Uh huh.
And he said it just as he was boinking Monica Lewinsky.
Child custody battles would disappear because there would be nothing in dispute. Divorce rates would plummet. 2-parent families would sky-rocket. Oh, yeah, unhappy marriages would increase. But my understanding is that couples who have problems, yet stay together, almost always work through their problems and end up fairly happy together.
I'm thinking this would lead to greater happiness for most people in our society, and less happiness for only a very small number of people.
Interesting. If the court is not bound by the US Constitution, why do you have to follow what the court says?
As one father reports being told by the chief investigator for the administrator of the courts in New Jersey, investigating a complaint in 1998: "The provisions of the U.S. Constitution do not apply in domestic relations cases since they are determined in a court of equity rather than court of law." A connected rule, known as the "domestic relations exception," prevents federal courts exercising constitutional review over family law cases.
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the whole system of protections does not apply to us. Federal Courts are NOT ALLOWED to step in for judicial review, even if they wanted to. That piece of parchment in the national archives in Washington DC has no legal standing for protecting anyone who meets the two standards of (1) being a parent and (2) having been born with a dominant "Y" chromosome. How do you fight to change a system when we have no rights, no means of legal redress and no Constitutional protections? The Al Qaeda detaininees at Gitmo have more rights than the American father.
Unfortunately, I do have some experience with Family Courts. First advice: if YOU or yours ever get entangled with them or any agency (Social Services, Child Protective, divorce, allegations of any type of violence or abuse) GET A LAWYER... A GOOD ONE. I'll make a couple other comments about this article:
One tool at their disposal is restraining orders, which exclude fathers (or mothers) from their children for months, years, and even life. These orders are routinely issued during divorce proceedings, usually without any evidence of wrongdoing... are doled out "like candy." "Restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply," and "the facts have become irrelevant,"
This is ridiculously accurate. Both of the loving women at different times in my life employed the courts for this. Getting a "temporary restraining order" required ZERO evidence... the more recent one got this because I "yelled at her" two years before the order was issued. That was the primary evidence for which the judge granted a restraining order for 60 days. This was not ever again brought up, but if we had ever gone to trial (separation/divorce is on hold), that would have been one item of evidence _I_ would have been using to say she was a bit nuts.
As it is, the judge has said "in conference" that he will not even consider ordering "joint custody" unless both parties ask for that. So, though we have been working very well together, go to dinner, etc. together, don't holler at each other, make school and medical decisions together, and so on, simply because one of the parties requests sole custody, he will decree that joint custody is out of the question. Guess who has the hammer then, even if the mother has some mental health history...
Professional associations and "revolving doors" connect family courts to executive branch agencies that handle child protection and child support enforcement. These agencies likewise can be said to have a interest in removing children from their fathers. Judges also wield substantial powers of patronage, ...
Not only that, but the judges end up favoring the positions of Dept.Soc.Services, even when they have been demonstrably and admittedly at fault. Judges work with the SS representatives on a daily basis and do not wish to have a tense relationship with them, and therefore favor them regardless of the facts. Needless to say, many of those in the SS are activists who are anti-fatherhood.
What is unprecedented is the commodity in contention. Children serve as the tool or even weapon in disputes among contending parties, not only parents but government officials. Control of children brings control over adults...
ADULTS, not just MEN!!! I know a man who was falsely accused of abuse, and DSS told his wife that if she did not join forces with them against him, SS would take the children away from HER, too. There was no evidence, nothing the children said or did to lead to this case... just an SS vendetta. Do not say they have no power to do it; you're wrong if you think that. As a result, the guy had to leave his home, and children, and was under restriction for the three years it took to get the facts out in a court.
Family Courts, where you do not face your accuser and are not tried by a jury of your peers, are the most dangerous political institution in this country and are totally out of control.
Humbly submitted: