Family Court Sets Up Fathers To Lose Their Children, Rights And Future
Mothers initiate most divorce and paternity suits
. Each knows the court will give her the children and a good fraction of the father's weekly income for up to 22 years; and if married, half or more of his property. That assurance is why divorce and paternity suits, and growing fatherlessness dominate our society. It proves the family court denies fathers their constitutional rights and protections - including his right of equal protection. Here's the set-up...While other courts preserve the rights and protection of all litigants until after a trial before ascertaining guilt or liability for the final judgment, family court reverses this process. It begins by immediately abridging a father's unalienable rights (fundamental rights) in a temporary judgment that's devoid of the due process constitutionally required for such deprivations. And then, it continues the suit's legal process by finding vague criteria for assigning guilt and liability to a father to justify those temporarily assigned deprivation of rights.
That may sound like a harsh appraisal with the insinuation of a rigged outcome, but that's operationally what happens. It works that way because the family court uses 'greater good' excuse laws that ignore the fundamental rights of litigants - overwhelmingly fathers. These commendable sounding excuse laws are the 'best interest of the child' and the 'safety of women's restraining order'. I call them 'greater good excuse' laws because they ignore the constitutional protections and fundamental rights our country was formed to secure for each of us. That, of course, makes such laws unconstitutional. Our fundamental rights are the 'greater goods'; nothing is supposed to trump them.
But feminists have instigated and maintained such greater good excuse laws under their phony arguments for requiring special legal privileges for women who are supposedly easily victimized and abused by men - characterized by them as naturally abusive. Women are to be believed and considered abused when they say they're in fear of a man - even without any physical assault. These legal privileges come at the direct expense of the fundamental protections of others - i.e. men - that a free and just society demands.
Feminist social theory, the political clout of women's rights and abuse groups - often funded by government - have perverted long established jurisprudence into what is now called 'feminist jurisprudence'. It employs 'greater good' excuse laws ostensibly to remedy the phony victimhood of women; but of course it's re-engineering social and family structures to empower women at the expense of men's rights. Courts and police are instructed to enforce the greater good excuse laws almost without question and without consideration of long established fundamental rights and protections.
Operationally, such greater good excuse laws allow courts to respond to a mother's claim of fear by immediately denying the most fundamental rights and protections of the father under the now infamous domestic restraining order (RO). That includes throwing him out of his house, denying him access to his children, to his financial holdings, and often imposing child support payments on him for whatever use the mother wants. Only after 10 days or so, will the court consider the father's claims; but rarely does his status significantly change then. That's often because the woman then files a paternity or divorce suit against him.
Fathers hauled into court even without a RO on them are subjected to the 'best interest of the child' greater good excuse law. At the very first 'hearing' the court and the lawyers put enormous pressure on the father to 'agree' to a supposedly temporary order that puts him out of the house with limited access to his children for 'visitation' and ordered to pay child support weekly for whatever use the mother chooses.
Of course, if he doesn't 'agree' to this temporary arrangement, the court simply orders this result. And it doesn't matter that a 'no-fault' divorce is being filed. These deprivations are forced on the fathers immediately. The reason is because the court invokes the 'best interest of the child' excuse. And if a father shows any objections to these deprivations, the mother can use the RO excuse law for alleging abuse against her or his children to further restrict his rights now and in the future.
Determining his financial holdings (if married) and how much money he makes - or should be making - is the essential findings sought. Because, unless the mother is unfit, transferring much of father's wealth (if married) and much of his income for up to 22 years to the mother along with operational control and full parenting of the children is what family court does, day after day.
That's what the 'best interest of the child' greater good excuse achieves. It empowers women at the expense of fathers' rights. That's feminist jurisprudence and the feminist agenda.
by: Shane Flait 7 Christmas Stocking Ideas For Younger Kids 6 Tips For Choosing Child Custody Attorneys 7 Simple Tips For Using A Themes To Decorate Your Child's Room Designer Young Children Trainers Designed To Hold Up Against Winter 7 Creative Options for Every Kid on your Gift List Credit Card for Teens and Financial Responsibility 7 Common Reasons Why Children Tell Lies 7 Proven Weight Loss Tips For Teenagers 5 Ways to Spend Time with Your lovable children 5 Quick Tips to Help Your Child Cope With Anxiety and Fears 5 Tips to Prevent Childhood Obesity Through Fitness 5 Useful Tips For Enjoying A Trip To Sydney With Small Children Rc Cars Have Always Held A Certain Special Place For Children