Friday, April 08, 2016

Limits on recording child cellphone

It used to be that parents had the authority to act on behalf of their underage kids. Now they can be second-guessed by judges who might have other opinions about the child's best interests.

The NY Daily News reports:
Parents can legally eavesdrop on young children if they reasonably believe it would be in the child's best interest, the state's highest court ruled Tuesday, establishing an exception to New York law against wiretaps without the consent of at least one person on a call.

The 4-3 ruling by the Court of Appeals involved a cellphone recording of a man threatening to beat the 5-year-old son of his live-in girlfriend. The boy's father recorded the conversation.

"The father had a good faith, objectively reasonable basis to believe that it was necessary for the welfare of his son to record the violent conversation he found himself listening to," Judge Eugene Fahey wrote for the majority.

He cautioned that the ruling shouldn't be interpreted as a way to avoid criminal liability for wiretaps "when a parent acts in bad faith."

The live-in boyfriend, Anthony Badalamenti, was later convicted of child endangerment, assault and weapon possession. His attorney challenged the tape as inadmissible evidence from illegal eavesdropping.

Fahey cautioned that courts must consider the age and maturity of the child in considering parental eavesdropping. He didn't specify an age.

A key question "is whether the child is capable of formulating well-reasoned judgments of his or her own," he wrote.
So I guess a New Yorker can eavesdrop on a 5-year-old who is being threatened with a beating. In any other case, I have no idea.

I think that it is crazy that a father has to make a legalistic best-interests analysis to record his 5-year-old son in a potentially dangerous situation. But that is the society we now live in, and the dad only won by a 4-3 vote in a NY appeals court.

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

Newspaper criticizes CPS

Whenever I hear or read stories about Child Protective Services (CPS), they are always either about harassing good parents, or causing some kid to suffer or die.

Here is the latest. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports:
Despite high-profile child abuse and neglect cases, including many in the Bay Area, authorities have been slow to make substantive changes to the often underfunded and under staffed agencies, experts said.

In the horrific case of Shaun, 6, Delylah, 3, and their 9-year-old half sister, 135 pages of Monterey CPS documents obtained by the Contra Costa Times, and the state’s highly critical review of the case, found that social workers called repeatedly to the home in 2015 violated five state regulations and ignored best practices intended to keep children safe.

But that branch of CPS is not alone. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that in about 12 percent of all 2014 child fatalities involving abuse and neglect, the families had prior contact with CPS. During that year, 3.2 million children were the subject of at least one CPS report and 1,546 kids died from maltreatment, 70 percent of those under the age of 3. Of those fatalities, 131 were in California. ...

The same year, Contra Costa health officials paid $300,000 to the biological parents of a girl who died in foster care. Deonna Green was nearly 3 years old, yet weighed only 19 pounds, when she died in 2006. She was being fed baking soda by her guardian. ...

But last month, a federal commission charged with developing a national strategy to eliminate child abuse released the results of a two-year probe that delved into case studies, examined what went wrong and what can be done to stop vulnerable children from falling through the cracks. The National Strategy to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities commission estimated that between four and eight children will die every day from abuse and neglect unless major reforms are made. The commission criticized the lack of communication among various agencies, and issued several recommendations for agencies and states to follow to save children’s lives, among them:
CPS will probably say that it could do a better job with more money. I don't believe it.

A CPS social worker told me that they routinely investigate parents over and over again, even if no problems are ever found. She said that it is not unusual to investigate a parent 10 times, without finding anything.

At the same time, they have kids in foster care dying of malnutrition, and no one bothers to check that a kid has a normal weight.

I don't know whether these CPS workers are incompetent or evil or what, but we would all be better off if the agency were shut down.

Monday, March 28, 2016

Ken Perlmmutter is worse than I thought

Some angry dads and moms have contacted me about Psychologist Ken Perlmutter, as they found my complaint against him. Apparently he has done a lot of bad child custody evaluations.

I do not want to dox him, or attack him personally, but he needs to be held accountable for his official actions. He works as a public official for the county family courts of counties surrounding San Jose California, and makes $400 per hour. He continues to do harm in his official capacity, and his court victims need to know the truth about why he does what he does.

I have known for a long time that he had a son who died, but I did not post it because it did not seem relevant to me. But now I am told that it is key to understanding his work.

Perlmutter divorced his first therapist wife, and later married a younger woman and had a son Joey with her. Joey died at age four of a treatable illness, but was not getting medical care. Neither parent was charged with neglect, but some people hold him responsible.

I am not blaming him for that. He is innocent until proven guilty, as I always say.

The problem is that Perlmutter never got over this death. He never had another child, and he is wracked with guilt over what he could have done.

He is a bitter and broken man.

$800k a year of court money buys him and his wife a rich lifestyle and fancy vacations, but it is not enough. They have no child, and they lost their precious boy. He needs to make other parents suffer the loss of a child, as he has suffered.

Whenever possible, his evaluations do not recommend joint child custody. He likes to see one parent lose all custody, and he will do whatever he can to make that happen. Somehow inflicting pain on others makes his own pathetic life more bearable.

He will manipulate the facts to force good parents to endure the loss of a child.

Perlmutter is personally more psychologically disordered than the great majority of the parents he evaluates. He is more disordered that the typical mental asylum inmate.

If all of this is even half true, then Perlmutter is a sadistic monster. He is a modern Dr. Hannibal Lecter. I estimate that he has messed up the lives of 1000 kids. He should be locked up.

Friday, March 11, 2016

Silly reform for Arizona CPS

Robert Franklin is a good advocate for fathers and for shared parenting, but his article on Arizona CPS falls for the idea that the bureaucrats need more money. (I am used to the term CPS = Child Protective Services, but apparently Arizona has changed its name to DCS in order to expand its influence.) He cites:
The hotline receives about 125,000 calls a year and currently generates about 52,000 reports that all require investigation under state law.
So most of the calls are so bogus that no follow-up is needed at all?

CPS likes to justify their investigations by saying that they are required by law, but apparently it is allowed to disregard the majority of reports.

I do not doubt that most of the calls are transparently bogus and need no investigation, I just want to point out that CPS certainly does not investigate everything.

Franklin is concerned about a proposed Arizona law:
Here’s the operative language from HB 2522:

E. EXCEPT FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT ALLEGATIONS, THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE A DCS REPORT IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:

1. THE SUSPECTED CONDUCT OCCURRED MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE COMMUNICATION TO THE HOTLINE.

2. THERE IS NO INFORMATION OR INDICATION THAT A CHILD IS CURRENTLY BEING ABUSED OR NEGLECTED.
Really? This is going to save money?

Yes, I think that it ought to be obvious that if a complaint is non-criminal, over 3 years old, and not affecting any child today, then it should be ignored.

I would think, altho I have never tried, that if I went to my local police station and said: "I have a complaint about someone who was bugging me 5 years ago. He did not do anything criminal, and he is not bugging me now, but could you please investigate?" Then I would expect the police to politely ask me to move on.

And yet CPS wastes time investigating crap like this?

Not only that, but Arizona CPS/DCS is lobbying for a change in the law so that it can save money by canceling all those investigations!

Franklin writes:
Arizona, like so many other states, tries to do child protection on the cheap. Year after year, it indulges in the happy fantasy that too few caseworkers can do too much and do it effectively. They can’t. Poorly paid employees who often are asked to handle twice the caseloads called for by industry standards tend to do a poor job of protecting children. ...

So HB 2522 looks like an effort to keep funding levels the same by simply restricting what DCS needs to investigate. Yes, the state receives too many unnecessary calls. But as sure as the sunrise, HB 2522 will, if it becomes law, result in greater risk to children who need the very protection DCS exists to provide.
This is crazy. I don't know about Arizona, but California CPS is extremely well-funded, and case workers earn about $100k a year. They have way too many caseworkers for the need.

More money will not help them do a better job. They have too much money, and they find destructive ways to spend it.

Franklin is not a fan of CPS:
I’ve said before that more money isn’t the final answer to what ails children’s welfare agencies. The final answer is a change to the way they carry out their legislative mandates. A greater emphasis on providing needed services to biological parents so they can care better for their children is the best way states can protect children. That includes a de-emphasis on foster care and a change in agency cultures that too often include taking too many children from too many parents.
I am glad that people like him are sticking up for parental rights, but I do not see any realistic hope for reforming CPS. It is foolish to think that CPS might get more money, hire better people, and do a better job.

CPS cannot be reformed. It is evil. The whole concept of govt bureaucrats taking anonymous non-criminal complaints and micro-managing parenting behavior is contrary to a free society.

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

O'Reilly and Thomas in the news

The trashy gossip site Gawker reports:
A New York appeals court held last week that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s school-age children don’t want to live with him anymore, and should live exclusively with their mother, O’Reilly’s ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy.

