Judge’s Apology to Children Lays Out Logic of Family Court

by W.F. Price on June 13, 2012

An Australian judge, Tom Altobelli, took the unusual step of writing to two children who were taken from their father to apologize for giving their mother sole custody, and stripping their father of any visitation rights.

The mother had claimed sexual abuse after her own mother consulted a psychic, who said the daughter was being molested.

Judge Altobelli found that the allegations were false, but declared that he thought that the mother truly believed them. This is possible. Self-delusion to attain some goal is maddeningly common in divorce.

Because he thought she truly believed the father was a molester, Altobelli decided it would be cruel to her to force her to give the father visitation rights, and since she was the “better parent” (code for mother), she was granted custody.

One of the insane things I encountered during divorce was the idea that joint custody is often held to be feasible only when there is cooperation on the part of the parents. Fortunately, this idea is not enshrined in law in Washington state – although it is unofficial policy for social workers – but apparently it is where Altobelli’s court has jurisdiction (Australia). The problem with this view is that it gives the custodial parent (typically the mother) an incentive to create conflict if they don’t want to share the children’s visitation. Fathers simply cannot win if the mother puts her foot down.

I have compared family law judges to butchers before, and not to cast aspersions on them, but rather to describe their job. Their job involves cutting up a family into so many pieces. They are not paid to preserve families, but rather to dismember them. I invite any people who doubt this to spend a few afternoons in family court and see for themselves.

The real problem in Western family law is that when you go in for a hearing, there’s a lot of uncertainty about how the job will be done. Will so-and-so get the ribs and brisket? Who gets the hamhocks? The sirloin? And so on and so forth.

Altobelli decided he might as well simply cut off the head and leave the rest intact. It may have been out of laziness, frustration, or simply the knowledge that the mother would continue to pester the court and ruin the ex-husband’s life through constant accusations and litigation. Perhaps he felt he was doing everyone a favor. From one perspective, this may actually have been the case. As the law stands today, an ex wife does have that power.

However, there was something about the sorry case that bothered Altobelli’s conscience enough to motivate him to make an apology to two fatherless children. Perhaps he really did feel some guilt about it.

Even if he did, what bothers me most about his letter is his own evasion of responsibility. He says that the mother is a good parent, writing:

I knew your mum would look after you really well. I decided not to make your mum let you see your dad, even though your dad wanted this very much. I thought it would make things harder for you if I had done this.

Essentially, he’s blaming the mother, and saying that although he didn’t think there was anything terrible about their father, he wouldn’t “make” her do anything she didn’t want to do.

For all the anger at wives and how awful they can be in divorce cases, the fact is that wives aren’t “making” men leave their families. Judges are. Policemen are. Social workers are. And this judge just admitted that men who haven’t done anything wrong can also be made to get out of their children’s lives.

But perhaps the title of the letter speaks for itself.

“Sorry I Took Daddy”

Yes, Mr. Altobelli, you should be.

One small step.

{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }

Traveller June 13, 2012 at 14:51

Of course apologizing to the father is out of question.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 82 Thumb down 1
Okrahead June 13, 2012 at 14:53

Two thoughts:
1) “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” The “family court” (as if) judges truly are “playing god.” They play with the destiny of children, just as this judge admits in his letter. If not in this life, then certainly in the next they will answer for their crimes. If the answer if not in this life, however, more the shame to all the rest of us.
2) The judge admitted that he based his decision on the delusional beliefs of a woman whose only evidence was in consulting with a “psychic.” Yet even though this woman is, by the judges own admission, delusional he still rules that she is the better parent. Thus we see modern “family law” in all its splendor: A woman may be delusional and irresponsible, yet she is automatically the better parent because she has a uterus. We are not ruled by law, we are ruled by estrogen, and it is well past time to put an end to it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0
Troll King June 13, 2012 at 14:53

Well, that’s fucked up. Is it really even that much of a secret anymore? These people, judges, police, exwives/babymommas, are so powerful and untouchable that they rarely seem to hide behind “the best interests of the children” and other excuses anymore.

I suppose that is a good thing. It means fewer and fewer men choosing to be around women, which is evident by the hysterical howls of “manchildren”, “commitmentphobia”, “where are all the good men”, and etc. from all the single and childless, and often times divorced and single mother by choice, women.

So how long until we get our act together and set up tribunals to bring justice against collaborators like Altobelli?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0
Atlas June 13, 2012 at 15:02

@Troll King
Wasn’t PAN banned for advocating that very idea (setting up tribunals and bringing justice to these collaborators)? I am not trying to be a troll myself, but I thought that was the reason why he was banned. Please let me know if I am wrong in this.

That being that, I like the idea of making these people responsible for their actions. Of course, I think removing your permission and consent is a good first step.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price June 13, 2012 at 15:08

@Troll King
Wasn’t PAN banned for advocating that very idea (setting up tribunals and bringing justice to these collaborators)? I am not trying to be a troll myself, but I thought that was the reason why he was banned. Please let me know if I am wrong in this.

-Atlas

Peter was banned for bringing personal disputes onto this site, which created some very obnoxious problems for me.

Mr. J June 13, 2012 at 15:19

The WHOLE state-of-affairs exists because most men have had their head up their @SS for 50 years.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
!!SPARTA!! June 13, 2012 at 15:21

Can people just go to a random family court hearing to watch how it goes?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price June 13, 2012 at 15:27

Can people just go to a random family court hearing to watch how it goes?

-!!SPARTA!!

Of course they can. At least here in the US. I think this should be mandatory for all young men considering marriage.

I’d recommend sitting through two mornings or afternoons (generally 8AM-11:30AM and 12:30PM-4PM) to get a feel for it. Once you’ve seen about 20 hearings you’ve got a fair idea of how it goes.

keyster June 13, 2012 at 15:45

Is it really even that much of a secret anymore?

Yes, it very much is.
The average person has NO IDEA how men get f*cked in family court.
All they hear is the heroic mother’s side; how “he’s not in the children’s lives” or “he abandoned us a few years ago”, etc. and so on. HE’S the villian, he doesn’t get a chance to tell his story. He’s a phantom of sorts, just out there somewhere victimizing his children from afar.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 1
gwallan June 13, 2012 at 16:01

Altobelli is no Solomon.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Georice81 June 13, 2012 at 16:10

This judge reminds me of a similar judge from 2000 years ago named Pontius Pilate. He clearly saw an innocent man standing in front of him but the crowds roared and wanted this man crucified. So he washed his hands and gave Him up without a fight.

This judge is a coward.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 50 Thumb down 1
TiredGuy June 13, 2012 at 16:11

This judge should be removed from office and executed. No doubt about it. Courts are supposed to be about facts, but now the word of some dubious mystic trumps truth?

This is probably why each feminist government is so anti-gun. They don’t want someone to provide some quick and permanent justice. I was talking to a lawyer about the punishment for murder vs the punishment for divorce, and we both agreed that it is now getting to the stage where murder is quickly becoming the best option.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 36 Thumb down 22
J June 13, 2012 at 16:17

Great catch Price. In my case, I wish it was not so slow. If you saw my view on Male Birth Control, and some of my evidence, that alone would bring the whole thing crashing down.

Governement would realize that future taxpayers are not being born.

Women would realize how lonely they will really bein ten years.

Younger girls would realize that there may be nothing they could do to entice a young man to marry them in the future, they have their adult female members to thank largely. They will be ignored, and tooled on a regualr basis. Even though ti may not have been their direct fault, the war declared on us for Title IV funding was not ours either.

Lastly, Title IV funding needs to be screamed from the roof tops on every male blogger at least once a month! When people see how it directly and indirectly affects us through the Social Security act, and how it plays out in tax dollars. They will realize it was not just the housing market.

I am working on several posts now, that is one of them!

They got us the world over. I never saw it coming! My ex knew, my teachers, hell even my parents. I sort of knew, but I had no idea the monstrous size of it all!

Sadly, it is all about the money. The fact that a judge in Australia had to acknowledge a man and his children amidst his busy schedule of “wealth” raising at the family’s expense is a good sign.

It will never be enough for me though!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
Poester99 June 13, 2012 at 16:32

The only difference between this and other cases is that the judge had a momentary fit of conscience. I’m almost sure it’ll cause him no end of grief and I’m also fairly certain he won’t do THAT again. By THAT I don’t mean denying access to a loving father, I mean admitting that it is wrong.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Poester99 June 13, 2012 at 16:43

TiredGuy, you sure “sound” like a caricature, sure you’re not a troll?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Eric June 13, 2012 at 16:55

Georgice81:
The legend was that Pilate went insane with guilt afterwards. Maybe this judge is headed in the same direction.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Notbuyingit June 13, 2012 at 17:01

@TiredGuy

I Sure Sympathies with you & our cause (MRA) but please do not give these tyrannical feminazi’s legal ammunition to persecute us men,Sir

When you say things like that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
Ethical June 13, 2012 at 17:10

Great article. The maddening thing about the system is that judges write all kinds of books about what’s wrong with family law, judges make all kinds of recommendations on how judges should be given more discretion so the system will be more fair, but judges NEVER point the finger at themselves. Judges already have so much discretion to decide cases at their whim. They effectively can’t be disciplined so are above the law. The biases of white knight judges, and the judges unwillingness to be bound by consistent and fair rules rather than their biases are what makes the family court system so truly dangerous to men in the West. And as keyster says, all this goes on invisibly. People like Troll King may feel that men are aware, but in speaking to a lot of young men I am certain a great many are not. There is such a blackout in the popular media on these men’s rights issues that many men have no clue whatsoever what’s in store for them in divorce court and are surprised when they meet up with insane injustice. It’s almost like society is fattening young men for the marriage butcher, and conspiring to make sure no tapes of the slaughterhouse get out to scare men away.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Eric June 13, 2012 at 17:15

Tired Guy:
It might be ‘justice’ but you’re forgetting the sequel. Getting tried and hanged isn’t going to accomplish much.

Better to help men avoid getting trapped in the system in the first place.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Traveler June 13, 2012 at 17:16

And so the wheel turns, and yet another man has his children removed from his life. (Based on “psychic” evidence, nonetheless!) This just goes to show that people really DON’T care what is best for the children or family…the very fact that the judge saw how delusional the mother was should have meant custody to the father. Sigh…yet another reason to remain single.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
maxsnafu June 13, 2012 at 17:20

@notbuyingit:

Nice guys finish last.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
AfOR June 13, 2012 at 17:38

As usual….. AfOR says…

FOLLOW THE FUCKING MONEY

which option maximizes the number of noses in the trough, and how long they can stay there?

1/ custody to psycho skank ho mummy, no visitation for daddy

2/ custody “shared” meaning daddy gets to see the kids one weekend in four

3/ Custody given to daddy, basically never happens unless mummy is in prison for child abuse / drug dealing or declared mentally ill to the point where she needs supervision.

PS in the UK the Secret Family Courts are just that, secret.

No outsiders present
No press or reporting
No participants allowed to talk about the case
No names used on the Court listings, Smith v Jones is listed as S v J a child.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
td9red June 13, 2012 at 17:52

This isn’t even really about the wacky mother. It’s about the Judge, himself. Having found that the The father did not abuse the child, he could have ordered visitation. When the mother refused he could, fine her, jail her, remove custody, or do a number of other things. Don’t believe that Judges don’t have the power to punish people who interfere with visitation. They do, they just don’t exercise it. They can very easily jail or fine custodial parents who do not comply with orders. This is not only a problem in the family court, its a problem in civil court as well. Every lawyer is aware of the Orders they an simply ignore and the ones they need to pay attention to. Things will only improve when Judges have less discretion. Judges tend to follow the law, only when they absolutely have to. Such as when there is a mandatory penalty that they must impose for a particular behavior. Laws need to include mandatory penalties for disobeying Orders. Something like, “the second time the custodial parent fails to advise the other parent that the child was treated in the emergency room will result in the custodial parent spending 3 weekends in jail. The other parent will have the child those 3 weekends.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8
Ted June 13, 2012 at 17:59

“Wasn’t PAN banned for advocating that very idea (setting up tribunals and bringing justice to these collaborators)? ”

I always thought that PAN’s idea of parallel juries had some possibilities, because it’s an attention-drawing thing, like dressing up as superheroes. The juries could parallel real cases – all names changed of course, and maybe several cases could be combined into one mock case – and then issue just verdicts (in contrast to the real results). Any attention given to the mock juries would also draw attention to the actual dismal reality.

It would have to be very carefully and competently handled, and made clear at every point that these were *mock* juries.

PAN however came across as some sort of homicidal lunatic; in his hands it would have been a total disaster.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Notbuyingit June 13, 2012 at 18:09

@maxsnafu

Nice guys finish last,

Who said anything about being nice, metaphorically speaking I rather blow up the tank & everybody in it by climbing the turret then act tough in front of it.

Many tough angry(not nice) guys, are in jail or dead. :) :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Aservant June 13, 2012 at 18:24

@ Georice81

Excellent analogy……….Christ was sacrificed to appease the Jews…….

The more things change, the more they stay the same……

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
Nehalem June 13, 2012 at 18:36

How is their delusional mother possibly the more fit parent?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 June 13, 2012 at 18:51

I started public activism around 1978, and became very active for ten years, starting in 1984. It has been a very frustrating time as such, with men fighting and fighting rather than cooperating.

But, in the last five years I have seen great gains in the Men’s movement, in spite of certain individuals who claim we are all do-nothing losers.

It is the extreme marriage strike. You know, the marriage strike a well known and otherwise brilliant MRA insists is not happening. The really great part of the marriage strike is no cooperation is needed, and millions of men are participating one at a time. No leaders to be destroyed.

The open war on MRA/MRM is absolute proof the marriage strike is working.

As Ghandi said: First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.

For around forty years, they ignored the Men’s movement. A few years ago, they started laughing at us, calling us Peter Pan’s and talking about how we couldn’t get laid and no woman would have us.

Not that long ago, they accused us of being haters, and started saying we belong in jail. When they could, they got our boards shut down, which simply drove boards overseas. Now, we are declared hate groups. There will be more, They are definitely worried enough to fight us, while pretending we are doing nothing.

The long delay was, over 45 years we had absolutely nothing we could take away from women to cause them to negotiate with us. You cannot ever negotiate with no power at all. Men were jumping into marriage like lemmings into the ocean, so women had no reason to pay us any attention.

The marriage strike means we are taking away marriage from millions of women. Of course, part of their fight is claiming it is women who are turning away from marriage, a bald-faced lie. But, even some MRA’s cannot see through that lie.

Oh, sure, there are women who claim they have no interest in marriage. This sort of anecdote means nothing, because there always were some women who didn’t want to get married. Just another “fight” tactic trying to demoralize the Men’s movement.

At one time, there was a lot of whining from the 30′s dearies, that men did not want to make a commitment to them. Part of the fight mode is those articles have stopped, part of the psyops program, to make us think there is no pain among the women. Don’t you believe it. That is the reason for the angry attacks on the MRM, to try to convince us our time is wasted. Our time is not wasted. Women are in a big hurt.

In any case, while I am not sure what a win will look like, every man who avoids marriage is another man who is not separated from his kids, nor tossed in jail for losing his job.

Here is the marriage rates for an entire century:

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1922 99 (found on Web)
1960 73.5
1961 72.2
1962 71.2
1963 73.4
1964 74.6
1965 75.0
1966 75.6
1967 76.4
1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9
2007 39.2 (Rutgers 2009)
2008 37.4 (Rutgers 2009)
2009 36 (UVA 2010; project moved from Rutgers)
2010 34.2 Unverified estimate from Pew

I know I have posted this in the past, but it never hurts to remind everyone just how big a marriage strike there is.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
Anonymous age 70 June 13, 2012 at 18:53

Oops sorry only 90 years. My bad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
freebird June 13, 2012 at 18:58

We should watch what we say here.
I have a strong feeling lists are being made.Big brother is watching.Some moderation please.I know that’s odd coming from myself.But I do have that creeping hunch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
freebird June 13, 2012 at 19:02

“In any case, while I am not sure what a win will look like, every man who avoids marriage is another man who is not separated from his kids, nor tossed in jail for losing his job.”
God Bless ya brother.
It is sweet living drama and court free.
Time to focus on living the good life woman-free.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel June 13, 2012 at 19:14

@Anonymous age 70

The National Marriage Project has published the marriage rate for 2010. It’s on page 61 of their 2011 report. Their number? 34.9.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Traveler June 13, 2012 at 19:22

@Anonymous age 70

Yes indeed, the antimarriage movement is working. Just last week I had a discussion with a female customer who was complaining that it seemed all the males she dated were “commitment-phobes” and it was really wearing her down (poor thing!). I commented that she could do one of two things;
1. Put more into her next relationship so that the financial, emotional and sexual was a 50/50 split rather than her typical 30/70 split (she dates ‘daddy’ types usually). Or,
2. She could do as I do, and stay single but become a independent, financially/emotionally stable person who can rely on herself instead of her next “meal ticket”, and thus gain respect.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
Traveler June 13, 2012 at 19:32

As I’m sure everyone can guess, she said that neither of those options appealed to her…she was positive that she was simply not dating “real” men, and one would approach her eventually. I find it so infuriating that so many of my sex are still waiting for Prince Charming to rescue them from real life. It’s as though they believe marriage will solve everything.
It is good to see that other women are seeing that men are staying single more and more, but it will probably take them quite a while to figure out why. I appreciate and support the menfolk who are GTOW, as I’ve embraced that lifestyle as well…but I do hope no one is holding their breath that it will cause feminists to think about their actions. We can dream, but it is they who need to wake up!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Eric June 13, 2012 at 20:25

Martel:
I don’t have the figures handy, but the only marriage demographic that has been consistently increasing in the US is between American men and foreign-born wives. It’s been stable between immigrant men and women. I wonder if those numbers excluded those marriages, how low the percentage would be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Eric June 13, 2012 at 20:33

Freebird:
You’re not the only one who’s had this hunch. Notice how over the last few months the Opposition has slowed down on its typical ridicule of the MRM, but switched to more aggressive language and calls for action. There’s also been a noticeable increase in troll attacks and such things.

Something’s in the wind.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Eric June 13, 2012 at 20:38

Nehalem:
I don’t know about Australian law, but the testimony of a psychic doesn’t seem like it should carry a lot of legal weight. Some lawyers can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never heard of anything like this in an American court.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
tiredofitall June 13, 2012 at 20:40

“How is their delusional mother possibly the more fit parent?” – Nehalem

Duh…she has the vagina. Didn’t you know that those things come factory installed with superpowers and a fashionable cape?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Troll King June 13, 2012 at 20:41

@ atlas

PAN was interesting and funny to read, most of the time or so I thought. That said, he has some really whacky ideas and preferred to rant and yell at people instead of debating them. I agreed with some of his stuff but far from all of it. He advocated all sorts of things, things that make/made him look more like a false flag or a lunatic than a MRA.

I suppose tribunals, in their traditional military sense, are not what I have in mind. That being said, I fail to see how much of the family court is actually legal?

IDK, I haven’t ever had to deal with it but I think I will go down later this week or next week and take a look. I wonder if I would get in trouble for video taping it? Courtrooms are supposed to be open to the press but there are certain cases where judges bar journalists and citizens from hearing. From everything I have read and heard about it sounds like family courts are a separate court system and legal system from our main legal system.

Then again, we have moved away from asserting our rights while the government protecting those rights that we assert to a centralized communitarian model where courts decide what rights individuals have instead of protecting rights.

As far as Keysters comment goes, I am not convinced that people don’t know about family courts. Women obviously know A LOT about family courts and I think men are catching on. The MSM may not report on it but news does still travel by word of mouth and the destruction of the family at the hands of feminist family courts is so large that it simply can’t be covered up.

I have met hundreds of men who have complained about it. If I had only met a dozen or so then I might would still be tempted to believe some of the feminist lies like, “family court is biased towards mothers, men get custody if they simply act, courts award abusive men custody all the time and the abusers use children as weapons against mothers…PAS doesn’t exist…etc.” After you meet a few dozen average guys, especially younger guys in your age group, with the same stories then it becomes increasingly hard to not believe them and that isn’t even taking into account having a friend or two go through feminist hell.

Anyways, the system will fail whether we do anything or not. It simply isn’t sustainable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Nehalem June 13, 2012 at 20:53

Eric:”I don’t know about Australian law, but the testimony of a psychic doesn’t seem like it should carry a lot of legal weight.”

They would seem reasonable. I would think presenting in court would be a clear reason for deeming the mother unfit. In fact if someone presented that as evidence I would tend to believe they were making things up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
TiredGuy June 13, 2012 at 20:57

@Poester99

Sorry if I came across as a troll, (just read some of my other comments on the other threads, usually I’m firm but fair), but I should probably put the conversation into context.

There has been a recent murder case close to where I attend an external university course, where it looks like the husband has decided to murder his wife, rather than go through a divorce. The lawyer and I were figuring out how long this man would be in jail for murdering his wife, as opposed to how much he would have to pay through the divorce courts, could he pay it, etc.

Now for a murder you will get approx. ten to twenty years imprisonment, where as a divorce with three young children in the picture would give him fifteen to twenty years of child support…

However, he is the owner of a failing business owner – so knowing the courts, they would calculate his child support on the assumption of a healthy business – thus giving him no choice but to go to jail for non-payment. And non-payment of child support can land you in jail for a lot longer than murder in some cases. Which is why I can see more murder cases happening.

As for the judge being shot – judges in Australia have repeatedly been busted for committing crimes and yet they have immunity. I don’t see why they should, surely they should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

Here is the link to the case we were discussing:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/gerard-baden-clay-faces-a-three-year-wait-to-face-court-over-the-murder-of-his-wife-alison-baden-clay/story-e6frf7jo-1226394951146

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn June 13, 2012 at 21:34

ALL adult men should encourage a man considering marriage to first sit through two weeks of Divorce Court. Even better, simply make it a right of passage for high school males.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Robert June 13, 2012 at 22:57

I’m just across the border from you in Vancouver. I sometimes supply homeless casual labour to construction sites and check some guys through B.C. Courts On-line, including divorces. The system is near-impenetrable but allows the judiciary to claim Transparency because a skilled operator can often find something with effort. Kind of like a shady accountant who files Smith under Jones but can quickly produce Smith or Jones while adding ‘Sheesh, ya gotta learn how to run the system – lucky I’m here to help.’ I have a hunch that more Family cases are being sealed – Transparency is commonly denied with the justification that ‘airing the dirty laundry in public does no one any good.’ For example, in Feb. 2011 I got my tenant’s divorce judgement in a flash. Today, that same search path leads to ‘Record sealed.’ I can still get it by going in through another door, and on a Canada-wide data base, because I’m skilled, but the neophyte user cannot. The court record confirmed what my tenant said – the ex is a shrew, to use clean language. My hunch is that, cumulatively, many shrews have been shown as such and word has filtered down, through ‘judges’ discretion’, to ‘Seal it/Cut the transparency – too many shrews, not enough bastards.’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt June 13, 2012 at 23:24

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2057786/Do-fathers-longer-ANY-rights-Amanda-Platell.html

“”It is these types of dastardly men, being abject failures in private enterprise, whom seek to finance, promote, surborn, endorse and enforce institutional misandry and the institutional hatred of males in its different guises as well paid public officials … …; because it is only via the public treasury and the public account, that they are able to find suitable avenues of expression and recompense for their most despicable thoughts and desires.””

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18412396

“”The thing is, so many public sector agents, jobbers, employees and state workers rely and depend on the creation and management of bastardy, fatherlesness and attendant social problems to justify themselves. How else would these parasitic rent seekers and careerists otherwise be able to access the public treasury on which they fatten themselves and expand their totalitarian grip ?””

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
finndistan June 14, 2012 at 02:03

So, grams goes to a psychic and hears sexual abuse
Mom hears from grams about sexual abuse
Mom goes to court,
Court finds either mom, or gram, or psychic is lying.
Court finds, if mom is not lying, she is deluded, living in a fantasy world of her creation that somehow will help her get sole custody of the kid.

Court gives custody to mom, a visitation ban to dad.

Is there nothing a woman can do wrong?

Now imagine you are in front of this judge for a rape charge by a woman who says you raped her in New York, when you clearly were celebrating your birthday with 35 other people in Tokio, but she believes you raped her.

“I am sorry to have sent you to jail for 25 years, but it would be unfair to her to let you go free since she clearly is fucked up in the head”….

You effing kidding me? This judge still sits on a law chair?

—–

Finland, the land of equality, the land of equal custody (…90% of the time it is the mother, even with shared parenting):

Baby from a one night stand. Dad holds steady job, makes good money, mom a bartender in one of the shittiest bars. Custody goes to mom, dad fights for three years after the baby is born, but gets custody only after the mom has been admitted to the hospital for the nth time for drug overuse, and not talking about weed or ‘rooms. That’s what it takes.

Another one: Divorce proceedings, the custody of the 7 year old girl is likely to go to the father, only because the mother has a history of being institutionalized because of mental issues. In the meantime, girl stays with mom. Great idea. Mom realizes that custody will go to the father, so puts a pillow to the sleeping girls’ head and pulls the trigger. She gets no prison sentence, the girl will be buried in the location the mother wants, not the location the father wants, mother was present in the funeral, etc.

A woman can do no wrong.

If she does, punish the first man you find.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
wobbegong June 14, 2012 at 03:03

Interesting, just found out that my friend who was taken to court by nasty ex who implied that he was molesting his youngest daughter (he has 3) had this judge in court. The case wasn’t about any molestation allegations this time, she had 60% custody and wanted to take more so as to squeeze more cash out of him. My friend defended himself and the judge threw the mother’s case out of court and told her he did not want to see her in court again. She spent 40g trying to screw him over. Maybe it was my affidavit that clinched it :-)

This was 3 years ago I wonder why he’s doing this now? Following orders? My friend believed him a relatively reasonable judge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 04:17

Here is the original article. You might have to sign up to see the original article and photos but it is worth it.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/true-crime-scene/sorry-i-took-daddy-judge/story-fnat7dhc-1226386802260

Interestingly, of 74 comments, 73 appear to be for the father and against the mother and courts.

Note that the innocent puppy dog photo of evildoer judge Tom Altobelli bears a strong resemblance to some of Joseph Mengele’s “friendly” and “sweet” self-made propaganda photos.

Here is the story as spun by ABC.

Magistrate praised for kids letter on custody call.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-07/magistrate-praised-for-letter-to-kids-on-custody-call/4057526?section=nsw

Notice the Magistrate is being praised. Praised by who? Another evildoer (judge) of course. Certainly not by the general population. This is the old “expert” trick of propaganda.

My analysis:
What I see here is a “limited hang-out” propaganda operation. The evildoers smell the anger in the general public (73 out of 74 comments are about as statistically significant as you can get). The evildoers are exposing a little bit of filthy laundry and at the same time attempting to justify and exonerate the family court system and judges.

In the coming decades, it is possible the general public will connect the dots and realize the magnitude of the crimes that have been committed against fathers, children, society, and even mothers (though mothers are too stupid too realize it) by the evildoers who dismember families and sever children from their fathers.

This news story is a clever and subtle propaganda piece intended to redirect and dissipate the general public’s hostile energy that might otherwise be used to prosecute and execute the evildoers; or might be used to commit vigilante-style justice against the evildoers.

A secondary purpose of this piece might be to capture the IP addresses of potential “domestic terrorists” who might think there is something wrong happening in the family courts.

In my opinion, the evildoers did a good job on the piece. Joseph Goebbels would be proud. What do you think?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 04:31

What is happening now in America is that a few men and fathers are now more aware than they were in the past of just how rotten things are. There is no revolution brewing. In fact, it looks like things are getting worse.

Here is what might happen in America in the future: a tighter merging of the divorce industrial complex (DIC) and the prison
industrial complex (PIC). The result will be that men who cannot pay their child support will be locked up and forced to work at 14 cents per hour until they pay their debt. If they cannot pay, their organs will be auctioned off.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/defense-industrial-base-defense-budget-defense/3/7/2011/id/33198?
page=full

http://www.alternet.org/world/151732/21st-century_slaves%3A_how_corporations_exploit_prison_labor/?page=entire

On the other hand, things may actually change for the better in Australia because the population is smaller, only 20 million, and Australian men are more united than we American men are. I don’t think Australian men tolerate as much as we American men do, maybe because Australian men are not as marginalized as we Ameican men are. I can say these things because I am a marginalized American man.

Below I have put together some practices of the American evildoers (divorce industrial complex and prison industrial complex). The current practices support the thesis that things are moving towards a tighter merger of DIC and PIC.

Usery: This is a table of child support interest rates. Notice “published” interest rates as high as 15%. Remember, the reason why child support payments are so high and interest rates are so high is to create a slave for life.
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art200301.html

Debt slavery: Here is an article describing how a judge tells men to work at a waste removal company. The judge is probably getting kickbacks. The article also describes how dads must pay for their own incarceration.from the company for supplying cheap labor.
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/135948413.html

Extortion and racketeering: This is a story about a brilliant nuclear physicist whose life was destroyed by Maximus–the
notorious private child support collection agency.
http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-38.htm
http://www.maximus.com/ Notice the creepy photos on the Maximus website.

Bribery: Describes how Minnesota Governor vetoed shared parenting bill because of the “influence” (bribes) of divorce lawyers. Remember: shared parenting = no money for lawyers.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/05/24/joint-custody-bill-veto/
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/06/07/mn-governors-veto-of-shared-parenting-bill-thwarted-the-will-of-the-people/

Slavery, kidnapping, theft: Describes how states want to separate fathers from children so they can receive incentive payments from the federal government.
http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/the-federal-scheme-to-destroy-father-child-relationships/
Here is a quote:

“children are being separated from their fathers by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of the father’s loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect”

Here is a video:
Carol Rhodes exposes child support system. Must watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOC58c-Ibdk

The incentive program was going away, but now it is back.
http://www.ffis.org/node/648

Last but not least–murder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TbYY7_XNIc

http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/testimonials/armstrong-brian.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 05:56

Here is something related. This is a new documentary called “Dear daddy” and it is a very dangerous piece of propaganda. It features six girls who write letters to their absent fathers. Once again we must always realize that it is mostly evil women and evil judges and lawyers who are responsible for absent fathers and broken children, yet the fathers are still blamed.

http://theurbandaily.com/1925025/new-documentary-dear-daddy-explores-the-pains-of-growing-up-without-a-father/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 06:23

“So how long until we get our act together and set up tribunals to bring justice against collaborators like Altobelli?”

Yes, they deserve prosecution and punishment for crimes against humanity. Dismembering families and severing children from their fathers in order to make money is sick and evil. Then they top it off by blaming fathers as the perpetrators. In my opinion the punishment should be severe because not only are fathers and children destroyed, but so is society.

Depression, suicide, murder-suicide, crime, loneliness, academic under achievement, poverty are just some of the effects of their actions.

The problem is American men are already so marginalized, they are unable to do anything that would bring justice to the perpetrators. Dreaming of targeted eliminations of judges and lawyers is just escapism. The American Divorce Industrial Complex is much more entrenched than in other countries.

We American men need help from some outside force. Maybe the Muslims or Chinese or someone else. Sharia courts would help because fathers get a much better deal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Opus June 14, 2012 at 06:42

What is the translation into English of Altobelli? Low War?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Hf June 14, 2012 at 07:25

“This is possible. Self-delusion to attain some goal is maddeningly common in divorce.”

This is maddeningly common in women in general.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Opus June 14, 2012 at 07:32

I think I had better come to the Defence of Altobelli as I believe I can see how he came to his decision. Not that I know anything about Australian Law, but as Peter Andrew Colon Nolan is not here to guide us (as he so ably did with his exposition of Magna Carta) I will attempt to do so on the assumption that the principles involved are little different from English Law.

The primary concern for the Judge is always the best interests of the Children, but once Custody is awarded (as so often) to the Mother everything else flows therefrom. It is then, in this case, not in the Children’s best interests to see their Father because of the effect such an action will have upon the Mother (which will then have knock on effects on the Children). This seems to me to be not dissimilar to those cases where the divorcing parties are of different faiths, and the Father is kept away before because of a suspected influence on the children significantly detrimental to the children via the Mother in terms of her religious beliefs.

I found that divorcing wives have not a good word to say for their husbands, and sometimes regard their husbands as very cunning and dangerous people. I had yet to come across a matter like the above case however – so it is very rare.

The fault is not I suspect Altobelli’s who doubtless had to wrestle long and hard (as witness his letter) with the correct decision so as to comply with Australian law but the Law itself, which effectively allowed the Custody decision to be made not on facts but on delusional nonsense – if only such a concept could be applied to civil litigation where I know for certain (my psychic said so) that you owe me a vast sum of money! It is as if in the Middle-Ages a woman found not guilty of Withchcraft were nevertheless condemned to be burned on the grounds that although she was innocent, allowing her her freedom would be prejudicial to the villagers because of their fears, and thus she was burned.

The problem is the granting of Divorce to married people with children, but if it is to be granted, default custody to the Man would surely cure the State of these miserable matrimonial cases by pulling the woman into line and prevent her from engaging in her solipsistic fantasies and destructive behaviour – as they nearly all do. [Futrelle can now cherry pick that last sentence]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 08:07

New in the UK. Looks like the authorities swept a breadcrumb off the table to poor dog UK fathers. The reason: UK child support CSA is such a failure and fathers won’t pay unless they get access.

“Mothers who deny fathers access to the couple’s children after a break-up could be jailed”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158490/Mothers-deny-fathers-access-couple-s-children-break-jailed.html#ixzz1xmRY7kQD

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 14, 2012 at 08:12

What is happening now in America is that a few men and fathers are now more aware than they were in the past of just how rotten things are. There is no revolution brewing. In fact things look like they are getting worse.

Here is what might happen in America in the future: a tighter merging of the divorce industrial complex (DIC) and the prison
industrial complex (PIC). The result will be that men who cannot pay their child support will be locked up and forced to work

at 14 cents per hour until they pay their debt. If they cannot pay, their organs will be auctioned off.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/defense-industrial-base-defense-budget-defense/3/7/2011/id/33198?page=full

http://www.alternet.org/world/151732/21st-century_slaves%3A_how_corporations_exploit_prison_labor/?page=entire

On the other hand, things may actually change for the better in Australia because the population is smaller, only 20 million, and Australian men are more united than we American men are. I don’t think Australian men tolerate as much as we American men

do, maybe because Australian men are not as marginalized as we Ameican men are. I can say these things because I am a marginalized American man.

Below I have put together some practices of the American evildoers (divorce industrial complex and prison industrial complex). The current practices support the thesis that things are moving towards a tighter merger of DIC and PIC.

Usery: This is a table of child support interest rates. Notice “published” interest rates as high as 15%. Remember, the reason why child support payments are so high and interest rates are so high is to create a slave for life.
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art200301.html

Debt slavery: Here is an article describing how a judge tells men to work at a waste removal company. The judge is probably getting kickbacks. The article also describes how dads must pay for their own incarceration.from the company for supplying cheap labor.
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/135948413.html

Extortion and rackateering: This is a story about a brilliant nuclear physicist whose life was destroyed by Maximus–the notorious private child support collection agency.
http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-38.htm
http://www.maximus.com/ Notice the creepy photos on the Maximus website.

Bribery: Describes how Minnesota Governor vetoed shared parenting bill because of the “influence” (bribes) of divorce lawyers. Remember: shared parenting = no money for lawyers.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/05/24/joint-custody-bill-veto/
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/06/07/mn-governors-veto-of-shared-parenting-bill-thwarted-the-will-of-the-people/

Slavery, kidnapping, theft: Describes how states want to separate fathers from children so they can receive incentive payments from the federal government.
http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/the-federal-scheme-to-destroy-father-child-relationships/
Here is a quote:

“children are being separated from their fathers by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of the father’s loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect”

Here is a video:
Carol Rhodes exposes child support system. Must watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOC58c-Ibdk

The incentive program was going away, but now it is back.
http://www.ffis.org/node/648

Last but not least murder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TbYY7_XNIc
http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/testimonials/armstrong-brian.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ahamkara June 14, 2012 at 08:21

I encountered the “no confict at all costs” logic in my own divorce. I was told by my lawyer that judges never grant 50/50 custody unless both parents agree on it. If it gets to a custody evaluation with social workers and such, they’re going to pick a parent for primary custody, and the other parent gets visitation at best.

I was fortunate in that my ex-wife relented and agreed to 50/50 before it got to this. Conventional wisdom was that she was the one who was going to get picked.

But again, this “conventional wisdom” came from my lawyer. In any case, I wasn’t going to roll the dice when there was a 50/50 deal being put in front of me. But it begs the question, why did she relent at the last moment if she was all but assured of a victory? Perhaps her lawyer told her that she was the one who was going to lose? Maybe she just ran out of money? (these custodial evaluations aren’t free). Looking back, it seems likely to me that the lawyers were playing us both for suckers, getting us to spend as much money as possible so that we would be forced into making a decision on the eve of the custody evaluation and the end result would end up being our “choice”. It’s a handy way for the legal system to evade responsibility for what they’re doing.

Our situation may have been unique in that there were no unsubstantiated allegations happening. She made some efforts to paint me as a lazy good-for-nothing, but there were no accusations of any criminal behavior. As I understood it, the judges (in our county at least) had very little tolerance for accusations that couldn’t be backed up with evidence. This was a glimmer of hope, and who knows if it’s true, but thank god I didn’t have to worry about it.

It seems to me that the solution to this problem is to have automatic 50/50 custody if both parents want custody and there is no evidence of wrongdoing on either side. So what if the parents don’t get along? You’re their parents. The courts shouldn’t be able to change that on a whim, and certainly not just because a divorce is happening. If they’re going to take kids away from someone, it should be just as serious a consideration as taking kids away from a married couple or from a widow/widower etc.

The law of unintended consequences states that I may well have been accused of something more serious if this kind of rule were in effect. When I look back on it all, I’m forced to be thankful that I got what I did, which is pathetic considering it cost me my life savings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Eric June 14, 2012 at 12:25

Opus:
I’m not certain of the situation in Australia or England, but you bring up an important point. I know that in America, the Legislative branches (at both the state and federal levels) frequently usurp Judicial authority. In felony cases, many states have imposed on judges so-called ‘sentencing guidelines’ whereby a judge is legally compelled to give a minimum sentence regardless of his own opinions. I suspect family court judges have the same problem.

Needless to say, these types of guidelines are completely unconstitutional under American law, but the federal judges are political appointees over here and not jurists, so they have never challenged any of this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Opus June 14, 2012 at 13:03

@Eric

I cannot account for America as in England we do not have State and Federal levels and it cannot be said that Parliament which is supreme does or can usurp the courts. The Courts merely apply the law as it is. Parliament can override Common Law and Equity and does so all the time (my jibe at Peter Nolan’s expense was that he did not grasp the amendability of Magna Carta – no matter how patiently I tried to explain).

Family law Judges are however notorious for making it up as they go along because the only real question is, What is in the best interests of the Children? which – even if they do not realise it – is really, What is in the best interests of the Mother?, as we see in the above case.

Judges (in my experince) frequently throw their hand in the air when faced with a truculent or unreasonable wife, because they recognise, for example, that to imprison a woman for Contempt of Court would be to – at least temporarily – deprive her children of their Mother and Primary care giver. They can do without being pilloried by the Daily Mail as being cruel to women and children. So they cave in. Low-War seems to have done the same.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Crank June 14, 2012 at 14:16

Yet, somehow, it never occurred to this judge that his deeming the batshit insane mother to be the more fit parent is preposterous on its face.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Tom936 June 14, 2012 at 16:03

Poester99 June 13, 2012 at 16:32
The only difference between this and other cases is that the judge had a momentary fit of conscience. I m almost sure it ll cause him no end of grief and I m also fairly certain he won t do THAT again. By THAT I don t mean denying access to a loving father, I mean admitting that it is wrong.

Best comment on this article so far. Admitting what he did is better than not admitting it. Let’s give him credit for that. What’s wrong is doing it day after day, and that applies to every other family court judge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
3DShooter June 14, 2012 at 19:00

It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic – family law practitioner has momentary pang of conscience and it is news . . .

This is why I absolutely despise family law practitioners of all stripes, they know what they are doing is immoral yet continue to do it.

Opus is a perfect example (I’m surprised he reared his ugly head in this thread, but he did). Note that in his first comment he clearly is in favor of this judges ruling, but unlike this judge he has absolutely no remorse for his role in representing women who I can only assume were much like this. He literally has no idea how many men he’s driven out of his children’s lives and he’s quite content sitting in the ‘pub’ swilling the proceeds of his conduct. Make no mistake men like this will plunder your family to fatten their ‘purse’ in a heartbeat without giving it a second thought.

Opus does earn a small brownie point for advocating father custody though. If that were the law divorce with children would drop dramatically. Not enough of a brownie point for advocating walking away from your kids though . . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Eric June 14, 2012 at 21:31

Opus,
‘The courts merely apply the law as it is.’

Sadly, American courts have begun following that same procedure. Under the US Constitution, judges have the power to nullify laws. The only way the legislature can override their decision is by amending the Constitution. That’s one reason why a lot of MRAs over here get frustrated with judges and hate them, because they could legally stop a lot of this but don’t.

The other problem is because of our two-tiered state/federal judiciary. The federal judges are all political appointees and even a pro-MRM decision of a state supreme court can be appealled to the federal level, where it’s not likely to be upheld.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
DJG June 14, 2012 at 21:50

The state refuses to honor a marriage contract. Whatever the couple may agree to at the wedding, the state will only rule that the wife (unless she’s totally wacked out) is ultimately in charge. For that matter, would any church now hold that the father is head of the family?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus June 15, 2012 at 03:18

‘Opus is a perfect example’

‘He has absolutely no remorse’

‘He is quite content sitting in the ‘pub”

I am so happy to agree with everything 3D Shooter says about me. Now, I must go and pick some more cherries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Darryl X June 15, 2012 at 07:42

@TiredGuy

“I was talking to a lawyer about the punishment for murder vs the punishment for divorce, and we both agreed that it is now getting to the stage where murder is quickly becoming the best option.”

I do not support or promote violence. However, I read your post and have had a similar conversation with other men and attorneys. Almost always, when a man is divorced (and it is almost the wife/mother initiating it unilaterally and maliciously), so much of his life past, present and future is destroyed. He loses his civil rights when a restraining order is issued against him based upon false allegations. He is also socially isolated. He loses contact with his children. He loses his financial security for life because he has to pay such excessive child support and if he can’t pay he is precluded from any public assistance – that safety net which is afforded most other people (almost all women). He loses his ability to take care of himself in the most fundamental ways because he has been financially hobbled. He loses his driver license and can’t get back and forth to a doctor (if he can afford medical care anymore in the first place) or to a grocery store, etc… He loses his passport so he can’t leave the country and escape his persecution. Basically the government is trying to exterminate him. Since the government has done so much violence to him already, a violent response by a father is not offensive or proactive but defensive and should be expected. The man is just trying to defend his life and likely the lives of his children. I have been told by more than enough attorneys that the best thing a father can do when a mother initiates a malicious and unilateral divorce is to kill her because likely that is what she and the government are doing to him already. And the consequences of him killing her is about the same as the extreme punishment her and the government have visited upon him for no reason. By creating such extreme punishments for a man who has done nothing wrong but have an angry wife, then the government is promoting violence. It is not discouraging it. So when I write that I do not support or promote violence, I mean it but unfortunately our governments and women do which puts honest, hard-working and innocent men/fathers in a very compromising position.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Darryl X June 15, 2012 at 07:56

@ walking in hell -

I agree that the Divorce Industry is much more entrenched in the US than in other countries. In most other countries, men are not sent to jail for inability to pay child support. Also, their passports are not suspended and they are still eligible for public assistance. In the US for instance, if you are in arrears, all your Social Security will be garnished and you are not eligible for food stamps until the arrears are paid off. Unfortunately, some men (like myself) have been ordered to pay so much child support that I will be long dead before I am ever able to pay it off (and likely the poverty to which I am condemned will be the cause of my early death). The government has deliberately and maliciously condemned men to poverty and their deaths. That’s why I always disagree with people who describe our government as aspiring to socialism when really it aspires to fascism. Other countries like the UK and Australia are more socialist than the US, but we are fascist in an extreme interpretation of that word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Darryl X June 15, 2012 at 08:40

And a quick note on our new health care law as it relates to child support. If you are unable to afford health insurance, the new law provisions for federal subsidization of your insurance on a sliding scale based upon your degree of inability to afford it. And if you do not purchase health insurance, you may be sent to prison. Unfortunately, if you owe child support and cannot afford health insurance, the government will not subsidize your health insurance. So not only can you be sent to prison for being in arrears for child support but you can be sent to prison for inability to afford health insurance because you are too poor to pay your child support. That is fascism. A more insane mechanism for egregious abuse of power by a fascist government couldn’t be invented. Yet there it is and no-one seems to be wise enough to understand how malicious this development is and challenge it. Anyone who believes that our government is populated by idiots is wrong – these people are not idiots but psychopaths.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Darryl X June 15, 2012 at 08:51

@ Troll King -

“Anyways, the system will fail whether we do anything or not. It simply isn’t sustainable.”

Unfortunately, I disagree with you. The system is sustainable – on the backs and at the expense of men and their lives and livelihoods. As the government continues to preclude more and more men from any public assistance and transfers more and more wealth from them to women in exchange for power and control (votes, whatever) and continues to condemn more and more men to the street and death, then there will be plenty of wealth for those who are benefitting from the system and it won’t collapse. No one is measuring or taking into account the cost of that system to men and children. So as long as women and the Divorce Industry and others who participate in the system are allowed to benefit and there are men who can be sacrificed for their benefit, the system will persist. It isn’t civilized but it is sustainable – as long as you disregard the cost to the lives and livelihood of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Matt January 29, 2014 at 20:09

Sadly, biology has screwed men forever on this one. No boy or young man will ever care what is to come as long as he’s getting laid. It’s simply a toss up whether he comes across a nutjob or a decent woman, and the odds are severely against him finding a decent woman, so most men are screwed from the start.

Biology screws us further when all the manginas that never made varsity growing up become lawyers and judges and go home at night jacking off to how many men they’ve taken kids away from that day. These family court judges, the lawyers, and the cops really, really do get off on handing it to other men, which is the real reason real men are totally fucked these days, have been for years now.

With ever increasing power given to them by manginas, more and more evil skanks are popping up every day to use this mangina given power, and then with more and more men being raised as manginas (“you don’t want to be like your father do you? He abandoned us after I took you in the middle of the night across five states so he wouldn’t know where we were! I did it for you so you wouldn’t end up like him!”) real men can only shake their heads and wish the boys coming up today that somehow make it to adulthood as actual men weren’t the horn dogs they are, and wouldn’t just be starting the whole cycle all over again.

Men don’t see women for what they really are until they start thinking with the head above their shoulders… and that’s always WAY too late to save them or any children they’ve had.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bill Giamou February 2, 2014 at 17:31

While there is no doubt that errors are made by the courts, the negative attitude displayed towards men in family courts around the world cannot be downplayed. Our family is embroiled in a bitter dispute here in Canada where the family court judge actually scolded our family despite following each and every single recommendation cited in his initial family conference meeting including refraining from verbal/physical confrontation during child exchanges and signing up for Family Wizard to monitor poor/combatitive communication between parties. The judge is so out of touch that he spends the entire four hours devoted to settlement spouting off his credentials including the many years he has sat on the bench and what a wonderful father and grandfather HE is. The hard part of having a terrible judge presiding over your case is that one cannot stand up tell them to shut the hell up!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: