Divorce joke

A father walks into a book store with his young son. The boy is holding a quarter. Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the face. The father realizes the boy has swallowed the quarter and starts panicking, shouting for help. A well dressed, attractive and serious looking woman, in a blue business suit is sitting at a coffee bar reading a newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down, neatly folds the newspaper and places it on the counter, gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurried, across the book store. Reaching the boy, the woman carefully drops his pants; takes hold of the boy's testicles and starts to squeeze and twist, gently at first and then ever so firmly. After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs up the quarter, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand. Releasing the boy's testicles, the woman hands the coin to the father and walks back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word. As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no ill effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her saying, "I've never seen anybody do anything like that before, it was fantastic. Are you a doctor?" "No," the woman replied, "divorce attorney."

California trends

Here is a good article by Wendy McElroy:

This week, California became a flash point in the drive to amend child custody laws across North America.

Some sneaky politicians were trying to make it easier for mom's to move kids away from their dads. We need fathers rights groups to monitor this.

Fatherhood groups protest

There must be millions of dads who are as angry with the family court system as I am, and I've wondered why they don't get more publicity. Here are a couple of groups in the news today.

This AP story says:

Fatherhood Activists Protest TV Ad
Tuesday, November 09, 2004

NEW YORK — A TV ad showing a computer-illiterate father getting chided for trying to help his Internet-savvy daughter with her homework has roused the anger of fatherhood activists, who are calling on Verizon to take it off the air.

"Leave her alone," says the wife/mother in the Verizon DSL ad, ordering her befuddled husband to go wash the dog as the daughter, doing research on the computer, conveys a look of exasperation with her father.

"It's really outrageous," said Joe Kelly, executive director of the national advocacy group Dads and Daughters.

"It's reflective of some deeply entrenched cultural attitudes — that fathers are second-class parents, that they're not really necessary," Kelly said. "To operate from the assumption that dad is a dolt is harmful to fathers, harmful to children, and harmful to mothers."

John Bonomo, a Verizon spokesman, said Tuesday the ad has been running for several months. But only a few days ago did it come to the attention of Glenn Sacks, a commentator who hosts a weekly radio show aired in Los Angeles and Seattle that is sympathetic to the fathers' rights movement.

After watching the ad, Sacks began urging listeners of "His Side" to protest to Verizon — contending that the company would not have commissioned a comparable ad with the parents' genders reversed. He said more than 1,100 protest e-mails had been sent through his show's Web site to Verizon within the first two days of the campaign.

This NY Times story says:

The first real flicker of fame for Fathers 4 Justice came in May, after two legislators hurled condoms bulging with purple flour at Prime Minister Tony Blair in the House of Commons, setting off major security jitters at Westminster.

Then, in July, came the raid on the gothic York Minster cathedral. Disgruntled fathers, cloaked in cardinal red robes and vicars' smocks, burst in, commandeered the pulpit and unfurled a banner on the roof that read, "In The Name Of The Father."

But it was Batman, feet carefully planted on a Buckingham Palace ledge until well after the start of the 6 o'clock news on Sept. 13, who catapulted the group's renown and international appeal. ...

Using these stunts of civil disobedience, the divorced and separated fathers who belong to Fathers 4 Justice say they hope to accomplish one thing: ensuring they get a fair shake at equal custody of their children in court. ...

There are great hopes for the movement in the United States, where fathers have filed identical class-action suits in 41 states this year pushing for equal custody. Some 27 states in the United States have already changed their laws to make it easier for fathers to win shared custody of their children, and Florida in particular is considered a model.

If I just have to dress up as Batman to help the cause, where do I sign up? Obviously these are desperate men trying to cope with a system run by loonies.

Parents do have some constitutional rights

I just found some encouragement from a 1982 US Supreme Court decision. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), ruled 5-4 that the way New York state was terminating parental rights was unconstitutional. NY had said that only a "fair preponderance of the evidence" was needed. The court said:

Today we hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands more than this. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence.

I have a court appearance on Tues. morning, and I guess this means that the judge cannot terminate my parental rights at that hearing. There is no clear and convincing evidence of anything, except that my wife wants to abuse the system to get more money out of me.

You might say that this case doesn't apply to me, because I just have a routine custody dispute, and the State is not terminating all my rights. The State shrink says that I can still have 2 weekend visits per month. But my wife's pending motion is for "sole legal custody". That sounds like a termination of my rights to me. It seems to me that once there is a motion to terminate my rights, then I have all the due process rights of that 1982 Supreme Court decision.

A reader thinks that I should look more like this Burt than Burt Reynolds. Maybe I should just hire a good-looking female lawyer.

Burt Reynolds

Crazy people also lose in court

Someone pointed out that I could lose custody if I am crazy, even if I never committed a criminal act. But no one is accusing me of being crazy.

The closest thing to such an accusation is that my wife asked the court:

At this time, I believe the court will need to set temporary custody and visitation orders, along with support and refer the matter out to a Full Evaluation, including a Psychological Evaluation of Father.

She supported this by saying that I have an "addiction" to my computers, and by providing an "illustration of his psychological state". That consisted of accusing me of telling our kids that she is suing for custody, and that I had refused to assume some of her debts. She was, in fact, suing for "sole legal custody" of the kids. I guess that she didn't want them to know what she was doing.

In papers to the court shrink, she said:

5. Suggested solution: George attends parenting classes to develop skills to appropriately supervise and parent the girls. He should also attend counseling to address his computer addiction.

That is what the shrink ordered, more or less.

What she calls my "computer addiction" is what I call working for a living. I am a computer programmer. I earn a living by sitting at a computer for long hours and writing computer programs. It is bad enough that she devalues my parenting, but she belittles everything that I have done to support the family. She wants me to stop working, and still find the money to pay her thousands of dollars in child and spousal support. And she convinced the shrink that I am the one who needs psychological counseling!

A lawyer has just advised me that angry people also lose in court. He says that the courts make a lot of people angry, but judges hate anyone who shows any anger and they go out of their way to punish it. He advises his clients to act like docile lambs in the courthouse.

Another reader writes:

Doesn't he also advise them to get a haircut and shave????

Going into court looking like you do seems like a self-defeating act to me. Or are you consciously trying to fit your appearance into the picture of a lunatic that your wife has painted for you?

Hey, this isn't a clean fight, so go for every advantage. Shave, get a haircut, wear clean clothes, and act like a normal, clean-cut Silicon Valley geek!

Think "I'm going to play Mr. Nice Guy, not Burt Reynolds, at my next court appearance!"

Yeah, my kids even tell me to shave my beard. It is on my to do list.

When the Soviet Union sentenced Natan Sharansky to the Siberian gulag, did you argue that he just needed to trim his unusually long sideburns?

Re-education orders

A reader suggests that the court shrink is just a bureaucrat exercising his authority, and that he is not evil or malicious.

I cannot accept that. The shrink has proposed ordering the kids ripped from their homes, and my contact reduced to Wednesday visits and two weekends per month.

The shrink also wants to order me to attend 6 months of parenting classes and 6 months of psychological counseling from one of his looney colleagues. I must also waive confidentiality, and have "progress" reports submitted to the court. He says that even those occasional visits to my kids should be reduced "if Father is not willing to commit to the suggested interventions and truly demonstrate he will improve these issues".

If I do complete the 6-month re-education and the court approves of my progress, then I am to be rewarded by substituting 2 Thursdays (afternoon and evening) for the 2 of the Wednesday afternoons every month! That's all. Six months of torture for only a couple of extra evenings with my kids every month.

If you've just started reading this blog, you must be wondering what sort of monster I must be. I may not be perfect, but his report found no abuse, neglect, domestic violence, criminal behavior, drug use, or anything like that. His interview of the kids showed that they wanted to be with me half time. All indications were that the kids were doing well.

So what justifies the court shrink's radical order? His report said:

It appears that he is exhibiting denial that suggests, at the very least, a stubborn resistance to admitting fault and a resistance to looking at learning healthier parenting skills.

His dismissal of Mom's concerns as trivial shows a real blind spot and perhaps points to the problems ... [the evidence] suggests he runs things in his own way, on his own time, and may not take new input well with regards to the children's best interests.

Keep in mind that although the shrink conducted what the county calls a "full investigation", he did not visit my home, talk to teachers or other witnesses, assess what I have done for the kids, or anything like that. His reasoning is essentially this: Mom has gripes; Dad doesn't confess; give Mom the kids; and send Dad to a re-education camp.

This is not just some misguided bureaucrat trying to do his job. His graduate education in psychology did not teach him to go around punishing people who do things their own way. He does not draw on any research or expertise for his conclusions. He is actively going around ruining people's lives.

Some of the worst abuses in the old Soviet Union was sending political dissidents to forced psychiatric treatments or re-education camps. This is worse. I am guilty until proven innocent. But I cannot prove my innocence because I am not even accused of anything criminal. Until now, I would not have believed that this is possible in the USA.

Ordering dubious parenting practices

Dr. Bret K. Johnson is a child psychologist for the California courts, and he frequently makes official recommendations that become court orders for parents. Apparently he routinely includes these boilerplate orders:

17. Derogatory Remarks: Parents shall not make, nor permit others to make, derogatory remarks regarding the other parent or the other parent's friends and loved ones to the children nor within the hearing range of the children.
18. Fighting: Parents shall not argue with, threaten, or insult one another nor allow others to argue with, threaten, or insult the other parent in the children's presence.
19. Discussion of Court Matters: Neither parent shall, or allow anyone else to, discuss or allow the children to read information regarding Court matters of custody, visitation, or support, in the presence of the children.

What happened to free speech? Normally, people have a First Amendment right to express any opinions they want, and there can be no prior government restraint on those expressions. Surely, every parent has a fundamental right to tell his own kids the facts that dominate their lives!

He also includes this:

21. Corporal Punishment: Neither parent shall use, nor allow any other person to use, corporal punishment on the children.

Reasonable corporal punishment (such as spanking) is entirely legal, and most parents think that it is sometimes necessary. There is no proof that such punishment causes any harm to anyone. What possible justification for such an order could there be?

Here are some more outrageous boilerplate clauses:

14. Safety: At all times, the children shall be in appropriate car safety restraints, kept from harm's way and kept in the immediate eye shot of the supervising parent or an assigned caregiver.
15. Supervision: At all times, Father, Mother, and all care providers shall ensure and oversee the children's appropriate supervision, hygiene, safety, and general care. In general, the children shall not be left alone without appropriate adult supervision.

You'll think that Safety and Supervision are good things, of course, but there are hardly any kids in America (or the world) that are really raised within the eyeshot of a supervisor at all times. Talk to any mom with more than about 3 kids, and she'll tell you that it is not even possible. Nor is it even particularly desirable. Most people consider independent play a good thing.

Bad report

I just got the report. It is bad. It confirms all my worst fears about the family court system. I will post more later.

Still waiting for the evaluation

The court-appointed evaluator promised his report by Nov. 4. So either it is in the mail, or he need more time to sift thru all my wife's gripes!

Right now, I just hope he does his homework, reads all the paperwork carefully, and limits his conclusions to what can be justified based on facts and research.

Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act

Prof. Stephen Baskerville has been an excellent advocate of parents rights. His recent essays are Strengthening Marriage Through Divorce and Custody Reform and The Fatherhood Crisis: Time for a New Look?.

Now he is pushing for a new federal law called the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act (PRRA) of 2005. He says:

The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act affirms that parents’ rights to direct the upbringing of their children are fundamental rights which the government can curtail only under conditions of “compelling interest.” It stipulates that “No federal, state, or local government, or any official of such a government acting under color of law, shall interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to direct the upbringing of the child of the parent.”

A similar bill was introduced in 1996, except that I think that proposal excluded the rights of noncustodial fathers. It was strenuously opposed by leftist lobbying groups like the ACLU and People For the American Way, and the Nat. Org. of Women.

Actually, the US Supreme Court has always held that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to control the upbringing of their children. Here is a good summary of decisions:

The Supreme Court of the United States has traditionally and continuously upheld the principle that parents have the fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. A review of cases taking up the issue shows that the Supreme Court has unwaveringly given parental rights the highest respect and protection possible. What follows are some of the examples of the Court’s past protection of parental rights.

In Meyer v. Nebraska,1 the Court invalidated a state law which prohibited foreign language instruction for school children because the law did not “promote” education but rather “arbitrarily and unreasonably” interfered with “the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life...” 2 The court chastened the legislature for attempting “materially to interfere… with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” 3 This decision clearly affirmed that the Constitution protects the preferences of the parent in education over those of the State. In the same decision, the Supreme Court also recognized that the right of the parents to delegate their authority to a teacher in order to instruct their children was protected within the liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment. 4

I don't think that Baskerville's new PRRA has a Congressional sponsor yet. I'm trying to find more info about it.

Divorced Mich. fathers sue for equity

Here is a Detroit News article:

Michigan fathers seeking to make joint custody the norm in divorce cases are suing the state in a class-action lawsuit they hope will stop the courts from marginalizing their role in their children's lives.

The suit claims the state's family courts have violated fathers' civil rights by awarding mothers custody and reducing them to visitors. The suit was filed when noncustodial parents in 43 other states filed similar suits, and when fathers are seeking similar parental equity in Europe and Canada.

Here is info on the class action lawsuit. The article goes on:

Father's role is vital

Psychologists say children who don't spend enough time with their fathers can develop emotional problems such as low self-esteem, depression and feelings of abandonment. Fatherless children are more likely to act out at school, develop truancy problems and develop unhealthy perceptions about relationships, said Michael Brooks, a Kalamazoo psychologist.

"Both parents bring unique characteristics and aspects to parenting the children," said Brooks, who is a member of the state's Friend of the Court Advisory Board. "But it's difficult to be a parent two days out of 15."

Brooks said a court-ordered parenting plan that only includes every other weekend and a few nights a week could be construed as a situation that creates a fatherless child. This is why he supports the movement that courts should initially presume joint custody for divorcing couples, unless one of them is shown to be unfit.

John Mills, chairman of the family law section of the Michigan State Bar, said mandating a presumption of joint custody would take away the discretion of judges, who are considering each individual case.

"They make the decision on what is best for the children," said Mills, who opposes presumed joint legal custody.

Note that the psychologist says that the father's role is vital, but it is the lawyers who are against a presumption of joint custody. Why? Follow the money. Family court lawyers make most of their money by preparing nebulous arguments about the best interests of the child. The more subjective and arbitrary the custody decisions, the more money to the lawyers. They have desperate clients who will do anything to win custody. If there is no presumption and it is all up to the discretion of the judge, then they can take their clients' money and have a chance of winning with a terrible case.

Non-Custodial Parental Rights Petition

This petition explains the gripes of non-custodial parents. It says:

I could give you countless examples of fathers who have been victimized. I’m not referring to the “deadbeat dad” types who leave their ex-wives and children living in the streets. I am talking about hard working, tax paying, child-loving fathers who live for their children. The ones who had their children stripped from them for the simple reason of their ex-wife deciding that she just no longer wanted to be married. The ones who are allowed to see their children for 4 days a month. The ones who are allowed to see their children for a few weeks over the summer. The ones who are required to pay astronomical amounts of child support, often putting themselves in a situation where they barely can afford to live. These are the fathers that are relying on the judges, lawyers, and Legislators to help reform the system. This system has created a society of fatherless children and childless fathers. This system has created its own life through a judicial system that exists on misery to feed itself.

This system violates their Constitutional Rights to Due process, Equal Protection under the Laws, and Privacy.

Almost 7000 people have signed it.

Federal courts may have jurisdiction over some custody issues

I am looking into the possibility of federal court jurisdiction over custody issues.

A helpful reader writes:

I forwarded to you a news item about a federal lawsuit challenging the way child custody decisions are made by state family courts.

The lawsuit alleges that the practice of awarding sole custody to one parent violates the federal constitutional rights of the non-custodial parent (NCP).

The lawsuit is sponsored by a group of NCPs whose website is here.

The sponsors have prepared a model lawsuit which they hope to file in each state, led by a named plaintiff resident in that state (I think they have 41 so far). Then they hope to merge the separate suits into a single national class action. ...

The lawsuit was written by non-lawyers, and it shows. It's hard to see how even the most sympathetic judge could find a valid cause of action buried in there. Even if the lawsuit lacks any legal merit, however, it could still help focus public attention on the injustices being done in custody courts.

The lawsuit assumes that the U.S. Constitution recognizes and protects the right of parents to the custody of their children, and to direct their upbringing. Such a right has been mentioned in a handful of Supreme Court decisions but it is not well defined, to say the least. Robert Bork criticized the creation of this right, saying it was analogous to Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade.

The most recent case asserting this right is Troxel v. Granville (2000). (Also here.)

This was an oddball case with a fractured court: Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides, and O'Connor and Kennedy were on opposite sides.

Troxel v. Granville holds that state courts cannot award custody or visitation to a non-parent against the wishes of a child's only parent (absent a finding that the parent is unfit). In that case, the child had only one surviving parent.

What the NCPs seek is a holding that parents, assuming both are fit, have an equal right to custody and state courts cannot deprive either parent of his or her equal right to custody.

It seems to me that the only hope of establishing that principle would be to invoke and extend the decision in Troxel v. Granville. I have not read the Troxel case closely enough to see if that is feasible. ...

I forwarded to you from LEXIS the federal class action, Nicholson v. Williams, 203 F.Supp.2d 153 (March 18, 2002). The decision was by Jack Weinstein, a notorious judicial supremacist and lover of class actions who once tried to hold the entire gun industry liable for gun injuries.

What is useful about this opinion is several pages of discussion about the source of federal law over family custody and the basis for federal court jurisdiction over state court decisions.

The decision is now on appeal to the 2nd Circuit which "certified" a question of state law to NY state courts. With the recent response from NY, the 2nd Circuit will now proceed to its decision.

None of these cases involve splitting custody between two fit parents but it would seem to be a short step from the relevant principles.

Judge Weinstein summarized the Troxel case:

"It cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their [**218] children." Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000).

In Troxel, the Court struck down aWashington statute which allowed state courts to rule on petitions by nonparental persons for visitation rights by reference to a court determination of the "best interests of the child" without necessarily considering the parent's position. Id. at 67. A plurality of the Court held that " [HN30] the Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of the parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made." Id. at 72--73. Because the "sweeping breadth" of the statute furnished sufficient grounds to find it unconstitutional, the Troxel Court explicitly left undecided the question of whether the state was required to show harm or potential harm to a child before overcoming a parental decision on what was in the best interest of the child. Id. at 73.

I am not an NCP. Not yet, anyway. If I become one, then I may want to join this federal lawsuit.

Paternity: Innocence Is Now a Defense

A California appellate court ruled that Manuel Navarro could stop paying child support because a DNA test proved that he was not the father.

This Wash Times story says:

Fathers' rights groups cheered a state appeals court ruling for Manuel Navarro as a victory for "paternity fraud" victims, but their celebrations may be short-lived. The Los Angeles County child-support agency has asked for the appellate court ruling to be "depublished," or omitted from official records, so no other man can use it to overturn his child-support order. ...

Mr. Navarro said he was never properly served child-support papers and was assigned child support in absentia. He recently underwent a DNA test that proved he was not the father of the boys.

When he went to court with his proof, however, the trial court ruled that Mr. Navarro still had to pay the child support because he did not protest it in time.

Mr. Navarro appealed and, on June 30, the appellate court handed him a victory, reversing the trial court decision and declaring that Los Angeles County "should not enforce child-support judgments it knows to be unfounded."

So the Los Angeles County child-support agency wants to continue fraudulently gouging non-fathers for child support, and hide the court decision that would get the innocent men off the hook! (In spite of the agency's request, the decision was published.)

There is currently a proposed California law (AB 252) that is intended to supercede the Navarro decision. The law would authorize a court to set aside a voluntary declaration of paternity under certain circumstances, unless it determines that denial of such action is in the best interest of the child.

Apparently there is case law that says that there is no way to take any action, criminal or civil, against the mom who deliverately lies about who the father is for the purpose of false collecting child support.

Basinger wins custody over Baldwin's daughter

Movie stars Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger had a widely publicized divorce and custody fight earlier this year. They both seem like nut cases to me, but the outcome was very unfavorable to Baldwin. This says:

Baldwin has agreed to see an anger-management therapist and take a series of at least eight classes "which emphasizes the development of children between the ages of 6 and 8."

Baldwin also agreed to put a phone line in his daughter's room at his expense, and then to only call the little girl between 7 and 8 a.m. and between 6 and 6:30 p.m. Basinger has agreed to teach the child how to use the phone and get her messages from a voice mail system. Baldwin also agreed to only call Basinger in case of an emergency.

When he visits his daughter, who lives with her mother in L.A., Baldwin has agreed to limit his visits to the third weekend of each month, during which he can see her for dinner on Friday and the period of noon to 6:30 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.

If he wants to pay a visit to Ireland's school, he must notify Basinger by email at least one week in advance.

It sounds like a vindictive Basinger found a man-hating evaluator.

NY court limits removing children

The NY Times reports:

New York State's highest court ruled yesterday that child welfare authorities cannot take children from parents and place them in foster care merely because they have been exposed to domestic abuse at home.

The court formalized specific standards for removing children from homes where domestic abuse occurs, requiring that authorities exhaust alternatives and insisting that the possible threat to the child's health or welfare be imminent.

... the Court of Appeals ruled that a parent's inability to prevent a child from witnessing domestic abuse did not amount to formal neglect, a standard used for taking a child into foster care. To conclude that a mother had been neglectful, the court held, the authorities would have to prove that the mother had failed to exercise a basic level of care in shielding the child as best she could from the scenes of abuse.

The court ruled that there could be no "blanket presumption" favoring removing a child who had merely witnessed a parent being abused.

The case resulted from a federal class action lawsuit on constitutional grounds. I am surprised that such an approach would do any good. Apparently NY city was routinely removing children from homes with spousal abuse, even tho the children were not abused and the parents objected. Furthermore, it was usually done by govt social workers who claimed to have emergency powers, and removed the kids without any court order.

The NY court says that the city has to clean up its act. The city says that its practices are already "nuanced", and that they could just ignore the court ruling.

I guess that the court's theory is if the dad is beating the mom, then it is unfair to the mom to seize the kids. But why would anyone think that spousal abuse has anything to do with child abuse or neglect anyway?

The spousal abuse should be none of anyone's business, unless some victim wants to file a criminal complaint. The the perp should get his due process, including a jury trial and appeal, if necessary. But why punishing the kids?

What's going on here? Is the city trying to go around busting up marriages?

Maybe some busybody neighbor anonymously calls in a domestic violence complaint. City social workers visit, but no one makes a complaint. So the city social workers threaten the mom to take her kids away, unless she makes a complaint. She thinks that she be able to tell the judge what a good mom she is, but the social workers takes the kids away anyway without anyone seeing a judge. To get her kids back, she has to either kick her husband out, or have him prosecuted for spousal abuse.

Is that what is going on here? Social workers trying to correct marital relationships by seizing kids?

I'll have to do some more research on this. It is hard to believe that NY city social workers could be so evil. But it is also hard to see how anyone could justify so many emergency child removals when there isn't even any abuse or neglect of the child.

Here is a picture of an angry dad!

Here is my greeting.