Posted on 09/08/2003 12:21:38 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
One of the greatest dangers men and fathers face today is the way restraining orders based on false domestic violence allegations are used to drive fathers out of their children's lives. There have been numerous documented cases of decent fathers being arrested for sending their children birthday cards, attending their son's Little League games, or calling their own children at the wrong time of the day. Last night on His Side with Glenn Sacks Craig, a Seattle father of two who was sentenced to three months in jail for returning his ex-wife's phone call, told his story.
According to Massachusetts attorney Gregory Hession, "The restraining order law is one of the most unconstitutional acts ever passed. A court can issue an order that boots you out of your house, never lets you see your children again, and takes your money, all without you even knowing that a hearing took place." Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, writes that restraining orders are doled out "like candy" and that when dealing with domestic violence accusations, "the facts have become irrelevant."
According to Stephen Baskerville of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children , "The real purpose of restraining orders is not so much to prevent violence as to eliminate one parent during divorce proceedings. This is now common knowledge in legal circles....a government analysis found that fewer than half of all restraining orders involved even an allegation of physical violence."
This embattled Seattle father told his story on His Side with Glenn Sacks on KRLA 870 AM in Los Angeles and KKOL AM 1300 in Seattle/Tacoma at 11 PM on Sunday, September 7. Also joining Glenn were family law attorney Lisa Scott and private investigator Roger Montgomery of Fathers' Rights Investigations. To listen to the show archive, go to www.HisSide.com.
Some of the callers included:
1) Henry, who left an angry message on his ex-wife's machine after she sabotaged his court ordered visitation with his daughter, and who was handcuffed, arrested and dragged away from his daughter's basketball game due to a restraining order based on that phone message.
2) Jay, a Seattle father who had a restraining order made against him even though Family Court Services investigators determined that his ex-wife had fabricated the allegations. She was never charged and he has not been allowed to see his son for two years.
3) Denise, whose former daughter-in-law deserted her children and then later kidnaped them.
4) Warren, a Los Angeles father who pointed to the funding gravy train from the Federal "Violence Against Women Act" as the source of many anti-male domestic violence policies.
To learn how restraining orders based on spurious charges of domestic violence are used to separate fathers from their children, see Stephen Baskerville's "No Restraint on Restraining Orders" (Human Events, 8/5/02). To read about a particularly egregious case, see "Father guilty after taking son to hospital" (Northern Territory News, 9/2/03)."
To find out more about police and judicial anti-male bias in domestic violence-related matters, see Glenn's article "Baseball Player's Domestic Violence Arrest Demonstrates How Men are Presumed Guilty in Domestic Disputes" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 8/8/02). To learn more about the ways false accusations of domestic violence are used against men in custody battles and ways we can change this, see Glenn's "Kitaen Plays the 'Woman's Trump Card' Against Finley in Custody Battle" (Cybercast News Service, 5/28/02). Also, listen to the April 13 edition of His Side at Heroic Los Angeles Father Risks Jail Rather than Lose His Daughter.
It is a common tactic here for women to charge the husband with physical abuse and then drop the charges later in exchange for a divorce settlement that is advantageous to the wife. (As if they need the cards stacked in their favor even more.)
She left her first husband and her second one, getting custody of the children plus alimony and child support. She then married a very wealthy one and got him to adopt her children. Her ex's agreed to this to get rid of the high child support. She then left the rich one and has him paying really high child support plus alimony.
She plain and simply has used her looks to rob her husbands.
The government isn't clueless. They made the system to be this way by design. It's all about how much incentive they can give a woman to turn spiteful and so the state can exert more control over more people. Lots of government jobs and business for members of the Bar, who write the laws they benefit from financially.
My former wife obtained a restraining order on me. She kicked me out of a home that was registered in my name. After that she thought nothing of calling me and asking me to do favors for her that would bring me into her presence in clear violation of the restraining order. Clearly the woman had nothing to fear, but the manipulation of the courts was quite successful. It facilitated her abandonment of our 13 and 14 year old children every night and every weekend, as she proceeded to shack up with her boyfriend at another location.
She left her first husband and her second one, getting custody of the children plus alimony and child support. She then married a very wealthy one and got him to adopt her children. Her ex's agreed to this to get rid of the high child support. She then left the rich one and has him paying really high child support plus alimony.
She plain and simply has used her looks to rob her husbands.
Sooooo.....
..... can I get an introduction?
More accurately, she used HER CHILDREN to rob her husbands. The good looks was just what she used to get the men interested. Alimony is small potatos because not many women get it and it's deductable for the men. But children are used to plunder and control men in way that would make Stalin dance a jog of glee.
I long for a day when people who exploit kids like that end up in 1930's style chain gangs, but the people who write the laws use kids as much as anyone else, so it will never happen.
Actually this one might last. They have been married several years and her looks are starting to fade.
Oh, I'm sorry, I have to go now.
Next time, use a flatter-trajectory bullet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.