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.

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.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Free speech: I'm gonna get you

I am all in favor of holding public officials accountable for how they do their jobs, but sometimes there is a fine line between exercising one's civic responsibility and saying something that someone else might perceive as a threat. I have posted about the case of Dan Brewington, who spent a couple of years in prison before being largely exonerated. Here is another case.

A man was being prosecuted for some crime, and he got upset when his own lawyer said that she uncovered incriminating evidence that she was giving to the prosecution. He had good reason to be upset, as it is not the job of his defense lawyer to go fishing for incriminating evidence. He must have gotten even more upset when she called police, pressed charges for threatening her, and got him convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison.

From an Illinois appeals court decision:
On the record before us, we do not see how it would be possible for any rational trier of fact to infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, that when defendant told Lacy, “‘I’m gonna get you,’“ he meant violent retribution as opposed to these forms of nonviolent retribution — one of which he had just got done discussing with her. In the absence of any evidence that could justify a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant’s threat was a “true threat,” we reverse his conviction on the ground that it violates the first amendment, made applicable to the states by the fourteenth amendment.
So you are entirely within your Constitutional rights to say “I’m gonna get you“ if you intended to hold someone accountable in some lawful way. But you might spend some time in jail before you get the attention of a sympathetic judge.

My suggestion is to say something like "I'm gonna hold you accountable for this" or something like that. But maybe even that is dangerous when dealing with backstabbing govt agents who have friends who are prosecutors and judges.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Libertarian attacks on marriage

A common libertarian reaction to issues like same-sex marriage is to say that govt should get out of the marriage business, and let any consenting adults agree to whatever behavior and contracts they please. Religions could perform whatever ceremonies they please. This is standard libertarian doctrine, as they believe that just about any problem is better solved by private contracting than by govt.

A libertarian magazine, Reason, published an article attacking this view. The article seemed like heresy to many. Here is a video attacking the article.

The trouble with the libertarian argument is that you cannot make a binding legal contract for sexual services, or child custody, or child support. That is, American law will not uphold such a contract.

When the govt gives benefits like tax-free inheritance or joint tax returns or green cards, it is not going to do that for random groups of people writing their own contracts.

Maybe the libertarians would say that in their perfect world, there would be no taxes or green cards anyway. Let me know if that ever happens anywhere.

I have posted a libertarian definition, but I don't think I ever explained how family law is a huge blind spot for libertarians.

There are web sites for matching alternative parents. You can find your own match from people all over the world, and write your own contract to divvy up the parental rights and responsibilities however you please. It seems like a libertarian paradise until you learn that none of it works, and none of the contracts are enforceable. These web sites have very few people who even try, once they find out the complications.

Libertarians might say that such contracts should be enforceable, but as far as I know, there is no libertarian explanation of how that would ever work. Even hard-core libertarians seem to accept that in anything but a traditional two natural parent family, some family court judge gets to decide the BIOTCh (best interest of the child). Some of them even brag that this is the truly libertarian view, because it protects the rights of the child.

I happen to think that some contracts could be enforced with minimal government intervention, in my hypothetical libertarian society. But it does not matter. I cannot convince the libertarians, or Republicans or Democrats or anyone else.

I have occasionally praised the merits of the American nuclear family, as shown in the 1950s and 1960s TV shows like Leave it to Beaver, and Ozzie and Harriet. Some readers complain that this is antiquated, or unrealistic, or coupled with obsolete moral values, or not sufficiently respectful of feminists or LGBTQIA folks, or contrary to liberal political goals. Maybe so, but those families are the only free ones. All other arrangements are subject to micro-management by the family court.

I post these arguments because of the widespread view that if too much govt is the problem, as I have often argued on this blog, then the libertarians might have a solution. The libertarians do not have a solution. They either ignore the problem, or make proposals that will make it worse.

The best proposed solution is shared parenting, as advocated by the Fathers' rights movement, National Parents Organization, and this blog. Some states have passed laws in this direction, declared a presumption of shared parenting unless some judge finds it contrary to the BIOTCh.

But even with these laws, the parents still have no individual constitutional rights to their kids, and the family court judge is firmly in control of child custody issues, parenting plans, and finances.

Here is Rand Paul's libertarian response to the US Supreme Court mandating same-sex marriage:
While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract. ...

Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? ...

Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party. ...

Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.
He is disconnected from reality. The family court already ignores marriage for most questions about child custody, parenting, and support. Getting away from recognition of marriage has only increased govt control over private lives.

Paul has many other libertarian views, but is strangely silent on what is the biggest govt usurpation of our liberties.

A more libertarian approach view requires:

* Abolish forced child support.
* Give single or divorced parents constitutional rights to the care, custody, and upbringing of their kids, just as married parents have.
* Abolish BIOTCh, special masters, forensic psychologists doing anything but DMS-5 diagnosis, and guardians ad litem.
* Reduce family court jurisdiction to monetary remedies of contractual disputes, such as dissolving joint property after divorce.
* Establish paternity by marriage or DNA test.

These changes seem as far-fetched as other radical ideas, such as the anti-feminist TWRA (Traditional Women’s Rights Activist). They want to re-instate the husband as legal head of household, with an obligation to support his wife and kids, and re-instate the Tender Years Doctrine, so the mom is in charge of young kids. There is a certain logic to this, but most people would reject it as sexist.

Anyway, I post this to further explain the hopelessness of reforming the system. Fathers are slaves, and not even the libertarians recognize that or object to it.

Sunday, August 09, 2015

Vermont CPS murders

I intended to quit posting this junk, but this story is too weird.

Vermont passed a law making it easier for CPS to take kids away from parents. Friday morning, Jody Herring lost custody of her kid to the foster care system. Friday evening, she shot and killed the CPS/DCF social worker Lara Sobel responsible. Herring was arrested. Saturday morning, three relatives of Herring were shot and killed.

Here are links to the stories. These folks are innocent until proven guilty, of course.

I posted a 2012 story where Georgia CPS seemed to be assassinating its enemies. I never got the full story.

These people sound like gangsters. Obviously killing Herring's relatives was revenge, but was it by CPS or by the relatives of Sobel, the social worker? I assume that they did not kill Herring because she was in police custody, and they could not get to her.

I know it sounds crazy and paranoid to think that a state child welfare agency would carry out revenge murders. But CPS attracts cruel sadistic bullies, just as police forces also attract such people. Somebody carried out these murders.

There is lots of publicity today about the one-year anniversary of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri. The riots were fueled by Obama administration arguments that a white racist cop shot a black man who held his hand up and said "don't shoot". Instead, all the evidence proved that the black man was trying to kill the white cop, and the cop had to shoot in self-defense.

Has there been much publicity about these Vermont crimes? They should be easy to solve. Just interrogate everyone with a motive. No one had time to plan a perfect crime. Impulsive killers always leave plenty of evidence.

The obvious lesson here: Do not screw with CPS, even if they are ruining your life. These are people who think nothing of collateral damage on the way to their intended targets.

Update: Herring has been charged in all the murders:
Premont also told police that Herring “would often make comments about how ‘people are going to pay. There’s going to be an Armageddon.’”

The affidavit also says Herring seemed to mention other victims the day she was arrested, before the three bodies were discovered in Berlin.

It says that as Barre police were escorting Herring back to a holding cell after interviewing her the day of Sobel’s murder, “she laughed and uttered ‘did you find the other three yet?’”
I guess the relatives were conspiring with CPS to take her 9yo kid away. She stole the gun, because she failed the background test to buy one. Meanwhile, the state has leaked reports that she was nuts:
Defense lawyer David Sleigh initially asked at Herring's arraignment Aug. 10 to block the release of DCF records.

After the prosecution responded, Sleigh filed a second request after learning that reporters obtained court records showing a doctor believed Herring was bipolar and had mental health issues. ...

The family court records were used by media outlets, including the Burlington Free Press and the website VtDigger. The records included a letter from a doctor that noted, "Jody's chief medical problem restricting her employability is an underlying bipolar disorder," family court records show.

Dr. Kevin D. Crowley of Green Mountain Family Practice wrote in November 2010 that, despite his not being a psychiatrist but based on Herring's "numerous office visits, it is unlikely she would be able to hold a job for any length of time because of her emotional state and her resultant inability to stay focused."

Crowley indicated he was offering his presumed medical diagnosis to John Wirth, a staff attorney for the Office of Child Support. The document was part of the public file in family court.

Psychiatric intervention that amounted to "polypharmacy of treatment has only normalized things a little," Crowley wrote.

"Ms. Herring is a bright intelligent woman and I believe with time she will settle into gainful employment," the doctor wrote. "It will be a long time however."
So she was too crazy to hold a job but she still somehow won sole child custody in the family court?!

Friday, July 24, 2015

The Manipulated Man

I just discovered a short 1971 book, The Manipulated Man:
The book argues that, contrary to common feminist and women's rights rhetoric, women in industrialized cultures are not oppressed, but rather exploit a well-established system of manipulating men.

Vilar writes, "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina." The book contends that young boys are encouraged to associate their masculinity with their ability to be sexually intimate with a woman, and that a woman can control a man by socially empowering herself to be the gate-keeper to his sense of masculinity.

The author says that social definitions and norms, such as the idea that women are weak, are constructed by women with their needs in mind, and that praise is only given to a man when a woman's needs are met in some way.

Vilar claims that women can control their emotional reactions whereas men cannot, and that women create overly-dramatized emotional reactions to attempt to control men and get their way. She says that women "blackmail" men and use sex as a tool.

The book argues that women use traditions and concepts of love and romance, which are seen more positively than sex, to control men's sexual lives. Vilar writes that men gain nothing from marriage and that women, who are out to get men's money, coerce them into marriage under the pretense that it is romantic.
Roosh V, a big defender of red-pill masculinity, wrote in 2012:
For a while now I’ve come to the belief that men need to lead the household and provide for their family to be happy and feel like a man. I want to be proud of being able to take care of a wife and kids. Vilar argues that this pride is no different than a donkey feeling strong as it carries a heavy load. ...

I’ve never had a book that made me reconsider so many of my beliefs like this one. It ended up being the most vicious takedown of the female gender that I’ve ever read, five times harsher than anything I’ve written. My mind was buzzing while reading, hungry for a fresh take on the male-female issue. If you still have the problem of respecting women, this book will fix you right up. Not only will you avoid getting entrapped by a woman, but you’ll have a better understanding of what causes their seemingly irrational behavior. Highly recommended.
The is short, and has a lot of sweeping generalities. You can buy it on Amazon, download the full book in pdf, or listen to a YouTube reading. See also her debate a leading German feminist: Alice Schwarzer vs. Esther Vilar [1975] | English Subtitles.

This is one of those rare books with the potential to turn a man from MRA to MGTOW. She says:
With his many gifts man would appear to be ideally suited, both mentally and physical, to lead a life both fulfilled and free. Instead he chooses to become a slave, placing his many discoveries at the service of those who are incapable of creation themselves - at the service of `mankind', man's own synonym for women, and of the children of these women. ...

If a young man gets married, and starts a family and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.
The MGTOW refuses to become a slave, at risk of social disapproval.

Abandoning this blog

I announced in January:
I started this blog just to vent, and maintained it for 2 reasons: (1) to publicly defend myself against false accusations in public court, and (2) to protest the family court and support a movement to reform it.

I no longer think that the system can be reformed.
I continued to post news and commentary about modern social destruction, but I stopped the details about my personal saga. I hope the previous details were helpful to people. I will leave it all online, in case anyone else might be helped.

But the stories of what's wrong with the family court, divorce law, legal and social trends, etc. has been told many times. Some tell it better than I do. If the available info does not convince you that we are doomed, then additional posts from me won't either.

Even people who witness the horrors first hand often do not grasp the extent of the evils.

So I am abandoning this blog, taking the red pill, and going my own way. "I don't expect you to agree. I don't even expect you to understand."

I will post some sort of brief update on my personal situation. It will clarify my attitude.

Good luck to everyone.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

California denies fathers rights

A 2014 California case, Adoption of Baby Boy W., found that a father has a right to claim a newborn child, if the mom wants to give him up for adoption. Here are the facts, from the court:
Jacqueline W. and Garrett J. are the unwed biological parents of Baby Boy W. When Jacqueline discovered that she was pregnant, she knew right away that Garrett was Baby Boy W.'s biological father, but she denied Garrett's requests that she sign a voluntary declaration of paternity that would have established Garrett as Baby Boy W.'s statutory presumed father. She then sought to have A.H. and M.H. (the Hs) adopt Baby Boy W. at birth, despite the fact that Garrett had repeatedly stated that he wanted to raise Baby Boy W. himself. Garrett filed a petition to establish his paternity, and Jacqueline and the Hs (collectively, appellants) filed a petition to terminate his parental rights. The trial court found that Garrett established his paternity rights under Kelsey S., denied appellants' petition, and entered judgment in Garrett's favor, thereby halting the Hs' adoption of Baby Boy W.
I would have thought that this would be uncontroversial. An adoption should require both parents to sign off on it.

If the dad is unknown, and only asserts his rights years later, then I can understand reluctance to reverse an adoption that had been in place for years. But this dad vigorously asserted his rights and opposed the adoption before the birth.

The adoption industry was unhappy with this decision, and got California to pass a new law nullifying fathers rights:
A California law passed this week limits the extent to which paternity status can halt adoption proceedings.

Assembly Bill 1049, signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown (D) on Tuesday, clarifies a judge’s ability to consider an offer or refusal to sign a voluntary declaration of paternity as a factor in establishing or terminating parental rights, according to a press release from California Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R), who introduced the bill.

The California Academy of Adoption Attorneys (CAAA) sponsored the bill in the wake of the California Court of Appeals’ decision in a case known as Adoption of Baby Boy W. ...

A judge ruled that Garrett W.’s offer to declare paternity of the child gave him the right to veto the adoption. After the decision, Baby Boy W. was removed from the adoptive parents with whom he was placed, according to a summary of the case.

CAAA Fellow Allison Foster Davis said that Adoption of Baby Boy W. created uncertainty and could lead to more situations in which a mother places her child for adoption and the baby’s father later declares parental rights.

“We want people to know upfront what their rights are, and if the father has veto rights, that baby should not be placed for adoption,” Davis said.

The new law states that “a person’s offer or refusal to sign a voluntary declaration of paternity may be considered as a factor, but shall not be determinative as to the issue of legal parentage in any proceedings regarding the establishment or termination of parental rights.”

“It will not affect the specific people involved in that case,” said Patterson’s communications director, Alisha Gallon, in an e-mail. “However, AB 1049 does overrule the portion of Baby Boy W. that said that any many who offers to sign a Voluntary Declaration of Paternity is automatically entitled to presumed father status.”
In other words, the family court judge can do whatever he feels like doing, without having to respect the parental rights of an unmarried father opposing an adoption.

This law makes no sense, unless you have some sort of leftist-feminist belief that fathers rights should be diminished at every opportunity. If you simply want orderly adoptions, the easiest rule is to require both parents to consent.

The law also says:
This bill would additionally provide that the spouse of a women who conceives through assisted reproduction with oocytes donated for reproductive purposes is treated in law as if he or she were the natural parent of the child, and the woman who conceives the child is treated in law as the natural parent unless the woman is a surrogate mother, as defined.
So two lesbians are to be considered the natural parents, even tho they do not provide the sperm or the egg.

Face it, men do not have any parental rights unless they somehow get sole child custody. Our society is increasingly structured around the idea that men should be financial supporting women who have all the parental rights. I do not see that changing anytime soon. I did not even notice any opposition to extreme anti-father laws like this one.

This is just one of many trends that are making modern civilization worse, in my opinion.k Many of these trends are not fixable, so I am not going waste time and energy trying to fix them.