Urgent: Schwarzenegger must VETO AB2781, Murtari Update

From my own experience in family court, I have to agree that there are some major problems that need to be addressed. When my ex found out I had hired an attorney and would soon be filing for divorce, she went and got a restraining order issued against me. In her written allegations to get the order, she made it painfully obvious that her allegations were false by contradicting herself 3 times. However, the judge issued the order. When my day in court arrived a week later to refute her allegations and I pointed out her contradictions, he still let it stand. She was questioned, and made it more than obvious that she forgot to rehearse her story, because she contradicted herself even more. Yet, the judge still let the order stand. 30 days later we back in court. She had filed for an extension. The same arguments in front of the same judge ensued to no avail. He wasn’t interested.

I lost my home, my money, and my children for over 4 months.

Amazingly enough, she didn’t file for another extension. She didn’t need to. Another judge had granted her request for temporary custody of the children, and handed our home over to her. Her attorney had assured her that when she went to court there would be no need for worry. She’d get everything she asked for.

When the restraining order was lifted, I began seeing my children again. I was a visitor to my own children. Children that I had been the primary caretaker of for over 3 years, while she ran around, stayed out til all hours of the night drinking and gambling.

Naturally, we now had to communicate again, if for nothing more than what the kids needed. After lying to get a restraining order, I no longer trusted her, so any time I would be in her presence, or on the phone with her, I would record the conversation. On 2 seperate occasions I brought up the restraining order and got her on tape admitting the allegations were false, and telling me that her attorney advised her to get one because he said I wouldn’t be able to get custody if a restraining order for domestic violence had been issued against me.

After getting the 1st admission, I took it to my attorney. It only made sense to me that if my predicament were based upon lies that this should be enough to straighten out the mess. To my utter disbelief, he actually urged me not to fight it, but to just give in to her demands, get the divorce over with, and get on with my life.

This didn’t set well with me, so I started interviewing other attorneys. By the 6th one, I found the one I needed to get the job done. He was a divorcee and understood my predicament. I fired the original attorney and immediately hired him.

The things he told me literally blew my mind. 1st off, he told me that the judge I had went in front of about the restraining order was notorious for issueing them, regardless of how ludicrous the allegations were. 2nd, he also told me that the laws pertaining to family court were fairly vague and usually left open to interpretation, which is how this judge was so easily able to issue restraining orders based upon whatever frivolous allegations were set before him. Finally, he told me that the judge who was supposed to be presiding over the divorce was extremely biased, but not to worry. He would be replaced. He’d make sure of that.

Finally, the divorce day came. My ex stood up and swore to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then she began telling of the supposed abuse I had inflicted upon her, and how she finally had to take out a restraining order to protect herself. She did a much better job this time, though. She had rehearsed well.

When it came time for my attorney to question her, he pointed out the contradictions made in her written allegations. Her attorney wrote if off as a case of nerves. My attorney produced the court file, and pointed out the other contradictions she made while being questioned by my previous attorney. Again, her attorney simply wrote it off as a case of nerves. Finally, my attorney produced 2 tapes. The tapes of her confessions. He played them and asked if this was nothing more than another case of nerves. Her attorney was stunned silent, and suddenly she had lost any and all credibility.

So basically, Because of a crooked judge and her crooked attorney, I lost my parental rights and my home for over a years time. Today, because of a good attorney who was actually willing to do what it takes to earn his fee and an unbiased judge, I sit in my home with my kids, and she sees them on weekends. But even though I’m now finally a custodila parent, as I should be, I still follow cases such as Murtari’s in hopes that the legal system will finally be overhauled and all good parents can have a chance to be parents as they should.

KRS – a very thoughtful and articulate post. It is nice to have someone agree with what I say. However, I would like to expand on things a bit.

From my experience, the vast majority of people involved in family court have created their own problems, and then refuse to acknowledge their own culpability. Actions breed reactions, and this is especially true in human relations. Those who claim that they have been victimized by the family court system unilaterally refuse to acknowledge, admit or accept any blame for what has happened. Instead, they blame the court system, the laws and the feminists, which accomplishes absolutely nothing in the final analysis.

Bear in mind, I do not contend that the court system or the laws are fair in a utopian sense of the word. Then again, typically, the litigants before the court are not being fair to each other or their children – and have not been for an indeterminate time prior to actually appearing in court. And yes, the feminists did have some input into the formulation of custody and child support laws. It must also be remembered that prior to the industrial revolution, divorce, custody and child support laws favored men 100%.

I have been through divorce court myself. My divorce was very smooth due to the fact that both my ex and I accepted equal blame for the demise of our marriage. After standard orders were issued, we almost immediately ignored them and did things our own way for our own benefit, and that of our daughter. The important thing to remember about court orders is that they establish the minimum standards that must be maintained. No one has ever been taken to court for contempt for doing more than what the court order required. All that it takes are two people who are willing to communicate honestly with each other.

As far as lobbying legislators – it is something that the average citizen can do without too much trouble. One of the first steps in the process is to become involved with the politician both in and outside of the statehouse. Attend campaign functions – let the politician see you. Don’t push your cause at those functions, just be a “regular Joe” and blend in. Sure, it might cost you $25 or $50 to attend the function – (the food is always free – so think of it as an expensive meal) – but it is worth the cost when you factor in the value of the contacts you can meet at those functions.

When you contact a legislator, don’t drone on and on about your personal case. Every legislator knows instinctively that you are telling only your side of the story – the side that will make you look the best. (Goes back to accepting accountability for the demise of your marriage and relationship.) Offer real solutions to the problems that you perceive – but make sure that the solutions you are offering are not one sided. In other words, be realistic in what you propose. No legislator is going to be able to throw out all existing law while introducing something that would radically change society. Avoid attacking those who disagree with you and using terms like “feminist.” Virtually every legislator favors women’s rights, and it is political suicide to start taking away rights of any group of people to the sole or majority benefit of another group.

Follow the legislative calendar. Know what laws are being introduced and being considered in various committees. Keep up with the committee calendars and go and either testify at those hearings or at least attend the hearing. It doesn’t hurt to prepare a written comment to also submit to the committee – whether you testify or not. Make two copies for each member of the committee – this allows the aids – who are the ones that are your conduit to the legislator to have something in hand to consider later. Again, keep it all short, sweet, to the point and offer solutions to the overall problems that you perceive. Always make sure that you have thoroughly researched the impact that your suggestions will have on existing laws – and remember that any dramatic changes will have a probable detrimental effect on others that cannot be ignored.

Forget about face to face meetings with the legislator – especially in the early stages of the process. Deal with the legislative aid that is handling the issue you are interested in.

Don’t do like Murtari – and demand a meeting with a legislator or politician. Don’t try to write a law and give it to a poliltician. Murtari has been told repeatedly that the federal government cannot get involved in family law matters – those are individual state issues. A Family Civil Rights Act is not going to fly at the federal level. The reason is simple: When people enter into the family court system they are asking the government to take control of their situation because they are unable to resolve aspects of their life which can have implications for society. Hence, it is solely a state issue, and not a federal issue. Unfortunately, Murtari with his blind zeal and unrealistic goal to meet with Senator Clinton is actually doing more harm than good.

You are correct that politicians do respond to money. Political pressure is difficult to bring upon a legislator, especially in family law. I suggest that you research other activist groups like MADD and ACES – and see how they were able to successfully push their agendas. Legislators do respond to individuals. Over the years, hundreds of legislators have responded to me. In every case it was because I quietly initiated the contact with them, most often going in through the “back door” rather than a full frontal attack.

Good luck with your efforts. Your attitude will no doubt get you better results than the others who have posted here.

I respect the arguments of several of you who have pointed out Family Lawyer’s errors. However, it is pointless. The man is a sociopath who thinks that the twisted interpretation of law called “Family Law makes it right for him to persecute men and to destroy families and that the only consequence should be for him to enrich himself from the misery of others. He is no different from alll the other shysters and judges involved in this mockery of law and justice. He knows that his niche of law has the highest casualty rate of any legal specialty, and he seeks to counter this, as does the rest of his profession, through mpore persecution and intimidation. I, too, am working to change the laws, especially Title IV-D, but I am pessimistic as to how effective we can be in this effort. Politicians, judges, and the state governments have a vested interest in these shysters successfully persecuting us and depriving us of our families, our rights, and our money. The rage is growing, spreading, and coalescing, and it doesn’t include reasoning with these evil shysters!

FamilyLawyer — I think the reason posters here have a “victim mentality” is because they actually ARE victims. It’s one thing to believe yourself a victim when you actually aren’t, which is what your comments imply. It’s quite another to actually be a victim, to tell your story, and then have it dismissed. I wonder if female rape victims are actually victims, or if they just have a “victim mentality”. Ditto for minorities and racial vicitimization. Is their real victimhood there, or is it all in their heads?

Ironically, the one group of people who most often make victimization a central part of their existence – feminists — is the very group who is responsible for creating the one-sided, misandrist system that creates so many REAL victims in our divorce courts. No group has more damage to the American family in the past thirty years than feministis have. It’s their agenda and their misandrist views, as expressed in our currenlt family laws, that are the cause of the problems.

It’s not that men posting here “don’t like paying an ex-wife any money”, as you suggest, as though the experiences expresssed here were borne out of greed or selfishness. It’s because the men who post here have been through the system. It’s because the financial insults they are bearing have been piled on top of the emotional, civil, and legal injuries they have also suffered — injuries which should have been protected by existing laws, but weren’t.

The men here have felt the hatred coming from the bench towards them. They have seen the dismissive attitudes. They have listened to judges implement their “tender years doctrine” philosophies in direct violation of the written law. They have been lied to, cheated upon, had their relationships with their children virtually snuffed out, all with the with the aid and support of the legal system. And most often these men have done little more “wrong” than to simply not please their ex-wives enough to suit those women. It’s no wonder these men have enmity towards the system. They’ve been royally screwed. You can call it “no fault” and a “fair system” all you want, but a pig is still a pig even if you put it in a dress. Having had most of their rights taken away and their lives destroyed, these men have come to revile a system that is full of gender-based double standards.

The one thing on which I do agree with FamilyLawyer is that we men should be spending our time getting the laws changed. All else is just wasted breath. Feminists have spent the last thirty years getting their ideas implemented into family law. Men need to do the same.

Interestingly, I have attempted to do this, albeit only on an individual level so far. I have written to US Senators, US Congressmen, and to Illinois state senators and representatives on many occasions. The reception has been lukewarm at best, cold at worst. Although I will continue to write to legislators and am not deterred, my experience with one particular Illinois State Ssenator was most striking.

A few years ago, Illinois State Senator Kathleen Parker was leading a committee whose purpose was to revise the divorce and child custody system in the state of Illinois. She and her committee wrote letters to the editors in all of the major newspapers in Illinois. These letters solicited comments, stories and suggestions from the public at large for their input into revising the legislation. The stated purpose of revising the legislation was to make it “more fair” (the committee’s words).

The public was promised that every person who sent in a letter or story to the committee would have their story read before the committee, and would receive status updates from the committee as the legislation progressed. The letter to the editor from the committee also stated that anyone wishing to tell “their story” to the committee should so indicate, and that these people would get calls from the committee letting them know whether or not they would be allowed to tell their story verbally in front of the committee. Due to understandable time restrictions not everyone who wanted to tell their story was going to be afforded that opportunity. The letter also said that everyone who sent in a letter or story to the committee would at least receive a letter from the committee acknowledging the receipt of that person’s input.

Excited at the chance to participate in what I consider a major issue of our day, I sent in my story, a story which I think is similar to the stories of many who post here. To make a long story short, the committee ignored me. They never acknowledged even receiving any of my letters, although I sent several. It became apparent after a few months of frustration that the committee was simply not interested in hearing my point of view. I concluded that someone on the committee probably did read my story, but decided it was problematic to their legislative goals and the intent. I surmised that their attitudes towards family court had already been shaped, as most legislators’ are, by specical interest groups. Specifically, women’s interests political action groups like NOW. I concluded that the goal of the revised legislation was not to get a balanced viewpoint and make legislation that is “more fair”, but to revise the legislation in accordance with what they already “knew” about the subject — i.e to skew the legislation to be even more in favor of the major political contributors to the legislators re-election campaigns, more in line with poltiical pressure, more in line with feminism’s one-sided goals. Stories like mine were problematic and thus not particularly welcome.

I think that as men we need to be more organized and active. FamilyLawyer is correct in that nothing is going to change without going to the legislators. That’s where the rubber meets the road. In my experience, legislators do not respond to individuals. They respond to two things: political pressure from organized groups, and to money. We need to become more involved.

Many interesting comments from some “interesting, yet predictable” group of people. Seems to be quite an accumulation of people here with a “victim mentality” which is understandable to a degree. It is human nature to play or assume the role of a victim when things don’t go the way that they think they should have.

First, for Roger Knight: I have no intention of filing a brief in Amicus Curiae in your case, either for you or against you. I decline to do so for you simply because you do not have a legal leg to stand on. I decline to do so on behalf of the State for the simple fact that they need absolutely no help to shoot down your arguments. A first year law student could take on that task equally as well.

Second, WLS is the only one posting here that seems to make any sense at all. The laws as they are written do not guarantee or even provide a “right” to anyone to parent their child in the event of a divorce or separation. The state has a vested interest in ensuring that the best interests of a child are observed, and quite often, the best interests of a child are dictated by society. To that extent, the fathers rights movement has been somewhat effective in changing some of the societal perceptions. Part of that success is due to the conservative movement returning to the somewhat illusive concept of “family values.”

A recurrent theme of some of the posters is the expression of an intense dislike to paying an ex-wife any money for any variety of reasons. Those arguments speak volumes about those individuals.

AbusedFather appears to be the only one that has a legitimate complaint about the system. I’m unable to agree with his methods of airing his complaints, but that does not necessarily detract from his situation – providing that he has provided all of the pertinent facts. It would appear that he has.

Ultimately, the only way that anyone will bring about change is at the state legislative level. Filing silly and baseless lawsuits will not bring about change. Refusing to eat will not bring about change. All that does is send a clear message that there are some irrational people trying to bring about change.

“Family Lawyer” – surely, that’s an oxymoron.

For those attempting to reach Arnold Schwarzenegger regarding AB2781 – both his FAX line and his phone line are taken off the hook during non-business hours – you’ll need to call between 9 AM and 5 PM Pacific time.

Be sure to visit:

http://www.lacochildsupport.org

Not everything that’s not unconstitutional is
right, moral, or good public policy.

I’ve never heard of a case where it made sense to
incarcerate or suspend the driver’s or any
professional license of a child support obligor,
and I would strongly support legislation to
abolish those practices. The politics involved
don’t make that easy, but I don’t think pushing
for it in court using loony pleadings stands any
chance at all.

Some states have laws by which support orders can
be adjusted if the obligee isn’t providing for
the child: developing the habit of applying, and
adding legal teeth to them is also something to
work on.

The constitutional notion of parental rights
pertaining to custody has never been applied to
family court: that has to be worked on too. One
cannot just say that one’s rights have been
violated without first proving that one has
them—-which no one has done yet.

A civil money judgment can be enforced by highly
coercive means such as wage garnishment, writs to
seize property, and liens, but private debt is
not criminal under modern law.

Not everything that’s not unconstitutional is
right, moral, or good public policy.

I’ve never heard of a case where it made sense to
incarcerate or suspend the driver’s or any
professional license of a child support obligor,
and I would strongly support legislation to
abolish those practices. The politics involved
don’t make that easy, but I don’t think pushing
for it in court using loony pleadings stands any
chance at all.

Some states have laws by which support orders can
be adjusted if the obligee isn’t providing for
the child: developing the habit of applying, and
adding legal teeth to them is also something to
work on.

The constitutional notion of parental rights
pertaining to custody has never been applied to
family court: that has to be worked on too. One
cannot just say that one’s rights have been
violated without first proving that one has
them—-which no one has done yet.

A civil money judgment can be enforced by highly
coercive means such as wage garnishment, writs to
seize property, and liens, but private debt is
not criminal under modern law.

Roger Knight wrote:
“”"Requiring one parent to pay money to another through means of state sponsored extortion WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT TO THE RECEIVING PARENT TO ACCOUNT FOR HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT ON THE CHILD IS NOT CHILD SUPPORT.”"”

Since there is no system for accountability in any state as to how and where the extorted money is spent that is prima facie evidence that so-called child support isn’t child support at all but a tax free income stream for the custodial parent to do with as they please.

Therefore, it is not about the “best interests of the children” but a corrupt state supported income extortion racket and it is a moral obligation to oppose it.