The lengthy decision affirms the holding of a Nassau County Supreme Court justice last year that the children, now aged 13 and 17, should live full-time with their mother (the former couple had been splitting residential custody). ...

The preference of McPhilmy and O’Reilly’s 17-year-old daughter is not particularly difficult to guess: As we noted last year, she told a court-appointed forensic examiner that she witnessed O’Reilly drag her mother down a staircase by the neck.
A lot of people hate O'Reilly for his abrasive style, so they will be celebrating this.

I did not follow this. Apparently she left him 5 years ago to marry a cop.

It would be amusing if he took the red pill.

The NY Times reports:
WASHINGTON — Breaking a decade-long silence, Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday suddenly started asking questions from the Supreme Court bench. ...

Justice Thomas’s questions came in a minor case on domestic violence convictions and gun rights. He made a series of inquiries about whether misdemeanor convictions can permanently suspend a constitutional right.
With Justice Scalia dead (and having died under mysterious circumstances), Thomas is the only one left who clearly understands that a man should not lose his constitutional rights just because he is accused of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

Corruption of Men's Rights

The manosphere blogs are not very influential, and they are split between several views. Feminist blogs are much bigger.

A prominent men's rights blog is A Voice for Men, where Dean Esmay writes:
So listen up, you fools in the RooshV circle: there is nothing but misery and death down the Return of Kings path. You have to be a complete idiot to follow any advice the RoK cultists give you. If Roosh or other Return of Kings writers tell you that the sky is blue, triple check it – they’re just that insane.

The Men’s Human Rights Movement has a long and strained relationship with so-called “red pill” sleazy sex gurus like Return of Kings publisher RooshV. Roosh and Return of Kings have never, ever been MRA as every honest person who’s done 5 minutes of due diligence knows. ...

So here’s the truth: Daryush “Roosh” Valizade has written for years about his past supposed adventures traveling the world to have one night stands with the psychologically dysfunctional, neurotic women he picks up in sleazy meat markets around the world. In many of his books, you find what are undeniably confessions of Roosh raping multiple women. In fact, the words “serial rapist” are not too harsh to describe Roosh, at least if his own published, public writings are to be believed. As with Roosh’s friend Matt Forney, also a confessed rapist by any sane standard, it’s often been unclear whether what they’re writing is just the poorly-written rape fantasy porn, or if it’s the real thing.
Why the vitriol?

It is true that Roosh and RoK rarely speak of men's rights. They mainly give advice and commentary on how men can become better men.

Sure, some of their articles are provocative or offensive. Eg, they give tips on avoiding undesirable or troublesome women.

But they are not rapists, and these accusations are irresponsible and libelous. Roosh and RoK only advocate consensual relationships.

The term "rape" does have an ever expanding definition, with some feminists saying that all PIV sex is rape. If so, then nearly all men are rapists.

I post this just to point out how the men's rights movement has degenerated. Men have instincts to become white knights and attack their fellow men in any conflict with women. So we have men's rights groups who are not actually pushing for men's rights.

A site titled "A Voice for Men" attacks men for being men. It does not speak for me, or any men I know.

Update: For more on the attack on Roosh V, see this Reason article or Heartiste.

Update: Here is another attack on Roosh:
I think he's such a hateful embarrassment to humanity that he's single-handedly keeping aliens from contacting us.
This is crazy stuff. Roosh runs an excellent web site.

Men are commonly hated if they are either (1) successful with women, or (2) unsuccessful with women. I think that some psychological forces are at work against anyone like him.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Parents cannot settle support issues

According to USA law, a women has the unilateral right to opt out of parenthood by having an abortion at any time. A man has no such right, and can be forced into fatherhood. Furthermore, he can be forced into continuing involvement with the child, even if both parents agree to a financial settlement.

And when both parents agree to a settlement, both the judge and the press will blame the man.

The NY Post reports:
An Ivy League Lothario’s bid to get out of child support by giving his baby mama a one-time $150,000 payment was spanked by a Manhattan judge Thursday.

The 2013 Dartmouth grad offered the woman the pile of cash to “irrevocably terminate [his] parental rights” — because he was mad she refused to get an abortion and didn’t want to support the kid until he was 18.

The man, identified in court papers only as Avery G., 24, actually convinced the woman to take the lottery-style reduced-sum payout — which would be a lot of money up front but less than she would get from taking a monthly support check. ...

Avery G. will pay $832 a month for support, ...

Goldstein calls Avery’s bid both “unusual” and “extraordinary” and says there is no similar precedent for voluntarily signing away parental rights.

The mom, an $85,000-a-year marketing director, has sole legal and physical custody of the baby.
This anti-man, but it is also anti-woman, as the mom did not get the deal she wanted either.

I do not know how parents will ever get their rights back. Here both parents went to court with a settlement agreement, and the judge rejected the deal and insisted on supervising the child's upbringing for the next 18 years. And the newspaper agrees with the judge.

I don't know why the judge says that voluntarily signing away parental rights is so unusual. I have seen it in the local family court lots of times. Sometimes it happens just because a parent misses a couple of court appearances.

The same newspaper says Bernie Sanders is a communist.

In another attack on parental rights, the NY Times reports:
But anti-abortion groups argue that such cases should be decided according to the best interests of the embryos, the same legal standard used in child-custody disputes. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed last month in the Missouri dispute, they say an embryo’s most fundamental interest is to be born: “No other right is of any avail if a human being is not around to invoke it.”
The BIOTCh is called a legal standard, but it is not. Saying "best interests of the embryos" sounds like satire.

What would they do, appoint a court psychologist to evalate the embryo? That is not much more ridiculous than the family court does already.

Thursday, January 07, 2016

Parents rejected for spanking beliefs

The Mass. supreme court is famous for being the first state court to mandate same-sex marriage, and even teaching it in schools, based on centuries-old constitutional language.

But what happens when a white Christian cis-gendered heteronormative traditional family wants to care for a foster child? They are ostracized for beliefs shared by 90% of the population a generation ago. Eugene Volokh reports:
The Massachusetts high court held today, in Magazu v. Dep‘t of Children & Families, that the state may refuse to place foster children with parents who occasionally spank their own children. This is so even if the parents promise to spank their children outside the foster children’s presence (because they already administer spankings only in private, without their other child watching).
I sometimes hear people say that we need more foster parents. It is all a lie. If you are a normal well-adjusted parent, the foster child agencies do not want you. They specialize in damaged kids, and keeping them damaged.

The research on spanking is that excessive spanking, such as several severe beatings a week, is correlated with worse outcomes later. No harm has been shown for moderate spanking, and no research has shown that any other method of discipline works better.

A lot of liberals today have the view that spanking is the choice of a low-class black family, and they are better than that.

I am just posting this to note the trend towards liberal agencies working to control families and deny personal freedoms. They will not stop until we are slaves to their collectivist ideology.

Friday, January 01, 2016

The black studs of Omaha

Omaha.com reports:
[Norman] Bennett became a reproductive citizen: At age 31, he has at least 13 kids by 11 women.

That’s a tentative tally, because various court records seem to indicate that the Omaha man may have 15 kids by 13 women. Or more. ...

Turns out, Bennett isn’t even Omaha’s most prolific procreator.

Attorney Meagan Spomer, who works in child-support enforcement, told Polk that she has heard of a deadbeat dad with 23 kids by 15 women. ...

Some judges have required deadbeat dads to name each child. Any slip-ups, and certain judges will send dads to jail on the spot.

By law, child-support cases are supposed to stop short of becoming a sort of punitive paternity court. High court rulings have essentially outlawed the concept of a debtor’s prison — where defendants go to jail simply because they can’t pay down their financial obligations such as child support.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that any jail time in child-support cases should be coercive — an attempt to force the dad to chip away at whatever he owes.

One important note: Whether Bennett pays up or not, the women he impregnated are receiving child support through the welfare program formerly known as Aid to Dependent Children.
In other words, state and federal taxpayers are partly footing the bill for Bennett’s brood.
In turn, the State of Nebraska seeks reimbursement from fathers, such as Bennett, who have impregnated the women now receiving welfare.
Do not expect the Obama-Clinton Democrats to do anything about this, because all those kids are likely to become Democrat voters.

To maintain their power, they have to destroy the family and keep a permanent underclass.

Happy New Year. Vote for Donald J. Trump.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Colorado terminates dad's rights

The Colorado supreme court just ruled against a dad:
1. This appeal is about two little boys and the question of who will be their parents.M.C. was unaware that he had become a father to twin boys because the children’s biological mother, J.Z., had previously told him that she had suffered a miscarriage. Subsequently, J.Z. relinquished her parental rights and in doing so provided false information about the identity of the biological father. As a result, the trial court terminated M.C.’s parental rights and the children were placed for adoption. T.W. and A.W., who were unaware of J.Z.’s deception, then adopted the children. After M.C. learned that he was the children’s father and that the children had been adopted, he petitioned the court to void the termination of his parental rights based on J.Z.’s fraudulent statements. The court reinstated M.C.’s parental rights, and he sought to gain custody of the children. Because the birth mother had relinquished her rights and consented to the twins’ adoption, the case proceeded to trial to determine if termination of M.C.’s parental rights under section 19-5-105, C.R.S. (2015), was appropriate.

2. After a two-day bench trial, the trial court found, pursuant to section 19-5-105(3.1)(c), that M.C. had failed to promptly take substantial responsibility for the children and that termination was in the best interests of the children. Therefore, the trial court terminated M.C.’s parental rights and awarded custody of the children to the adoptive parents. ...

JUSTICE EID, dissenting.

60. Today the majority affirms the trial court’s termination of M.C.’s parental rights based on the insufficiency of his $250 payment to the adoptive parents during the three months following the restoration of his rights. If this seems like an exceedingly slim reed upon which to base a termination of parental rights order, that is because it is. The reed becomes even slimmer considering the trial court “informally” raised the issue of child support but never settled a dispute over whether the adoptive parents were required to disclose financial information to set the amount of child support; in other words, the issue was never formally settled.

Robert Franklin has posted rants against this decision here, here, and here.

No need to read the details. The mom gave up her rights, and this was the dad against two strangers who had taken advantage of dishonesty to take possession of his kids.

So what was the dad's fault? He only paid $250 to the two strangers! He should not have paid them anything.

He spent money on the kids when he was permitted to visit them, and he had to spend money on travel and legal expenses. He just didn't voluntarily hand a lot of cash to the couple that had effectively kidnapped his kids.

There is also some justification in terms of the Best Interest of the Child (BIOTCh). The court said that the dad is black, and that he and his fiancee did not have a psychological plan for the kids moving to live in a black family. I guess the adoptive parents are white and the kids are half-black. The kids are 3 years old now, as the case has been going on for 3 years.

40 years ago, psychologists were arguing that white couples should not be adopting black kids.

I cannot stand this crap anymore. Read Franklin if you need an explanation of what is wrong in this case.

Update: Franklin has another rant on this today. More proof that an anti-father ideology controls the courts.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Dad wants opinion to be forgotten

I just received a request from a fellow angry dad to remove his name from my blog.

I get these requests occasionally, which is odd because almost everyone is anonymous. The only names come from published news stories

Europe has a Right to be forgotten, where you can sometimes force Google to remove listings from their search engine.

This guy just wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper, pointing out some of the bad incentives of the family court. Now he says that the court is holding this against him, as apparently anyone with an opinion about the family court must be an inferior parent.

A problem with the men's rights movement is that very few men want to be recognized as a men's rights activist.

The problem is even worse with Child Protective Services. There could be millions of people who disapprove of CPS, but no one wants to defend accused child abusers.

How far does this go? I can imagine a company not hiring someone because a web search showed that he once made some pro-Trump comments on Facebook. The company might be concern that a future discrimination lawsuit might find the posting, and argue that the company managers are bigots.

Since Google, Facebook, Apple, and others are destroying our privacy, I would expect that soon most people will have embarrassing things in their past, and others will get bored by it all.

The guy who asked to have his name removed did not even say anything embarrassing. He was just writing in favor of shared custody, and against court policies that make it more difficult.

I really doubt that he is going to lose child custody because of such an opinion, but court officials can arbitrarily consider whatever they want, and he was concerned enuf to write to me.

It is a sad day when a man has to repudiate a letter to a newspaper editor because he wants to see his kids.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Actress loses final decision

I previously reported, in 2012, 2014, and 2015, on this actress whose scorched-earth sole custody tactics backfired. The dad won a final decision:
Kelly Rutherford has lost custody of her two children with a Monaco judge making a final decision on the lengthy legal case that has seen her locked in litigation with her ex-husband for more than six years. ...

As per the ruling, Rutherford will also receive $3,281 a month from Giersch in maintenance.

“I think like any parent would feel, you know”.

As she exited the Monacan court, Rutherford, who founded the Children’s Justice Campaign to help families with similar legal issues, told the waiting paparazzi that she “had no words”.
She stole the kids, got him deported, and got the American media on her side. I don't know why she is getting support payments, if he has the kids and she is a successful Hollywood actress.

The news article might have been machine-translated. It is getting harder to tell.

Most readers blame the parents, but the fault is really with the legal system for creating a 6-year process for a high-stakes winner-take-all battle for proving who is the better parent. But I have given up making this point. I only post this because I previously followed the case.

Update: (Dec. 30) Dad sues Vanity Fair in Germany for libel, as it took the mom's side.

Monday, December 07, 2015

Texas child support collection monster

The child support collection system is a monster, with both the feds and states to blame. It has a glitch in Texas:
The federal government has frozen payments to Texas’ problem-plagued bid to upgrade its child-support data system, Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office disclosed Friday.

In a letter to Legislative Budget Board director Ursula Parks, a top Paxton aide said the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement has halted payments for tech giant Accenture’s part of the data project, known as “T2.”

Federal officials want more information about a proposed new work schedule and a “corrective action plan” that would explain “the root causes of delays on this program and how they will be addressed moving forward,” said Mara F. Friesen, Texas’ deputy attorney general for child support. ...

The federal government pays two-thirds of the costs of the upgrade,
The cost is many millions of dollars:
By 2012, agency officials realized that the project's costs were far higher than expected, and concerns were growing about Accenture's handling of its share of the work. By this summer, the project's price tag had grown by more than $70 million. The current estimate for the project is $310 million, more than $100 million above the initial $202 million budget, according to the attorney general's office. ...

More than half of the attorney general’s budget goes to child support enforcement. For years, the agency has prided itself on being the national leader in child support collections.

Millions of parents and thousands of state employees rely on the office’s computer system to handle the complicated and often delicate aspects of managing child support cases, including locating parents, collecting payments and distributing funds to custodial parents. But the technology rests on a rickety, 20-year-old framework that becomes more unwieldy with every passing year. Agency officials say the system is slow, convoluted and difficult when it comes to training new employees.
Wow, I had no idea this was such a big operation. Texas has criminals, illegal aliens, drug dealers, and all sorts of problems for prosecutors, and they are spending most of their money on child support enforcement?!

The legal evils of child support are detailed in Real World Divorce, a draft book that is freely online.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Gay rights v Best interest

The NY Times reports:
Under fire from critics including gay rights activists and the state’s Republican governor, a judge in Utah on Friday reversed, at least temporarily, his order that a foster child be taken away from a lesbian couple because it was “not in the best interest of children to be raised by same-sex couples.”

While the child may remain with the couple for the moment, Judge Scott N. Johansen signaled that the matter might not be settled. He continued to question the placement of children with same-sex parents, a matter that will be taken up at a Dec. 4 hearing on what is in the best interests of this child, a 9-month-old girl. ...

Gay rights activists say the case at the heart of the Supreme Court’s marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, should have put such questions to rest, arguing that the right to marry plainly confers the same rights as other married couples have.
Keep in mind that these are not biological parents, or even adoptive parents. They are just foster parents, and they have no right to some baby in the foster care system. They might be many other better-suited foster parents.

Fathers have a right to marry. If a dad can lose his own kid at the judge's discretion about the BIOTCh, then surely a lesbian parent can.
“It’s not fair and it’s not right,” Ms. Hoagland told a television station, KUTV. “And it just hurts me really badly, because I haven’t done anything wrong.”
Join the club. Lots of parents have lost their genuine kids without any finding of any wrongdoing.

A gay site says:
While the judge removed the scientifically inaccurate claim that "it is not in the best interest of children to be raised by same-sex couples," his new order still notes the court's "concern that research has shown that children are more emotionally and mentally stable when raised by a mother and father in the same home."
Yes, research does show that same-sex couples are not good for kids. But whether they are or not, the judge can just remove those remarks from his written opinion, and just say that he thinks that some other couple would be better for this baby. He could just look at the lesbians, and decide that they are too fat to be good parents. Or he can apply any other prejudice he wants, as long as he does not put something in writing that violates non-discrimination laws or supreme court rulings.
The Human Rights Campaign has called for an investigation into Judge Johansen's conduct, ... "It is unconscionable that any judge would let bias interfere with determining the true best interest of a child and we strongly encourage the commission to take appropriate action to hold this Judge accountable and to affirm that personal bias has no place in judicial decisions in Utah."
I thought that the LGBTQIA crowd would realize that the BIOTCh is there enemy, because straight judges will almost never consider them to be in the best interest. Bias always interferes in a best interest determination.

Wednesday, November 04, 2015

Republicans blame family without fixing incentives

I have quit posting this nonsense, but someone sent me this WSJ op-ed from behind a paywall:
The Poverty Cure: Get Married
Black children bear the brunt of single parenthood’s harms.

... Of the many barriers to equal opportunity for African-Americans, differences of family background may well be the most consequential — and the least likely to yield to public policy. ...

In fact, the researchers conclude, neighborhoods and schools are less important than the “direct effect of family structure itself.” ...

the advantages of marriage for child well-being are “hard to replicate through policy interventions other than those that bolster marriages themselves.” And as evaluations of the George W. Bush administration’s marriage-promotion efforts show, we don’t know how to do that.
Liberals just want to give black people more welfare, so that they will vote Democrat. The conservatives, like this author, make more of an attempt to address the problems, and correctly notice the breakdown of the family as a cause, but then they are stumped. They have no idea how to strengthen the family, except maybe to promote religion.

A letter to the WSJ editor correctly explains:
Federal and state laws have created incentives for mostly poor individuals to not marry and to throw fathers out of children’s lives. Federal laws such as Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the Tax Code, the Bradley Amendment and the Violence Against Women Act have perverse incentives that help to throw biological fathers out of children’s lives and promote single-parent households. Until we create the incentives to bring back dads and bring back marriages, we can never help these children rise out of the poverty the government helped to create.

Peter G. Hill
Weston, Mass.
Another letter points out that the WSJ publish a 2014 op-ed by a Bush administration official blamely the family, just like the above op-ed:
Given how deep the problem of poverty is, taking even more money from one citizen and handing it to another will only diminish one while doing very little to help the other. A better and more compassionate policy to fight income inequality would be helping the poor realize that the most important decision they can make is to stay in school, get married and have children — in that order.
The Republicans may recognize the breakdown of the family as a problem, but they show no sign of attempting to reverse the bad incentives that killed the family.

Friday, October 30, 2015

Lost custody to a lying lesbian cop

My local paper had this stupid advice column today (alternate link):
Dear Amy: I am stuck in a no-win situation. Two years ago, I ended my marriage after five years with "John" when I met my (now) partner "Jane," who is a police officer. The last two years have been a roller coaster, as John and Jane do not like each other.
Lesbians do not like men. No one likes lesbians.
John stayed an involved father, making sure our sons were taken care of and visiting them whenever he could. Meanwhile, Jane was trying to prove that she could take John's place and provide all the same love, care and material possessions that John could, while also rubbing John's nose in it whenever possible.
Jane is not the dad. Trouble is coming.
Six months ago, I was awarded sole custody of my two sons when I was injured in an accident and Jane filed a police report saying that John came to our home while drunk and beat me up. (This didn't actually happen.)

Jane's relative represented me in family court and very quickly filed the motion through the court, barring any contact between my sons and their dad on the grounds of domestic violence and alcoholism.
What a nightmare! Why did our society ever decide that lesbians should be cops and parents?

Maybe we are being trolled here, but Amy believes this story. The system is broken when a story like this is even plausible.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Vanity Fair favors crazy actress mom

Spoiled selfish actress Kelly Rutherford got a favorable write-up of her child custody dispute in Vanity Fair.

I mentioned this case here and here. Robert Franklin explains what is wrong with the Vanity Fair article.

Needless to say, if the mom had been at all reasonable, she would have had 50-50 joint custody or better. Instead, she is locked into a death struggle for sole custody, and suffering the consequences. Eg, she kidnapped the kids because she did not think that a judge would order her to return them.

She probably thought that she could divorce her non-citizen husband before he can get a green card, and then he will not have any rights that a USA court will recognize.

She is pretty and has a lot of TV fans. Does that give her some special rights?

I cannot stand reading this junk anymore. If you believe that we should live in some sort of matriarchy, maybe you will side with her. Feminists have claimed for years that they want equal rights, not a matriarchy. The courts are a mess. There are simple fixes to most of the problems, but they will not be accepted as long as people sympathize with Vanity Fair articles like this.

Friday, October 02, 2015

California retraction can avoid libel damages

UCLA law prof E. Volokh reports
But in the law in many states, general and punitive damages — anything beyond the provable economic losses that qualify as special damages — are unavailable, at least as to certain defendants, unless (1) plaintiff has promptly demanded a retraction, and (2) the defendant has refused to promptly publish a retraction. If the defendant promptly publishes a retraction, it is only on the hook for libel damages.

Ah, but which defendants get the benefit of these statutes? Many states limit this to particular kinds of publishers. Indeed, until Monday, the California libel retraction statute (Cal. Civ. Code § 48a), which dates back to 1931, applied only to “newspapers” and “radio broadcasters”; ...

Now to the news: I’m pleased to say that Monday, a new version of § 48a — introduced by assembly member Donald Wagner — was signed into law, and that version covers Web publications.
So if anyone thinks that I have libeled him, he can demand a retraction, and I have a legal incentive to publish the retraction.

While the retraction does not get the publisher completely off the hook, most libel lawsuits result from a publisher refusing to correct a false story. Jurors are sympathetic to publishers who make honest mistakes, but not to those who refuse to correct damaging stories.

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Personal update

I have quit posting personal details of my life on this blog. Actually I never did personal details about me or anyone else, except for what had been involuntarily put into the public record by others.

That is, if someone was making public accusations against me in open court, then I would describe my defense against those charges. I did this to defend myself, to help others, and to expose systematic problems with the family courts.

While I was exercised my First Amendment rights, I wasn't just claiming free speech or free press rights. I was mainly using that last clause in the 1A, where I have a right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A lesson I have learned is that our legal system heavily favors sole custody of a child. A parent has constitutional rights to his or her child if there is sole custody, and not otherwise.

My biggest complaint is not the actual child custody decisions. The last time I was in family court, the judge denied that they ever make final child custody decisions, just as they never make final child support decisions. Nothing is ever final, nothing is ever appealable, and all parents are subject to continuing micro-management by the court.

In my case, the courts repeatedly (and temporarily) zeroed out my parental rights at the discretion of the judge, and without having to prove that I was a substandard parent at all.

I eventually did get joint custody of my two daughters. They are now more grown-up than most adults, so they do what they want anyway.

I now also have two sons, and permanent sole custody of them. I am not fighting the system any more. I am doing what is strongly encouraged by California public policy.

Unfortunately, the local Child Protective Services (CPS) disapproves. They harass me a regular basis. They make announced and surprise visits to my home, both day and night. They ask me to bring the kids to their facility for inspection. They interrogate day care workers and inspect the kids there. They give vague gripes and threaten to put my kids in foster care.

If you want an example of a dopey CPS agent, see this previously posted one who argued that zero calorie sodas have empty calories. The ones who investigated me were just as bad, and said things just as dopey.

I do not want to post the details. The attacks have been ordered at the highest levels of CPS, and they have a lot of power. I do not know why they hate me so much, but I do not want to inflame them anymore. If you are living in a town run by gangsters, do you insult the crooks in charge?

According to one CPS agent, the attacks were ordered by Melissa Delgadillo. I never met her, and do not know what she would have against me. I asked him if she was doing it maliciously, and he just nodded. But she could have been ordered by higher authority, for all I know.

At one court hearing, the County lawyer went into a half-hour rant against me, and ended with:
Nietzsche said, "What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger."
I do not know what point she was trying to make. Maybe it was some sort of anti-German slur, as I have a German-sounding name. She did not make much sense.

So far the judges have dismissed all of their complaints as being completely without merit. One time, the judge lectured CPS and County Counsel for an hour about bringing a frivolous complaint over ordinary parenting choices. The complaints are too stupid to repeat here. If I summarized, you would think that I was joking, and if I quoted them, I might be accused of violating confidentiality. Most of what they say does not even make any sense. The court hearings are held in secret, and are not on the public record.

Since there are no complaints against me on the public record, I do not see much need to respond on the public record. There are no pending non-public complaints against me either.

CPS is run by bullies who are used to getting their way, but it has failed to get its way with me. I forced them to remove me from the state abuse database, and they lost their court actions against me. I could be the only one who has defeated them in both these ways.

If you want to read about unreasonable CPS harassment, then follow the story of Danielle Meitiv. I have posted about it before. My story is more outrageous than here, but she is eager to fight this issue:
But now Danielle is going a couple of steps further. First, she’s writing a book about her family’s experiences with CPS and the police. Second, she’s starting a non-profit organization to combat the encroachment of governmental authorities into family life in the name of protecting children.
My parenting has been scrutinized more than any other person, to my knowledge. There are 100s of pages of reports about me.

Of course some of these reports were written by gay psychologists and illiterate CPS agents, and they show no knowledge of child rearing. No criticism of me ever quotes any textbook, or research, or personal experience, or generally accepted principles.

If you want to know about the evils of CPS, there are plenty of other sources. For example, see the Legally Kidnapped blog. Or read earlier postings on this blog. I do not care to publicly document my private Hell anymore, as I really just wanted to document public actions. I am only posting this as a courtesy to my regular readers who have asked about my case.