Fathers" Rights Are Doomed By Advocating Within The Family Court System
The Family Court system will not allow equal rights for fathers - not now, not ever. Fathers' Rights advocates who try to change the system from within are wasting their time. Here's why...
*Huge State and federal agencies support the family court system:
The family court system is an essential part of what can best be described as the Divorce and Domestic Violence Industry (DDVI) which includes both federal and state Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies. The federal CSE supports millions of workers and supplies funds to states and family courts for the amount and time involved with child support orders.
Many domestic violence agencies are in part funded through the Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) to tens of billions of dollars. VAWA also funds programs within police departments dealing with domestic violence prevention.
All these people are committed advocates to sustaining their funding.
*The Family Court's essential role is to deny parental rights of fathers while ordering them to pay child support:
Family court plays the essential part in the DDVI. It deals with divorce and paternity suits. Family court judges assign custody (i.e. physical and legal custody) to parents while assigning child support obligations to the noncustodial parent.
Essential here is that mothers in these actions are overwhelmingly assigned full physical custody and legal custody of the children, while fathers are overwhelmingly ordered to pay child support, and possibly assigned shared legal custody with some meager visitation.
Child support - a euphemism for extortion - is an impoverishing imposition on fathers for up to 22 years. Fathers transfer an enormous amount of money to mothers - far more than the minimum cost of raising a child and far more than amounts paid by states for foster care.
The total amount of child support ordered triggers federal money to be transferred to the state and state money transferred to the courts for their time and effort. So both states and family courts benefit in proportion to the child support ordered.
*Feminist ideology at work in feminist jurisprudence:
Family courts' mother-favored outcomes violate both equal protection and substantive due process for protecting fathers' parental rights - and other of his constitutional rights. You would think that equal outcomes would be demanded by feminists as in everything else. Not here. That's because feminist ideology seeks to undermine the traditional family, rid the father of any significant authority over his children yet oblige him to directly pay the mother child support like a slave.
Feminist ideology seeks to portray women as natural victims to male behavior and has produced the women-favored legal procedures - fashioned under feminist jurisprudence - to privilege women over men. The reality of feminist ideology is just what family court achieves every day.
*Family court's two unconstitutional mechanisms for denying fathers' parenting rights:
The family court uses 'the best interest of the child excuse' to deny giving fathers physical custody of their children anywhere equal to mothers. This is unconstitutional because that excuse is reserved only when the father is proven unfit. And 95% or more of fathers are fit and willing to parent.
The vast majority of fathers have never done anything wrong. Denying a constitutional right - such as parental right - is unconstitutional when no wrong is done. Otherwise it wouldn't be an unalienable right our country was formed to secure for each of us.
The family court also uses the 'abuse of women excuse' which allows it to impose or uphold a restraining order on a father to deny him custody of his children. But restraining orders under feminist lobbying and its instigation of VAWA are based on the mother simply saying she's 'in fear' of the father that operationally doesn't seek objective proof to justify the fear. Because this excuse produces severe denial of a father's parenting right in the ensuing family court case it is unconstitutional due to the lack of due process in applying it - not to mention the clear advantage it gives the mother for reaping benefits at father's expense.
Family courts, devoid of the protection of a jury trial, spew orders virtually at the whim of its judges imbued with feminist jurisprudence. They maliciously impose injustice on fathers because that's what they're rewarded for.
*Why family court system will not impose equal parenting for fit parents:
If the family court produced court outcomes that either ordered fathers physical custody with child support assigned to the mother as often as the reverse, OR if family court simply ordered equal (shared or alternating full custody) for every fit parent, the system would fall apart for lack of the funding and incentives that keeps it going.
In the first instance, both fathers and mothers would see that all their rights were in jeopardy to be denied in family court. This also implies that the feminism was taken out of the jurisprudence of generating restraining orders. So, they both would advocate a change in the system to protect their rights. Presently, only fathers advocate for a change. Mothers are assured of their rights and child support benefits - so they don't. Lawyers and ancillary court agents make a fortune on parent litigation.
In the second instance, child support orders would be nonexistent or minimal. Since all rights are upheld equally, the litigation costs and ancillary payments to social service personnel would fall to almost nothing. The DDVI would be starved out of existence, again, if, again, feminist jurisprudence was replaced by jurisprudence.
There's just too much money, jobs, and people, dependent on maintaining the divorce and domestic violence industry and denial of fathers' rights. They all advocate for keeping it, women and mothers advocate for it, and feminists who helped instigate and maintain it advocate for it. Politicians relying on their support do too.
So, no change! The well-funded propaganda of bad men and the need for feminist jurisprudence will continue. Participation of fathers' rights advocates within the system and at oversite councils will remain impotent but be used only to show that fathers participate in supporting the system.
*How can fathers gain the constitutional rights they're denied and their children they love?
1. Understand and speak out against the injustice - the clear denial of your constitutional rights that VAWA, the family court and state-imposed feminism has produced with its phony feminist jurisprudence.
2. Refuse to participate with the system. You can't compromise with tyranny. You either have rights or you don't. Under a tyranny you live at the whim of those who tyrannize you.
3. Rebel against the divorce and domestic violence industry -including the family court - espousing its unconstitutionality and clear denial of your rights.
4. Refuse to pay child extortion payments but say you will directly support your children when you have equal access - equal custody - of them.
*Huge State and federal agencies support the family court system:
The family court system is an essential part of what can best be described as the Divorce and Domestic Violence Industry (DDVI) which includes both federal and state Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies. The federal CSE supports millions of workers and supplies funds to states and family courts for the amount and time involved with child support orders.
Many domestic violence agencies are in part funded through the Violence Against Women's Act (VAWA) to tens of billions of dollars. VAWA also funds programs within police departments dealing with domestic violence prevention.
All these people are committed advocates to sustaining their funding.
*The Family Court's essential role is to deny parental rights of fathers while ordering them to pay child support:
Family court plays the essential part in the DDVI. It deals with divorce and paternity suits. Family court judges assign custody (i.e. physical and legal custody) to parents while assigning child support obligations to the noncustodial parent.
Essential here is that mothers in these actions are overwhelmingly assigned full physical custody and legal custody of the children, while fathers are overwhelmingly ordered to pay child support, and possibly assigned shared legal custody with some meager visitation.
Child support - a euphemism for extortion - is an impoverishing imposition on fathers for up to 22 years. Fathers transfer an enormous amount of money to mothers - far more than the minimum cost of raising a child and far more than amounts paid by states for foster care.
The total amount of child support ordered triggers federal money to be transferred to the state and state money transferred to the courts for their time and effort. So both states and family courts benefit in proportion to the child support ordered.
*Feminist ideology at work in feminist jurisprudence:
Family courts' mother-favored outcomes violate both equal protection and substantive due process for protecting fathers' parental rights - and other of his constitutional rights. You would think that equal outcomes would be demanded by feminists as in everything else. Not here. That's because feminist ideology seeks to undermine the traditional family, rid the father of any significant authority over his children yet oblige him to directly pay the mother child support like a slave.
Feminist ideology seeks to portray women as natural victims to male behavior and has produced the women-favored legal procedures - fashioned under feminist jurisprudence - to privilege women over men. The reality of feminist ideology is just what family court achieves every day.
*Family court's two unconstitutional mechanisms for denying fathers' parenting rights:
The family court uses 'the best interest of the child excuse' to deny giving fathers physical custody of their children anywhere equal to mothers. This is unconstitutional because that excuse is reserved only when the father is proven unfit. And 95% or more of fathers are fit and willing to parent.
The vast majority of fathers have never done anything wrong. Denying a constitutional right - such as parental right - is unconstitutional when no wrong is done. Otherwise it wouldn't be an unalienable right our country was formed to secure for each of us.
The family court also uses the 'abuse of women excuse' which allows it to impose or uphold a restraining order on a father to deny him custody of his children. But restraining orders under feminist lobbying and its instigation of VAWA are based on the mother simply saying she's 'in fear' of the father that operationally doesn't seek objective proof to justify the fear. Because this excuse produces severe denial of a father's parenting right in the ensuing family court case it is unconstitutional due to the lack of due process in applying it - not to mention the clear advantage it gives the mother for reaping benefits at father's expense.
Family courts, devoid of the protection of a jury trial, spew orders virtually at the whim of its judges imbued with feminist jurisprudence. They maliciously impose injustice on fathers because that's what they're rewarded for.
*Why family court system will not impose equal parenting for fit parents:
If the family court produced court outcomes that either ordered fathers physical custody with child support assigned to the mother as often as the reverse, OR if family court simply ordered equal (shared or alternating full custody) for every fit parent, the system would fall apart for lack of the funding and incentives that keeps it going.
In the first instance, both fathers and mothers would see that all their rights were in jeopardy to be denied in family court. This also implies that the feminism was taken out of the jurisprudence of generating restraining orders. So, they both would advocate a change in the system to protect their rights. Presently, only fathers advocate for a change. Mothers are assured of their rights and child support benefits - so they don't. Lawyers and ancillary court agents make a fortune on parent litigation.
In the second instance, child support orders would be nonexistent or minimal. Since all rights are upheld equally, the litigation costs and ancillary payments to social service personnel would fall to almost nothing. The DDVI would be starved out of existence, again, if, again, feminist jurisprudence was replaced by jurisprudence.
There's just too much money, jobs, and people, dependent on maintaining the divorce and domestic violence industry and denial of fathers' rights. They all advocate for keeping it, women and mothers advocate for it, and feminists who helped instigate and maintain it advocate for it. Politicians relying on their support do too.
So, no change! The well-funded propaganda of bad men and the need for feminist jurisprudence will continue. Participation of fathers' rights advocates within the system and at oversite councils will remain impotent but be used only to show that fathers participate in supporting the system.
*How can fathers gain the constitutional rights they're denied and their children they love?
1. Understand and speak out against the injustice - the clear denial of your constitutional rights that VAWA, the family court and state-imposed feminism has produced with its phony feminist jurisprudence.
2. Refuse to participate with the system. You can't compromise with tyranny. You either have rights or you don't. Under a tyranny you live at the whim of those who tyrannize you.
3. Rebel against the divorce and domestic violence industry -including the family court - espousing its unconstitutionality and clear denial of your rights.
4. Refuse to pay child extortion payments but say you will directly support your children when you have equal access - equal custody - of them.
Source...