Posted on 08/19/2025 12:19:32 PM PDT by Twotone
Any idea where this took place?
I would like to hear the other side of this, too. This type of legal action isn’t taken without cause.
“This type of legal action isn’t taken without cause.”
Oh yes it does... I have seen it many times...
Forrest Robinson is an independent writer in southern Maine and a proud father. He works as a courier. His writing explores the intersection of technology, philosophy, and politics in a system that increasingly denies us our humanity.
Indeed. People lie in these all the time. But the law is in a tough spot: what if the allegations are true? Here in CA the maximum time until a hearing is three weeks, and that at least helps
It’s pretty much standard procedure when a woman wants a divorce, get a protection order, file for divorce, judge gives everything to woman.
The usual cause for getting a PFA is to gain an advantage in divorce court. It needn't be related to any kind of real threat and often isn't.
Process punishment is also extremely common, as the January 6 political prisoners, and Donald Trump, can tell you.
Impartial justice, especially in family court, is a sick illusion.
Unfortunately there is no need for cause anymore these days, sad.
...of course it is! The family courts have been stacked against men for decades
What if the allegations are false? Does the liar face any consequences for her lies? No? Didn't think so ...
And there's your problem.
A woman who lies in divorce proceedings should get no custody of the children, no share of the property, no alimony, and face felony charges for perjury.
Does that sound right to you?
Sure it is. It’s another form of lawfare, played out in family courts.
There very well may be another side, and it is wise to ask for one before judging.
However, the fact is this type of legal action occurs every day. Its decisions are capricious, arbitrary and unwinnable.
Pretty fancy writing for a courier. Maybe his lawyer wrote most of this.
I don’t doubt it occurred, just your source
Yours was quite the ironic comment. I try to laugh at you so as not to cry. You probably think "hearing the other side" is some great wise principle. Yet you completely missed the point: the subject was punished without his side being heard! The judge/bureaucracy did NOT hear his side! How could you miss something so obvious?
Yes it does all the time. In fact, it is standard practure now when filing for divorce for women to claim this as a negotiating tactic to get the man to pay more child support.
A friend of my wife is in a similar situation. Her husband is a lawyer and a white supremacist (a fairly recent development), and she Vietnamese. They are going through a nasty divorce and he has used every dirty trick in the book to get her to to settle for far less than they are jointly worth. Including getting an order of protection against her. She’s tough though and is fighting him tooth and nail.
One thing that might be done is that if a parent isn’t entitled to custody for at least one day a week, that parent doesn’t have to pay child support or alimony.
Another thing that might be done is that if a parent is accused of criminal child sexual abuse, the accused parent should not have to pay child support or alimony for the average sentence given for such a crime.
Another thing that that might be done is that the person losing custody of a child or gun without having had the ability to previously contest the same should have legal expenses of $1000, plus $200/day up to five, plus $100/day up to 10, plus $50/whole month thereafter, until the child/gun is returned, paid upon attorney request.
IMHO that's true to some extent. Mainly the problem is that the woman is usually the one filing for divorce and already has all of her legal ducks in a row, as well as her avenue of lawfare planned out and maybe even started implementing it, all before the man starts firing back (legally, of course). Perhaps she's started it before he even knows she has been planning a divorce.
For example, when my ex-wife filed for divorce and moved the kids out, my main problem was that by the time it got to court the kids were already moved out and living somewhere else with their mother. As long as the kids weren't being physically abused or exposed to drugs with their mother, the court didn't want to rock the boat. All while I was facing the same retraining order type BS and false accusations of abuse that the article writer described.
If the roles had been reversed and I had been the one to fire the first shots and gone for the jugular (legally) like she did, I may have been the one with the advantage.
And by the way, I wound up getting custody. I truly owe the Lord. There's no way I would have won that without Him.
Lesson, keep whatever toys you have not lost in a boating accident in several locations and don’t talk about your inventory.
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.