Usher’s Court Hearing Shows Double Standard in Family Court

by W.F. Price on June 28, 2012

TMZ filmed Usher’s custody hearing, in which he’s pleading for custody of his sons. His ex’s lawyer is smearing his character and delving into his personal life in an attempt to prove he’s an unfit father, and that it was his own fault that his ex-wife attacked his girlfriend.

If a man tried to pull the same in court, he wouldn’t have a chance in hell of getting custody (not that Usher really has much of a chance anyway). It doesn’t matter if your ex is bringing strange men over and sleeping with them in the room next to the kids, leaving the kids with grandma to go slut it up in Vegas, or whatever. You just can’t go there, because the judge will teach you a lesson for it.

On the other hand, if a separated guy has a fling with a woman away from his kids when it is not his custodial time with them, that’s considered “provocation” and bad parenting. The way it’s set up, almost anything a father does can be used against him, whereas a mother can be excused for just about anything, including assault.

This is why I cannot in good conscience recommend that a father fight for custody unless he can conclusively prove that the children are in danger. Better to get a reasonable parenting plan with plenty of time with the kids, and if the circumstances change he’s in a good position to take over as custodial parent.

{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }

Pirran June 28, 2012 at 15:56

Spot on. He’d have to have incontrovertible proof of her shooting the kid up with smack or pimping them with pedophiles. Posting pictures of her naked-ass self on slut sites (with infants in the background)? Not enough – been done already (innumerable times).

If you want contact with your kids (as you’ve noted Welmer) don’t try for full custody: the best is the enemy of the half-acceptable.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
keyster June 28, 2012 at 16:03

IWO, for every inch you try to take, the judge will take two back as punishment for not “manning-up” and excepting your predestined fate, as a father and ex-husband, in the family court system today.

It’s easy to prove a father is the lesser parent when he has to be gone all day working to support his family. The mother has to be a strung out crack whore to lose custody. And even then, it’ll be your responsibility to prove it

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
Darryl X June 28, 2012 at 16:08

@ keyster -

“The mother has to be a strung out crack whore to lose custody.”

That probably still won’t work to deny her custody. Plenty of mothers who are homicidal maniacs and/or who have committed infanticide and/or are in fact crack whores have gotten custody. Your even worse than all those things simply because your a man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
The Contrarian Expatriate June 28, 2012 at 16:17

I find this ironic. Black men are constantly critisized about abandoning their children. There is no wonder when we view this video.

Never marry and have no kids in the USA. Your punishment will likely be litigation and children with autism if you do.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price June 28, 2012 at 16:33

I find this ironic. Black men are constantly critisized about abandoning their children. There is no wonder when we view this video.

-The Contrarian Expatriate

I don’t know if my personal observations mean much, but I’ve seen a lot more young black fathers with their young children in the last couple years or so than ever before. Black men got nailed first by anti-male laws, but it seems they’re learning to adapt and reasserting themselves as father figures. I have an idea of how they’re doing so, but I’ll have to talk to a few of them to confirm my hunch. Whatever the case, it’s a good sign.

Kevin June 28, 2012 at 16:39

I always wonder if times are as bad as they seem, or if I’m just being overly dramatic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Kieran June 28, 2012 at 16:52

“This is why I cannot in good conscience recommend that a father fight for custody unless he can conclusively prove that the children are in danger. Better to get a reasonable parenting plan with plenty of time with the kids, and if the circumstances change he’s in a good position to take over as custodial parent.”

I would agree with you there, except I’ve never heard a reasonable parenting plan. Let’s be realistic here. There’s reasonable, and then there is “reasonable”, which has a different definition based on how much money you are paying and how badly your ex-wife/girlfriend/fling/whatever and her lawyer want to screw with your life. You can hope for a lot, but reasonable will not likely happen.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Okrahead June 28, 2012 at 17:07

I’ve talked about this before (but maybe it was on Dalrock’s site), but I had a friend who has a young child and went through a divorce three years ago. The mother stated to the court that she did NOT want custody of the child, openly admitted that she was living an extreme slut lifestyle (swinging, multiple partners, stripping in clubs), and refused to take the parenting classes REQUIRED by state law for custody in a divorce case. Despite all of this the (female) “family court” judge attempted to award her custody of the child. When she refused to take custody, the judge finally granted my friend custody of his child (which he had been actively seeking the entire time) but left the case file open for “future review.” In other words, if the ex ever changes her mind she can destroy everyone’s lives.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 1
Turbo the Drycleaner June 28, 2012 at 17:09

this goes to show that even celebrity millionaires cant get ahead. some people say if you have enough money to throw at it you can still “win” in family court.

wrong. if youre a man, your government considers you lower than the lowest, filthiest, most drugged out psycopath as long as theyre a woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price June 28, 2012 at 17:13

I would agree with you there, except I’ve never heard a reasonable parenting plan. Let’s be realistic here. There’s reasonable, and then there is “reasonable”, which has a different definition based on how much money you are paying and how badly your ex-wife/girlfriend/fling/whatever and her lawyer want to screw with your life. You can hope for a lot, but reasonable will not likely happen.

-Kieran

You’re right. “Tolerable” would have been a more appropriate term.

Rebel June 28, 2012 at 17:45

We all know about these gross injustices. What is the driving force behind it?

Why is this being done?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
SMH June 28, 2012 at 19:01

Meanwhile men are thrown in jail for non-payment of child support which is a DIRECT violation of the U.S. Constitution. But princess gets what princess wants.

The Constitution clearly states no debtors prison. Yet poor men that can’t afford to make the child support payments are thrown in jail. Even if his accounts are at $0, the “family courts” have the audacity to rule based on “what you COULD earn.” It’s insane. I COULD earn $25 million dollars if the Chicago Bears drafted me in the first round, but what the fuck does that have to do with my earning potential right now?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price June 28, 2012 at 20:25

We all know about these gross injustices. What is the driving force behind it?

Why is this being done?

-Rebel

Mainly it’s about money. Single moms may be called “heroic,” but profitable they are not, and everyone knows this. Making the men pay raises revenue for the county and prevents loss. It’s a very inhuman system, but it keeps the judges and courts in the black.

Rebel June 28, 2012 at 21:07

“Mainly it’s about money”

And they are tearing society apart just for the sake of money?
If this is true, then the best thing that can happen to America is the collapse of the dollar.

I will always remember Charlton Hestons’s words when he said:” We used to have a magnificent country that no longer exists”.

What a pity!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
tweell June 28, 2012 at 21:49

When my oldest daughter divorced her husband, it took my wife and I testifying that she was an unfit mother for the judge to award custody to her ex-husband. She was in custody for drugs and theft, had admitted to abandoning her family, and still the judge wanted her to have the children.

Honestly, it was my wife’s testimony that made it possible. In court and especially family court, or reverse sharia system makes a woman’s word twice that of a man’s word. Still, the man got his children and my daughter got supervised visitation only (she sees them at my place every other weekend, now that she’s cleaned up her act). Thank goodness it worked out, my grandkids are normal healthy teens instead of the messes they would have been.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh June 28, 2012 at 22:34

off topic: I just learned of a repository called unz.org that’s full of historical publications. I did a search for alimony and found an article on “Alimony hunters” from 1915
http://www.unz.org/Pub/Munseys-1915apr-00494
It’s apparently from an old magazine called Munsey’s. I think AVFM might already know about this, but let’s see what else you can find.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt June 28, 2012 at 23:27

In this genderist land of male internalised cowardice and jobbing white knights, a rent seeking judges pimping of bastardised children to fathers for parasitic and enprostituted mothers economic benefits is routine. But it is only so, because wicked, feeble and intimidated males festooned with puritan burdens and baggage of the culture accepted it as so, at least where other men are concerned.

In gendertopia, wherever children for whatever reasons cannot be isolated from their fathers by rentseeking judges, much free money, food, drink and unearned economic resource goes unclaimed and remains unclaimable by parasitic enprostituted mothers. An outcome patently threatening the very basis and justification for rent seeking judges and other socialist workers existence.

Hundreds and millions of pro-socialist workers in the public and private professional sectors rely for their industry and depend for their own existence on a steady stream of bastardised, enproblematised and at-risk children isolated from their fathers. These bastard and isolated children are only obtainable from mother-conflicted homes and mother-menaced families contrived, encouraged and goaded into existence by the activities and policies of rent seeking workers and public authorities.

Again, only because of wicked, feeble or timid men’s acceptance of such odium and violating sacrilege as appropriate treatment for other men, does such a system continue and progress itself. For in any other land where one man respects the sovereign right, dignity, freedom and honour of the next man, such a concept as institutionalised misandry can never know the light of day.

Yesterday, expressing the cowardly and dehumanising puritanist culture, a Supreme Court comprising the most eminent and excellent rent seeking fools, guaranteed parasitic and enprostituted mothers, more free milk and honey. They contrived this result by extending the statutory age of dependency of bastardised children, on whom parasitic enprostituted mothers and ultimately they themselves depend for sustenance.

But it has always been this way, when it comes to a weakened peoples adoption of a slogan, an ideal or a social model aimed at patronising others from whom they seek to steal, pillage or ravage. Did not the failing communists, fascists and democratic-socialists of history attempt to do the same things unsustainably ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 28, 2012 at 23:33

If you are man and you have children, do you think they are yours? Here is the ownership order:
1) State
2) Mother
3) Mother’s Parents
4) Father

Yet the father is completely financially responsible.

There is no sicker system than the American family dismemberment court system. A real “family” court system would give all fathers a minimum of 50% custody and help the father enforce the custody against the rotten mother. This would be in the child’s best interest.

Instead the court maximizes payments from the father to the mother by giving the mother sole physical custody because maximum payments mean matching funds from the federal government to the state government, thereby enriching the judges, caseworkers, etc.

When individuals dismember families and strip children of their fathers for money, only the deepest pits of hell will suffice as just punishment.

Some day I believe future generations will look back on the family dismemberment courts as being one of the most evil institutions that ever came from America.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
migu June 29, 2012 at 00:35

Never needed a family court in the past. The municipal court was just fine. You want to dissolve a contract, these are the terms. Bye now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
TiredGuy June 29, 2012 at 00:42

One tactic (dangerous, but this friend was desperate) that I have seen used in the courts, is to calmly deny everything in front of the judge, whilst provoking her anger in private. Distasteful tactic, sure, but fairly effective in making people question the ex’s sanity. It worked though, only after she tried to jump the table wielding a pen like a knife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Ron June 29, 2012 at 02:59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 29
freebird June 29, 2012 at 03:45

@Mr.Price
“It’s a very inhuman system, but it keeps the judges and courts in the black.”

Very interesting way to phrase it.(the situation)

You didn’t say “It keeps the county welfare budget under control”
Or ” It keeps the federal Medicaid budget lower”

Nope it was “It’s in THE COURTS”

I agree!
Big big lawyer money destroying families,and the child support system
employs a lot of rabid feminists.
So does child protection services,secondary NGO’s such as
“Friend of the Court” which has the power of the court,but is a private company.
BTW: fun thought-local feller said to me the local DNR has the power to remove a judge or overturn a court ruling.
That may or may not be true,but they do have powers of search and seizure beyond those of LEO, so it would not surprise me at all.
The complexities of law are a funny thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
dhanu June 29, 2012 at 03:46

@Ron Unlike the examples you cited, it’s not some external bad elements threatening us. It’s the part of our own system itself. For perspective, it’s like a business in which you end up losing everything. So why invest in a business that’s guaranteed or very likely to result in a loss? Here, it’s not some mafia threatening the business (in which case choosing to leave that business completely would be cowardly), but the business itself is likely to fail taking up everything in the process. How is it a foolishness to not invest in a business where you’re likely to lose your investment? Do you buy shares of a company that’s showing the signs of going bankrupt?

As long as the rules of the deal are stacked even slightly against me, I’d prefer to look elsewhere. Changing the rules is not easy and looking elsewhere is a step in that direction only. If enough people get disinterested in the business, it would have to consider changing its rules or die itself. Either way, those who have decided to starve it won’t have any problem. Going our own way is the best strategy. It’s not cowardly. What is cowardly IS the assumption that we have no other option and have to invest in a business whose rules discriminate against us. A marriage is not one’s own right or property alone. There are two people involved. If one of the partners chooses to ruin us, why do that business?

Remember that as long as your partner remains just as loyal as you, no external power can exert its influence on the system. Clearly, the problem lies in the partner, which then gives opportunity to all sorts of external powers to take advantage of you. Your solution is to kill those external powers, which is fine and should be done. But at the same time, not engaging with a partner for the sake of our own future is also a viable option; you cannot dismiss it as a foolishness, especially after reading the experiences of so many people here.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
freebird June 29, 2012 at 03:48

migu June 29, 2012 at 00:35

Never needed a family court in the past. The municipal court was just fine. You want to dissolve a contract, these are the terms. Bye now.

AMEN brother-Old School!
Us old bastards recall what freedom was like..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Opus June 29, 2012 at 06:01

I wonder which is better: Conducting a Custody hearing in Public – and not merely in public but televised as here, or, – as AfOR will tell you – in secret courts, that is to say in camera [in chambers], as happens in England and Wales, and certainly not televised.

The view in England is that these things are private matters and one does not need to air ones dirty-washing before the entire world.

I have no real idea which is better but having watched the man Usher (previously unknown to me) under cross-examination by learned Counseless I have got to say I did not believe a word he said – far too cool – though what a few swear-words has to do with the question of custody I have no idea.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
walking in hell June 29, 2012 at 08:55

Great resource here. This document shows just how bad things have become. This is a 2010 report by the Michigan court about the underground economy and child support system.

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/reports/UETF-2010.pdf

The report makes some recommendations on new enforcement methods. You have no idea what is in store until you read this. Even a casual reading of this document would be enough to scare the life out of any man who is considering fathering children in America.

One thing to note in this article is just how many resources are dedicated to collecting money Vs almost no resources dedicated to guaranteeing a man parenting time with his children.

Any man who fights for America is fighting for his own slavery. What a sad and pathetic country.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Craig Himself June 29, 2012 at 09:05

What about a fellow getting a job in a foreign country and just absconding with the kids?

Or is there behind-the-scenes legal machinery in place that doesn’t let a parent board an airplane with his kids unless X, Y and Z check out on the computer first?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 29, 2012 at 09:07

One more link.

http://www.co.jackson.mi.us/county_courts/FOC/smile.asp

Introducing the so called “forget me not” program that supposedly teaches men how to not abandon their children. Notice the level of Orwellian double speak that is in this concept. The very entity that destroyed the father-child bond, the court, is sponsoring classes to help the non-custodial parent (father) from “abandoning” his child.

Note how you are invited to participate in the “community” program.

“Referrals to the program are made by the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney responsible for initiating support orders.”

This program is nothing more than a way to keep tabs on debt slaves and cynically uses children in an attempt to instill guilt.

Absolutely disgusting.

Straight from Stalin.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
TiredGuy June 29, 2012 at 11:54

“Or is there behind-the-scenes legal machinery in place that doesn’t let a parent board an airplane with his kids unless X, Y and Z check out on the computer first?”

Yes, there is these days. Every, and I mean every, government department in all western countries have the ability to access and modify the no fly list. So, don’t pay your parking fines – Banned! Someone accidentally puts in Craig A. Himself instead of Craig B. Himself – Banned! I once missed a flight because I didn’t officially exist, thanks to some idiot at the Transport Office deleting me from existence whilst getting my licence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
freebird June 29, 2012 at 18:24

Thanks for the links walking in hell.
I live in Michigan.
This is some of the sickest shit I’ve ever read.
After puking,all I could think was “flee the country”
That’s after only half of the first link.
Dammit man.
“Prisoner adjustment support”
-gag-puke!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
freebird June 29, 2012 at 18:29

“3E: Train police officers on how to obtain usable information from child support
obligors whom the officers stop for traffic violations and then detain at the scene after
discovering that the person has a nonsupport bench warrant that requires a court
appearance.”

They keep using the term “non custodial parent”
Why don’t they just say-prisoner-father?
Or perhaps father-prisoner?
BTW:
Fuck the Police.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
freebird June 29, 2012 at 18:35

@walking in hell-
Hey man, I will not click on the second link as I just ate my dinner.
Perhaps tomorrow morning.
Also: I do not want to be so pissed off I cannot sleep, it’s been a very long day already.But rest assured I will have to look.
It is Orwellian, that is not an overstatement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 29, 2012 at 21:31

@freebird
“Thanks for the links walking in hell.
I live in Michigan.
This is some of the sickest shit I’ve ever read.”

Yes it is sick shit; and its not limited to Michigan; all the states will follow similar paths. This is going to happen to men all over America. We just had a sneak preview of what the authorities have in store for us: mechanized slavery and extermination.

I suggest all men take the time to read the link. Here it is again:
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/reports/UETF-2010.pdf

Here is what you will see in the future: a much closer collaboration between federal agencies, state agencies, and the prison system. Men will be stripped of their children and assets, slapped with huge support payments, and if they fall behind, made to pay the support payments at 20 cents per hour.

Don’t think it can happen? Look at all the awareness of how bad men have it in American and see that things are getting worse.

Can any other spearhead readers name a country that is worse for men than America?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 29, 2012 at 21:33

@freebird
“Thanks for the links walking in hell.
I live in Michigan.
This is some of the sickest shit I’ve ever read.”

Yes it is sick shit; and its not limited to Michigan; all the states will follow similar paths. This is going to happen to men all over America. We just had a sneak preview of what the authorities have in store for us: mechanized slavery and extermination.

I suggest all men take the time to read the link. Here it is again:
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/reports/UETF-2010.pdf

Here is what you will see in the future: a much closer collaboration between federal agencies, state agencies, and the prison system. Men will be stripped of their children and assets, slapped with huge support payments, and if they fall behind, put in prison and made to pay the support payments at 20 cents per hour.

Don’t think it can happen? Look at all the awareness of how bad men have it in American and see that things are getting worse. Look at how men have cheer leaded and fought for their own slavery.

Can any other spearhead readers name a country that is worse for men than America?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader June 29, 2012 at 21:57

In order to obtain a passport for a minor, both parents must sign the State Department form. No passport, no leaving the country.

Although I know one man who is using this fact to keep his children in the US, his wife is from a country with no real extradition, so if she ever takes their children out of the country he likely would not see them again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
David G June 30, 2012 at 02:17

I’d love to see a big celebrity like Usher become a high-profile, full- certified, card-carrying member of the MRA community.
Are there any celebs in our movement? Are Bob Geldof, Alec Baldwin, John Cleese, or Tiger Woods MRAs?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Henry June 30, 2012 at 04:22

Uh, best to recommend men to TOTALLY AVOID MARRIAGE in the West.

Any man stupid enough to marry a western woman deserves this shit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
So My Own Way Now July 1, 2012 at 09:58

“Better to get a reasonable parenting plan with plenty of time with the kids, ”

The only way I know to get a reasonable parenting plan is to TOTALLY cave in to $$$ demands from the ex. My experience is same. MAJOR check to lovey (70-30, but by her female centered accounting “fair”) = 1) no court fight; 2) 50% time w kids; 3) daddy not demonized.

Its extortion plain & simple, but you got to do it if you want relatively sane kids and a relatively normal parenting relationship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Ode July 1, 2012 at 22:28

I’d love to see a big celebrity like Usher become a high-profile, full- certified, card-carrying member of the MRA community.

1 Usher would == 100,000 normal men

Power and status is never equally distributed.
The top 20% of society get to call 80% of the shots. Always has been always will be the case. The tipping point will come when the elites decide to change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
quiz May 13, 2013 at 00:39

Usher needs to take her ass to court for child support. Take her dusty ass to the cleaners. Take her gold digging slut ass to court for child support.
Maximize profits just like these whores do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: