56 pm JHoward:

Greg, wonderful post. You’ve been in the mill, I can tell. Keep telling it.

The solution, shy of abolishing family court entirely, which many advocate, is demanding the legislatures make fair and gender-neutral statutes. First step? Meet and beat the trial lawyers/state social worker/gender feminist lobby’s stranglehold. They presume male guilt 24/7.

From there, enforce constitutional prohibitions against judges testifying in favor of their own paychecks.

Oct 9, 2007 - 5:04 pm A FEMALE victim:

I am a female victim of dv and there are more female victims of dv out there than male. The research that Glenn Sacks quotes uses the conflict tactic scales. To show an example of how this works I will show how a typical situation plays out. Picture a husband and wife. The husband is angry for anything or everything. He looks at his wife and yells at her telling her she is stupid for some slight, real or imagined. He towers over top of her (no actual violence yet according to the conflict tactic scales). The wife then psuhes him away trying to get to safety - you see she knows these looks and phrases, she is in for a beating. According to the CTS, woman - 1, man - 0. The husband then chases after her and smacks her and she psuhes him back. So now we are at woman 2, man 1. He pulls back and punches her. She flails around and in defense, punches or bites or pulls his hair. So now we are at woman 3, man 2. And according to the CTS, the woman in this situation was the primary aggressor because there were more acts of violence on her part than there were on his part. This research does not lok at “types” or “severity” of the violence, only that certain criteria were met for an act to be considered violent. This is a typical dv situation. Many times, time after time, incident after incident, the FEMALE victim gets “tired” of the abuse, the assaults and decides to defend herself. And nearly all humans will defend themselves if they are in harms way, this is a normal human reaction.

This research however is extremely flawed and hurts ALL domestic violence victims. And a victim does not need to just go to court and fill out a few pieces of paper in order to get an RO. I can speak from my own personal experience. My ex is an extremely controlling and abusive man and I was unable to get a second RO on him after the first was cancelled against my wishes and without me even being consulted.

There is so much information available about this subject - both pro-male and pro-female. The bottom line is that the court system needs a severe overhauling and the likes of Glenn Sacks and his misguided, flawed research and statistics are not the answer.

Oct 9, 2007 - 5:10 pm Pete:

In MA and I assume elsewhere, the courts are willing to stall or deny setting bail on men accused of simple DV with the use of “dangerousness hearings” - this means that good ole’ dad could be spending some time in county jail with felons - on allegation alone without factual evidence or a trial. These hearings were created for heinous crimes, but now they can be applied to simple DV matters…

This automatic short term incarceration is becoming commonplace. What this creates is pre-judicial tyranny. I can honestly say that after being locked up for a week does weaken ones resolve to fight the bullsh*t. Looking back now and knowing how my rights were abused, I still know I could not have put up an effective fight under those circumstances, I was in shock at how the system dismantled me. This is afterall by design, feminist design. The truth or evidence is not important, having a Y chromosone is the determining factor.

The US now has an incarceration rate higher than any other industrialized nation in the world.

Oct 9, 2007 - 6:30 pm Andrew_S:

jhoward~The question you pose alludes to who is really wagging the dog. The product of family courts sows seeds of destruction by decapitating the family unit, permeating a societal problem into the future. This through factors of social engineering, has a known product and future compliant consumer for the system.

Marxist lesbians and lesbots posing as females through legislative actions are only political tools for the BAR. Therein lies the clue, ‘In the best interests of the child’, how many other known societal leaders also used that term. Stalin, Hitler come immediately to mind. The feminist argument then falls to the wayside, and we have a more insidious ideology. If we were to extrapolate we possibly could conclude a very scary one.

Women were always natural socialists and will coopt under some delusion, that being pimped by the state along with the kids, for a life O’reilly until the sell by date is worth the earthly nirvana and breast or material augmentation. It has to be worth the mortal and exquisite pleasure. Especially the judas price of sacrificing their now exclusively owned progenies other parent and his delusions of private wealth ownership, and subsequent liberation of private whatever wealth for state canabilization.

On examination do we not have open gendercide, if not a quiet democide, the results historically only created by war. Why would this be presidentially and congress ‘approved’, the public and psycaphantic judiciary are predictable elements.

Oct 9, 2007 - 10:42 pm jw:

tosf: The point on restraining orders is loss of contact with the children, not the other adult party! Misuse of restraining orders is a factor of removing one parent (almost always the father) from the children’s lives.

There is also the factor of putting an innocent person in jail: Injustice to one is injustice to all.

Oct 10, 2007 - 1:24 am Greg Maliski:

I left my wife on September 13th 2006.
I left her for a divorce which we were talking about for 3 years prior.We knew this was not working out and every day in the summer of 2006, my ex fought with my 9 year old boy. I broke up the fights. A month before I left, he pulled a large kitchen knife on her out of total frustration. I intervened. I reported it to his therapist and she denied that I did so. I filed with DSS Salem office about this abuse.

As I was leaving, her two girlfriends were there. One went inside the apartment with her while one waited in the car. She said she was giving me til Adam came home from school to be gone and wanted me gone well before he did. She said she was going to find out her rights.I told her to remember our amicable divorce agreement. I was to be able to call my son everyday if he wished and see him. We were not going to use him as a weapon during the divorce.

I left and called a day later, she told me that she got a restraining order against me and hung up. I called the court and the police station to let them know were I am so I can be served. I get the RO. It was for death threats against her and my son. I did no such thing. Was this her rights?

I showed up at court and she is there too. She is blurting out “Viagra” before the officials filed in several times laughing hard and dodging in and out of the court . We get infront of the judge and she starts to pour out tears and a fake cry. She spins a web of abuse, fear and death threats I never made. 6 months! the judge advises me to get a lawyer, which I cannot afford because of my disability income.

Febuary 2007 she calls me to try to tell me that she is dropping charges and lets me speak to my son on 2 occasions. The 3rd time she is trying to extort money from me.

March 26th 2007 the court appearance she tried to extend the order. The Judge gives me a No Abuse full contact and half custody modified 209A after I explained that she is not afraid of me and she called me.

I called the next day, phone number changed! I called her friend, the one that drove her to the first 209a. My ex calls the police department and a few days later I get a letter on cancellation of my license in 90 days due to a warrant for my arrest. I am 120 miles away from my ex.

I called the Beverly Mass police department and the officer said that I have a restraining order still active. I called the Beverly Mass police department again to speak to the chief of police. He said he would back me up if I showed up at Salem district court because I was in my full rights to contact her. I drove 120 miles to find out that he rescinded the warrant.

A week later in March 2007, I am in York Maine with my new girlfriend and her family in my minivan visiting a girlfriend of hers who just had a baby. I get pulled over by the York Police because I have a license plate light out. They have their lights shining on me and guns drawn telling me to get out of the vehicle with my hands up. They ask me if the women in the car is my ex. And if it is then we will both be arrested because there is still a restraining order active. They let us go with a warning.

I clear this with the court that there is no restraining order against me other than the No Abuse order which is the same document that a restraining order is issued on and looks like one. The cops don’t read well. I feel like I am in a perpetual nightmare! I am missing my son more and more everyday. I am in Therapy but the pain never stops.

In Late May of 2007 memorial day weekend, one of her other friends who was there calls me to recant her statement that she will beat up my new girlfriend that she made the day I left my wife. She also explains that my ex will not let me see my son unless I take her to family and probate court for visitation. I beg her to tell my ex to contact me to end this civilly.

I called her friend June 4th 2007 still under the impression that the no abuse with contact order is in effect to try to contact my ex and see my son. June 6th I get a new restraining order delivered to me by the West Springfield police. June7th, another RMV notice of a warrant and license suspension. I called the BPD to find out the RO was taken out June 5th and 4 hours later the violation of restraining order was called in by my ex. I never called June 5th! How can she lie and get away with it and me at risk of going to jail on perjury she committed????

I am in court for pretrial hearings. I have one November 2nd with an appointed lawyer Thomas Gately. He is trying to get funding for an investigation and get this dismissed or go to trial. Anyways, I have been arraigned on a lie! I have a Police record due to perjury done by my ex. I AM NOT A CRIMINAL! I am guilty of wanting to see my now 10 year old son. I did nothing wrong. All I wanted was a divorce from my wife, not my child.

Oct 10, 2007 - 4:34 am Nancy Sanders:

As a single mother of one son, I do know for a fact that men are getting a raw deal in the courts and on the domestic violence issue.

The state of Texas, meaning police departments, family courts, child protective services, and court appointed home study workers are biased against the man and will go to extreme lengths to protect the female and “a mother’s right to her child” To heck with the Father’s right to his child.

We have laws that say courts are not to consider gender, but what good does the law do when the courts continually ignore that Mommy dearest can and will be abusive. What good are domestic violence laws when police will not listen to witness statements if the witness tends to be from the males family. What good is Childrens protective services if they fail to follow their own rules and regulations when it comes to mommy being the accused. CPS in the state of TEXAS will delay investigations, Has stated there is no law that says you can’t whip your child with a broom stick, says it doesn’t matter what mommy calls her child as long as she says it in a loving voice, one worker stated the mother would have to have the child on the floor kicking his head in and the child be in immenent danger of losing his life for him to consider the mother an abusive parent. Another worker, failed to make contact with the mother for over three months after a report of abuse was filed with the local police dept. and when called upon for not doing a timely investigation, she came back on the reporter (the non-custodial paternal grandmother) and in a vidictive act, after she was removed from investigations filed a ruling of physical neglect against the grandmother and exonerated the abusive mother, not to mention the child had not even been in the grandmother’s home in over 6 months(since the time of the grandmother reporting the abuse to police).

In the state of texas, a woman is allowed to lie to law enforcement, welfare, court officials and all involved about the paternity of her latest, yet when time comes to put up or shut up with a dna test, all of a sudden it becomes her right to refuse one, (after she has smeared the man’s reputation and besmirched his character with all concerned) and she can even tell the judge that she knew it wasn’t his kid in the first place and the judge will overlook her lies.

I can go on and on about my own son’s personal nightmare in trying to have some sort of life, be a father to his child, that at the moment he doesn’t even know where he is, and the hell we have been put through just trying to protect the child from being abused.

Nothing will do any good though til enough children die at the hands of mom, and the judges in our courts get some cahoneys to stand up and rule by the laws that are on the books already. Men please do not take this abuse lying down any longer. Join Forces and stand up for your rights and save your children.

Oct 10, 2007 - 5:24 am Samuel Cameron:

The stated goal of the feminist movement was to destroy the family, which was viewed as an instrument of the patriachy. Feminists are now succceeding beyond their wildest dreams.

More and more men are avoiding marriage. Getting married is like signing a contract that says “From here on, no matter what happens, the man loses and the woman wins.”

Feminists think we are dumb animals, but we are getting less dumb every day.

Oct 10, 2007 - 6:53 am Ken Brewer:

“For every silly RO issued, there’s one that is refused and the seeker ends up in the hospital or worse (we just had one of those a few months ago)” - Darleen

Deny this, Darleen. Seventy percent of DV charges are either proven false in court or are dropped, meaning that they are flat-out lies. They are most often filed in ex-parte proceedings, which are essentially star chmbers straight out of the Middle Ages. The Constitution is completely ignored because, in essence, the shysters are filing criminal charges under civil law to avoid the civil rights afforded under criminal law!
http://ken454.statesmanblogs.com

Oct 10, 2007 - 7:14 am John:

Ken, you are absolutely right and stated it clearly and succinctly.

Just laws ARE on the books, but are being ignored by officials in favor of one gender, due to propaganda by special interests (collectively, the Feminist law Movement)that has driven federal funding that rewards denial of constitutional rights and dissolution families under the guise of “protection for women”. Conflicts of interest are inherent and rampant.

My Protection Order was issued ex parte, without “good cause shown”, as stated law would require. It contained no allegations of violence or threats. My child, who was in my care and custody was taken from me by the police because her mother requested it in the FPO pleading. Due process was ignored. Protected civil liberties were ignored. My daughter’s best interests were ignored through her subsequent isolation from me.

In WV, the judges’ bench book states that the clearest indicator of an abuser is the existence of previous allegations of domestic violence. Most Protection Orders are issued without a hint of any standard of evidence, and at the drop of a hat, and indeed most are based on false or non-existent accusations and intended for leverage in subsequent custody proceedings that follow automatically. It is not uncommon for a man to be falsely accused a number of times. Previous conviction isn’t necessary to “identify” an abuser.

Men in my town have come to take it for granted that if you have children, and you break up with their mother, there is going to be an FPO taken out by her. DV “advocates” guide women through this process free of charge. Often those that guide and advise are law enforcement officers. Men are being made criminals without a shred of process.

Conversely, men who experience threats and violence from female partners face doubt and criticism, and while sometimes granted a Protection Order if the allegations are relevant and believable, are seldom granted temporary custody.

I participate with ACFC and with M.A.W.A.D. Often, when we release information supporting fairness, due process, and the true best interests of children, our research and information is characterized as lies
driven by anger, and a desire to evade supporting our children; sometimes this characterization is made by DHHR representatives, and almost always by people with a vested interest in the Divorce/Child Custody industry.

As long as Federal Law continues to reward and fund dishonorable behavior, we will face an uphill battle.

It is my view that VAWA serves to protect a class of people (female), to the detriment of another class of people (male/everyone else), and is therefore unconstitutional (not to mention redundant).

The industry is so huge, and bias so pervasive, that the goal of reform sometimes seems unattainable; but we continue to “show up”, and march on to the liberated end. It is helpful to know that we are not alone. I’ve enjoyed reading so many wonderful posts.

Life, Liberty, and Access To Our Children!

Oct 11, 2007 - 8:10 pm John:

“For every silly RO issued, there’s one that is refused and the seeker ends up in the hospital or worse (we just had one of those a few months ago)” - Darleen

You are saying then, that since a few months ago there has been an equal number of “silly ROs” issued…ONE?

“Women, especially SAHM’s are particularly screwed in the divorce courts, so for every man who thinks he’s a target, I’ll find you a woman who has been evicted from her home and is being stalked and harassed because her ex is pouring money to lawyers instead of child support.”

You are saying then, that a man spending money on an attorney causes a woman to be stalked and harassed and evicted? Attorneys where you are must really be criminals.

Oct 11, 2007 - 8:22 pm michaelJ:

It would probably be prudent to stop expecting Dr. Helen to reply to any of the treads she supposedly initiates here.

She is busy with “branding” herself these days.

Over on more commercial sites….

Well, after all, what you have to sell is just another commodity, right?

Red pajamas and an insouciant off-screen gaze might just do the trick!

Oct 12, 2007 - 11:37 am br549:

Further to my original post, I have an offer I make for all male friends and acquaintances considering holy matrimony. Should you decide, and therefore announce, your intent to marry, I offer this. A free one way bus ticket to Seattle (for east coasters such as my self) and a case of beer. It is about a 4 day ride. The bus ride, and the beer, give one time to truly think it over, without having to concentrate on highway signs, etc. The one way ticket is just in case you have not made the clear minded decision. And if that is the case, you will simply have to pay your own way back.

Oct 14, 2007 - 11:21 am No Country for Old Men:

Concerning Orders of Protection: (1) They are not merely for “separating” two people. They are for protecting one from harm, implying that the other has intent and means to harm. This dispostion is seldom the case and it is almost never supported by any evidence. (2) Furthermore, an Order of Protection denies the individual against which it has been issued their first and second amendment rights (so, it’s not as benign as has been implied). (3) Orders of Protection are issued to punish when someone (usually a woman) does not have any evidence to get a conviction in a criminal or civil court. (4) Orders of Protection are used by aggressive feminist attorneys to manipulate their female clients and deny them access to the truth and freedom to make an informed decision - the attorney typically will lie and exaggerate about risk to the vulnerable female client (even if there is no risk because women are greatly suggestible and manipulable as they are manipulative), scare the hell out of her and use the Order of Protection as a tool to manipulate the man. (5) Most of all, Orders of Protection do not “protect” a woman. If a man wanted to harm his wife, an Order of Protection is not the mechanism by which this is prevented. Instead, the Order of Protection is used to help a vulnerable, labile, confused, and emotionally dependent woman into another co-dependent relationship - basically, the Order of Protection is a mechanism for facilitating adultery before a man has been allowed to reestablish a relationship with his children under the new circumstances that have been imposed upon them. Basically, the Order of Protection is a mechanism of parental alienation.

I lost my family this past year. My wife had set the bar of “abuse” so low almost immediately in our marriage that its definition became meaningless. She could terrorize me and our son emotionally, she could hit, push and shove me. She could lie egregiously. But if I so much as said “good morning” in a tone she did not like, she would harrass me or worse. Once, she shoved me back during an argument and I fell and hit my head. As I recovered and began to stand, she attacked me again and I held her wrists. She flailed and thrashed so hard against my gentle grip that her wrists and forearms were bruised. Then she called the police and accused me of abusing her. This kind of scenario is typical. her abuse over eight years escalated to three attempts on my life, the most recent with a pair of butcher knives in the back (that my son witnessed). In a divorce that she filed, she accused me of abuse, took me for everything I have and I have not seen my children in 14 months. I was advised by forensic psychologists that it is better I don’t see her (and them by proxy) as it might jeopardize my children’s well-being seeing her hostile dispostion in response to my presence. I was also advised that had she not abducted our children and absconded to a women’s shelter, she probably would have killed me (give her escalation).

Which brings up another point. Don’t know how many readers are aware of this correlation, but since the aggressive establishment of women’s shelters (as much as workers there may lie and manipulate), the number of husbands killed by their wives has dropped precipitously but the number of wives killed by their husbands has remained about the same during the last 36 years. Still, feminists squawk about how more shelters are needed because the ones we have are not enough. Women’s shelters have probably done more to protect men than women. And women, based upon the observations of Pizzey and others, at shelters are likely much more violent than the men they are leaving. Too bad the courts don’t know all this stuff. But we still dump custody of children into the hands of dangerous women.

Apr 19, 2008 - 10:39 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: