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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The key point—which you don’t seem to be
addressing—is that the state can require a
parent to support their children, and the fact
that may in effect require them to work is not
inconsistent with the abolution of slavery,
anti-peonage laws, or prohibitions of imprisonment
for debt. No re-interpretation or nullification
of the federal anti-peonage or any of the other
mentioned laws is entailed.

It seems to me people ought to be fighting for
fairer, rational child support laws and policies
in the legislatures, not pursuing will-o’-the-wisp,
crackpot legal `theories’ in the manner of kooks.

And I’m here to tell you that the Family Court system is broken. It is BADLY broken. How are you going to dismiss MY claims? By suggesting they’re an aberration? Or perhaps by suggesting that I am not believable because I’m “angry”, or some other dismissive perjorative?

As a practicing lawyer, why don’t you tell us about the “Tender Years Doctrine”, if you will? I’m sure you’re familiar with it. That’s the doctrine which, since the late 1800s, has driven most family court child custody decision making.

It’s the doctrine adopted in nearly all states which awarded custody of minor children to mothers 100% of the time based solely on their gender. It’s operating principle was the medically unproven belief that mothers were somehow “better” for young children of “tender years” than fathers were. Explain to us how awarding of maternal custody based solely on gender is not a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.vev.ch/en/lit/hypocris.htm

Also, maybe you could explain to us how it is “in the best interests” of our nation’s children that approximately 85% of child custody decisions STILL favor the mother nationwide, even though the “Best Interests of the Children” doctrine has theoretically been replaced the “Tender Years Doctrine” now in almost all states.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf

While you’re at it, explain to us how it’s completely unacceptable for fathers to fail to pay child support, while at the same time it’s perfectly OK if mothers choose to not support their children for years on end even if they are perfectly capable of doing so, as happened in my case here in Illinois.

“Murtari has a Masters Degree in Computer Sciences, which is sufficient to obtain extremely profitable employment in the IT sector.”

I guess you have never heard about “overseas outsourcing” of IT jobs? That not withstanding, 49 yo white males with arrest records and suspended driver’s license for child support hassles don’t have too many prospects of obtaining that “extremely profitable” employment in today’s IT job market you presume is out there.

Mr. Murtari isn’t adverse to financially supporting his son. He like many others do have a problem with providing an ex-spouse with a tax free income stream under the pretense of child support. Please note that there is no provision in any state that requires the custodial parent that receives child support payments to actually account for how the money is spent! She (CP’s receiving support are statistically overwhelmingly female in this culture) can spend it on drugs, liquor, cigarettes, hairdos, manicures or any damn thing else she wants to and nothing legally can be done about it unless the child or children are literally starving and running around in rags on the street!

Of course he comes to use it in order to help
mount an ad hominem attack on a hack legal notion
that he, apparently for lack of expertise, cannot
address on the level of the substance of the law.

“There’s not much law in family law,” they
themselves say. Family lawyers are the law
school flunk-outs who can’t handle the technical
stuff or lack the ambition to go after the really
big bucks: truly the DEADBEATS among jurists.

It’s very typical that they find nothing pithier
to harangue with than to project fluff like an
“obsession with control issues,” desires to have
“everything their way,” and failings to “attempt
to compromise” on litigants—even their own
clients—who advance conscientious claims and
arguments on their children’s and their own behaves.

I don’t know all the details of the case, but find
it in particular_extremely_ unlikely given the man’s
personality and the ways such cases usually develop,
that John Murtari never attempted to compromise with
his ex.’

It’s highly plausible that Murtari, an over-40
American, has no realistic opportunities for
sustaining his earlier peak earnings, and perhaps
poor employment prospects overall. Technology
experience and education are handicaps in today’s
job market, if one also has John’s demographic
—age and nationality—characteristics.

While there may be individual exceptional cases,
adherents of the Daddy Warbucks theory of child
support non-compliance have yet to rebut the
studies like the California collectibility report
cited above. As what’s being called the `demise
of the middle class’—which mainly affects
middle-aged men—worsens, it will have to be
further recognized that a child support obligor’s
capacity to earn may dramatically decline long
before reaching nominal retirement age.

If you choose not to accept this mission, FamilyLawyer, your credibility, what is left of it, will self destruct in 5 seconds.

You and Murtari both share some of the same qualities – educated, intelligent, articulate and totally devoid of any common sense. The one difference is that Murtari is not as obnoxious as yourself.

You choose to paper the courts with frivolous reams of paper purporting to be legal documents while Murtari chooses to make his very existence miserable and uncomfortable. Here the difference is that Murtari can at least make a sympathetic argument for not paying child support while your argument is totally baseless. The bottom line is that you both are deadbeats. Eventually, you too will find yourself in jail, but it is doubtful that you will have the courage to do what Murtari is doing.

Obviously Judge Hedges did not write THESE laws:

13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Appropriate Legislation:

18 U.S.C. §1581:
(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).

18 U.S.C. §1584:
Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

42 U.S.C. §1994:
The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.

Not only did Judge Hedges not write these laws, HE DOES NOT OBEY THEM EITHER!!!

If John Murtari must obtain employment to pay the child support ordered, and this current imprisonment is to punish him for failing to obtain such employment, then it is obvious that the support order and this enforcement is declared null and void by 42 U.S.C. §1994 and is the CRIME defined by 18 U.S.C. §1581.
The United States Grand Jury for your part of New York State has some work to do.

You see, this is an example of why I disagree, respectfully, of course, for I do admire John Murtari, with his contention that it is the system and not the people. I say that the system is fine. We have an elected Congress that passed the Antipeonage Act into law and has yet to repeal it or to alter the substance of what it prohibits. We have a Congress and a group of States that by sufficient supermajorities, passed the 13th Amendment into law authorizing the Antipeonage Act. We have courts who have the duty and the power to enforce the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act by 1) refusing to violate it and 2) striking down all attempts by virtue of the laws, acts, usages, and ORDERS of any state or territory to enslave any person for any debt or obligation.
It is the PERSONNEL, such as Judge Hedges and FamilyLawyer who PERVERT a good system by enforcing clearly unconstitutional laws and violating the Appropriate Legislation passed to enforce the Constitution.
Because Judge Hedges and FamilyLawyer so pervert our good system and our laws, and yes they most certainly DO HAVE A CHOICE, then neither is fit to call themselves citizens of the United States, let alone practice law and serve as judges in her courts.
Judge Hedges, you have the duty to review the Antipeonage Act, sui sponte if need be, and then to declare your sentence and imprisonment of John Murtari null and void and to order his release effective IMMEDIATELY.
Such action on your part would limit your liability, somewhat, should the federal Grand Jury finally get a clue and commence doing their job.

Oh, and if I have “control issues”, they are the same such issues as possessed by John Hancock, Ben Franklin, the Adams Family, G. Washington, people like that. Abe Lincoln, Sojourner Truth, Fred Douglas, MLK, Jr., Ulysses Grant, folks like that who actually believed in American Freedom.

This is the duty I owe my children.