Monday, August 22, 2011

Family Court Reform: Nevermind.

Yup. That terrible domestic violence problem still sweeps the nation. The problem is its all a hoax. You wouldn't want, you know, actual evidence proving it, now, would you? Furthermore, this little experiment was bound to fail the moment they made domestic violence a trump card that of course the family courts require NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to consider fact and issue a restraining order as a result of pathetic accusation backed by no other evidence.

5. An increase in the number of abuse actions filed, particularly by wives. These abuse actions led to an increase in court no-contact orders, though not by as much as the increase in claims. The accusations were made by both the husband and wife, and were more likely to be repeat allegations.

Study: DV Claims Thwart Family Court Reform

August 19th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

An Oregon law, designed to promote shared custody, accomplished the opposite.

That’s one of the many findings of a recently published analysis of custody outcomes in Oregon following the passage of custody legislation in 1997. The study by economist Douglas Allen and family law professor Margaret Brinig appeared in the June issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. Unfortunately I can’t provide a link.

Anyone interested in advancing the cause of fathers’ rights and family court reform should read the Allen and Brinig analysis. It shows clearly that sensible family court reform will never come without sensible reform of domestic violence laws.

In 1997, the State of Oregon passed legislation designed to reduce acrimony in child custody litigation and to increase shared parenting post-divorce.

Before 1997, Oregon’s divorce law regarding custody was fairly typical. It provided for joint legal custody (shared decision making) in the vast majority of cases and physical custody awards “in the best interests of the child.” Although joint physical placement was a possibility, it was not favored. The legislation amending the statute, 1997 Oregon Laws Ch.707 (S.B. 243), shows the change in emphasis.

The court may hold a hearing to decide the custody issue prior to any other issues. When appropriate, the court shall recognize the value of close contact with both parents and encourage joint parental custody and joint responsibility for the welfare of the children.

The amendments went on to encourage mediation of custody disputes. But the preference for both mediation and joint custody was negated in the law by allegations of domestic abuse.

Allen and Brinig gained access to all divorce and custody records in the state beginning three years before the change in the law and five years afterward. They randomly selected 500 cases for each year totalling 4,000 that were winnowed down to a little over 3,800. The authors’ goal was to learn the effects of the new law on parental behavior in custody matters. The results, for many of the variables studied, are not what the authors - or the state legislature - expected.

Here’s how the authors describe their findings generally:

This article has empirically examined a change in custody rules, and has shown that this legislation did influence behavior on several margins, mostly in ways one might expect. In particular, the movement toward joint custody had real effects on custody awards, the use of mediators, and divorce proceedings. Paradoxically, many changes were not those sought by the legislation’s proponents, who sought more equal parenting in the context of less acrimonious and less costly divorces and mediated solutions. Rather, the legislation created incentives that led to more dragged out and acrimonious divorces and no more equal parenting.

The reason for the perverse outcomes of the law can be stated in four words - claims of domestic abuse. Because domestic abuse was included in the law as the card that trumped all its other requirements, claims of abuse were used to thwart its overarching goals of more equal parenting, shorter divorce proceedings and less acrimony in the process.

The authors identify some changes that are attributable to the new law. For example, before 1997, sole maternal custody was granted in an average of 66% of cases. After the law changed, that dropped to an average of 59% of cases. That drop in sole maternal custody was mirrored by an increase in sole paternal custody, but the number of cases was much smaller. Sole paternal custody increased from 8% of cases before, to 10% after the statutory change.

Meanwhile, shared custody remained statistically unchanged. Split custody (in which each parent gets sole custody of one or more children) increased from 2% to 3%.

The authors explain:

Whereas split custody decisions were declining over time, they start to increase after the legal change. Ironically, and perhaps most surprising, the effect on joint parenting shown in Regression (3) shows there was effectively no change that can be attributed to the law. Thus, the joint parenting law altered custody, but this came through changes in sole and split custody. This result is quite surprising.

So the law that was aimed at greater shared parenting missed the target. In fact, it simply replaced a bit of sole maternal custody with a bit of sole paternal custody and tossed in some split custody for good measure.

Likewise, the length of time it took to finalize a custody case increased.

And all of that can be laid at the feet of the universal “out clause,” i.e. claims of domestic violence.

The authors note that the law’s goal of greater joint custody was in fact a threat to mothers who received the overwhelming share of parenting time prior to the change in the law. They had the most to lose and therefore were overwhelmingly the ones to file claims of abuse (91% before, 82% after 1997), although fathers filed abuse claims as well in an attempt to get sole custody.

Overall, claims of abuse rose significantly and false claims doubled from 3% of all cases to 6%. (The authors defined a false claim as one that was made, but for which no order was made.) The increase in claims resulted in a “dramatically increasing” number of protective orders after the change in the law.

The bottom line is more divorce cases contained more accusations of domestic violence abuse, and these cases were revisited more often, after the introduction of joint parenting.

One of the hypotheses tested by Allen and Brinig asked whether, faced with the new law, mothers would simply trade decreased child or spousal support for maintaining their pre-1997 level of custody. That proved not to be so. There was little or no change in levels of child and spousal support suggesting that mothers preferred to use the abuse exception to maintain both the money and the kids.

Here is the author’s summary of the new law’s effects:

1. A fall in sole custody to mothers, a rise in sole custody to fathers, and surprisingly, little change in joint custody.
2. A strong and significant change in the percentage of mediated divorces.
3. No significant change in the raw number of spousal support motions or in the dollar awards of spousal or child support.
4. A decrease in the speed of divorce. That is, divorces happened later after separation.
5. An increase in the number of abuse actions filed, particularly by wives. These abuse actions led to an increase in court no-contact orders, though not by as much as the increase in claims. The accusations were made by both the husband and wife, and were more likely to be repeat allegations.

Taken together, the results paint the following picture. The change in joint parenting law transferred custody rights to fathers who were able to use them to increase sole and split custody. There is no evidence that mothers bought these rights back through reduced support. In addition, the “abuse” escape clause, although utilized by both parents, was mostly wielded by wives. Thus, at least over the first five years of the law, the formal transfer of legal rights led to more disputes in settling the divorce, leading to longer divorces. Our evidence suggests this increase in the length of trial comes from increased accusations of abuse and battles over custody of children.

In short, laws intended to increase joint parenting will fail if they include the all-purpose domestic abuse “escape valve,” and they all do. That points toward a direction that family court reformers must follow - the reform of domestic violence laws and the use of DV claims in custody litigation.

Domestic violence allegations will likely always play a part in child custody disputes, so the goal must be to make them function in a non-biased and sensible way. Non-biased means that allegations by men and women must be treated with equal respect. Among other things, Allen and Brinig’s study strongly suggests that they weren’t by Oregon courts during the eight years studied.

Second, DV allegations must be subjected to some reasonable level of judicial scrutiny. That is, reliable evidence must be required for a finding of actual physical violence. As long as mere allegations of placing a parent “in fear” can be used to deprive a child of its father, family court reform is a dead letter.

We’ve known the pernicious effects of domestic violence allegations for many years. This study shows plainly that the battle for family court reform will be fought on the field of domestic violence.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Special Needs Student Raped

This is just a sad story. A special needs student - that is, most likely mentally challenged or else suffering from a learning disability - accused a boy of raping her and when she changed her story, the school did something not terribly unfair - she asked her to apologize to the boy she falsely accused. And what's wrong with that? Nothing. Had that been the end of it, that is. The problem was the school screwed up and did not properly investigate. The boy did rape her. She changed her story to please the authority figures grilling her over the accusations. When she returned to school he raped her AGAIN and this time hardcore physical evidence CONFIRMED she was telling the truth. The goddamn school DID NOT exercise due diligence in investigating the first claim and it blew up in their face. I'd like to hang the school officials and the rapist by their own entrails for it. I can only add that its said that stories like this make such big news (picked up by ABC) as they make every rape claim look like solid gold and every rape victim blamed for being the victim when that is far from the truth. False rape accusations do occur and of course those are hardly ever publicized. The Duke lacrosse team being an exception.

Also, what do you want to bet the young man convicted of rape came from a fatherless home? That also never makes the news.

A special needs student who was suspended and forced to write an apology to a boy she accused of raping her is now suing the school because she was raped a second time when she was allowed to return to school.

The seventh grader in Republic, Mo., was suspended a second time when she accused the boy of raping her a second time, according to court documents.

A police investigation later substantiated her claims and the boy confessed to the assaults, court papers state.

Nevertheless, the Republic School District in Missouri responded to the suit on July 29, calling the allegations "frivolous" and having "no basis in fact or law."

The lawsuit is seeking punitive damages, but does not state a specific amount being sought.

The family of the girl, whose identity was withheld because she is a minor and the alleged victim of a sexual assault, state in court papers that the girl was repeatedly molested by a fellow student on school grounds from 2008-2009.

It took a violent rape for the girl to speak up and report the abuse to administrators.

The girl and her mother met with school officials, but the girl later backtracked on her claims in a meeting at which her mother was not present.

"She finally told school officials what they wanted to hear because they wouldn't believe her," the lawsuit says.

The school allegedly took no steps to investigative the claims.

A psychological report in the girl's school file states that she "would forego her own needs and wishes to satisfy the requests of others around so that she can be accepted."

She returned to school the following year and despite requests from her mother to the school, extra security was not provided.

Upon her return, the sexual assaults resumed and went unreported due to the girl's fear of expulsion, court papers state.

Only after being dragged to the back of the school library and forcibly raped did the girl finally tell administrators.

The girl's mother took her to the Child Advocacy Center where she underwent a forensic interview and exam, which corroborated her claims.

Nevertheless, the school suspended the girl a second time for disrespectful conduct and public display of affection, according to the lawsuit.

The Republic Police Department took a sample of semen from the accused student, and it proved to be a match.

The student has since pleaded guilty to charges in juvenile court.

The Republic School District and M. Douglas Harpool, the plaintiff's attorney, did not respond for comment.


No. Not girls. These people are GROWN WOMEN.

And again I ask the men out there: if grown women are going to act like drunken strippers, if they're going to act like hyper-sexual children, I ask you, don't you think this is another thing giving modern day men EXTREME pause when considering marriage?!!?!?

The mix of money, lust, greed, irresponsibility and just plain indecency displayed below..... stagger me.

Girls, Girls, Girls

“Does it bother you,” I asked him, “the thought that another guy is now this very moment kissing her or even doing more?”

“I don’t really think about it.” Richard said.

Richard had an arrangement with his ex-girlfriend. He had gone out with her for five years but now they were broken up. But whenever he was back in Boston, she’d move out of her current boyfriend’s house and spend the week with Richard. Then Richard would come back to Pittsburgh and she’d go back to her current boyfriend. Her current boyfriend was okay with the whole thing.

“But I don’t understand,” I said, “she’d be with you and you’d even be inside of her and the very day before some other guy was inside of her. Doesn’t that bother you?”

“Well,” Richard said, “I guess it does a little.”

“Like, literally, some guy’s penis was inside of her and was coming inside of her within twenty four hours of you coming inside of her. Sort of like a farewell sex before she had to go over to your place. And she was all excited for him while he was inside of her. That would have to bother you a little?

“Yeah,” Richard said, “that would bother me.”

“Would she have orgasms with you or would she just save that for the other guy?”

The lights were out while we were talking. I could barely make out the outline of Richard’s face. Suddenly the woman sitting in front of us in the movie theater turned around and yelled really loud:


Wow, I said to Richard later, some people are really rude.

A girl I was going out with told me a story. Her best friend, Beth, had just gotten married. Beth and her new husband had gone to Hawaii for the wedding and honeymoon. They were having a great time. Hawaii is beautiful, it was romantic, the food was great, the dancing was great and lots of activities during the day.

One day they went scuba diving. It should be noted that Beth looked great in a bikini.

The scuba diving was over and they were walking back to the hotel. Beth said to her new husband. “Shit, I forgot my thermos on the boat.” Her husband said, ok, I’ll see you back at the hotel. Hurry up.

So Beth went back on the boat, in her bikini. And got her thermos.

And had sex with the scuba diving instructor.

“Wow,” I said to the girl that told me the story, “that really bothers me.”

“Listen,” she said, “I have to go. There’s a dinner planned.”

It was four in the morning. I was walking up and down the streets of Soho talking to her on the phone. She was in Hawaii, having just been in the wedding party of her friend, Beth. I couldn’t sleep at all that night.

Ezo was a professional madam from Liberia. She was also a regular on a popular radio show and lived right next door to me in the somewhat decadent building I was living in. Girls were all the time going in and out of her apartment to be “interviewed”.

One girl would look beautiful to me but Ezo said the girl was too fat for her clients. Ezo was gay and most girls would have sex with Ezo first before she would hire them to be prostitutes. “I can hook you up with a girl,” she would always tell me. We spoke almost every day. “No thanks,” I said, “A) all of these girls have diseases. B) why would I want to be with someone who is having sex with dozens of guys a week. C) Most of these girls don’t even like guys. D) why would I want to pay for sex?”

“You think you can get a pretty girl like one of these girls by yourself?” Ezo said. “Not a chance. These are the best girls in the world. This is your only way to do it.” Which further convinced me I didn’t want to do it.

One girl was particularly beautiful. Venus. “I charge $5000 an hour for her. And then she gets big tips on top of that. She has a boyfriend,” Ezo told me.

“Why doesn’t her boyfriend mind what she does for a living?”

“She just bought him a boat,” Ezo said, “do you think he asks any questions?”

When Ezo was finally arrested they found $215,000 cash in her apartment according to the NY Post, $619,000 in bank accounts, and a “70,000 limo”. Last I heard she was living in a mansion in Liberia and she was going to marry the son of the President of Liberia.

I like to listen to music when I write. I put on headphones so I don’t bother Claudia in the next room. I tend to listen to the same song over and over. Yesterday it was “This is not a love song” by Nouvelle Vague. I was thinking of listening to that song again.

When I sat down to write this morning, Claudia said to me, “are you going to listen to music? Because I can still hear it through the headphones.”

“I won’t listen to anything,” I said.

“Good,” she said, “because the rain outside sounds so nice and I want to listen to it and stay downstairs.”

So I’m not listening to music this morning. It’s not worth it. The world is a scary place. And I don’t want to scare her away.

The Kids are [Not] Alright

I ran into this movie a short time ago and meant to comment on it, but its so damn depressing, its hard to muster the strength to comment.

Its called the The Kids are Alright. I'm assuming that's a sarcastic title, because the movie that is attached to it shows anything but kids who are alright. The kids are in fact a goddamn train wreck. And its so obvious I don't know where to start. The whole movie is like a running ad for why the "traditional" family is the best route for kids.

I'm not saying adoption or parenthood by lesbians or gay men is horrible. Further, we have millions of orphaned kids and they need a home as well. An imperfect home is better than no home.

That said, this movie makes these kids look like victims. The movie is set around a lesbian couple who have two teenage kids, a boy and a girl. Naturally, the kids wonder who their father is, so they seek him out and they find him. He's a late 30's boy who runs his own farm and restaurant. He's sleeping with the restaurant's hostess. He's not married and does not have any kids of his own. He's clearly responsible and a man to get things done, but he's not exactly mature for his age. Further, he seems totally ignorant of the fact that many lesbian women HATE, and I mean HATE men. ALL men. Not some men. ALL men.

The children, in a lesson to us all, seek out their father. He's a little confused, but tries as hard as he can to accommodate their wish to be a part of his life. They are clearly asking for his guidance and its more than fair to say the guidance of their two mom's is lacking.

The mothers have a clear dynamic. One is a gynocologist - one who cares for and empathizes with women, and ONLY women, of course. The other is a artistic layabout who desperately wants to do more, but struggles to muster the ambition. Whenever she does get started into something, the more dominant female, the doctor, heavily doubts her until she no longer believes in her own abilities. This is the home two children live in.

The boy, as all boys, needs his masculine instincts supported and encouraged. Of course for some boys, that would result in a raging alpha male to the 10th power, but this kid is at no such risk. He looks like he's never seen a man. He's a weakling. He has no self-esteem. He walks with his head down and shoulders slouched. He whispers when he talks. His best friend dictates all of their activities and demeans him from time to time. The "mom's" don't seem to notice. The submissive mom does but her concerns, when voiced, are of course ignored by the alpha mom. The fact that this boy has no girlfriend, shows no interest in women or confidence around them, as a 17 year old, is never addressed. The fact that he plays no physical sport, does not compete at anything, and does not even display the will to do what he is good at, all goes unnoticed by his mothers. How women who care about a child can miss all this is a small miracle given how intuitive women are. No dad would miss these things. Not for 1 second.

The daughter is better adjusted but also in trouble. She does very well at school and is going to a top college. But that is not necessarily a great thing. She is perfect. Too perfect. Human beings are not this perfect. She studies constantly in order to achieve her scholastic perfection. She's a robot. She has no idea what to expect of men. She kind of observes them with curiosity and confusion. She has a male friend. A boy. But he's submissive and shy around her. He makes no attempt to kiss her, romance her, or even take her on a date. He's too passive. Finally she gets drunk at a party and kisses him. Brilliant.

Both kids are generally extremely confused about men and women and their relationship with one another. The kids aren't gay. They have no male role model, but what do straight boys and girls who are quickly becoming men and women do without a heterosexual role model? These two seem to flounder and wane. They are what their parents have made them to be. The mom's seem to prefer a hand's off approach to their son. One wants to be emotionally close to him by sharing her feelings while the other (alpha female), is polite but cold and distant to him as she more or less hates all men and a man is what he is quickly becoming. So who is there for this maturing teenager to answer his questions and help him make sense of his instincts?

No one.

When the mystical dad comes in, the kids gravitate to him like moths to a light. The mom's are very concerned with this, especially alpha mom, as he is a threat to her ice-cold grip over the entire family. She provides all of the money so she more or less believes she may dictate everything that goes on in the house. Needless to say, others don't see it that way. The kids want someone to show them how to take control of their own lives as they are quickly entering the stage where they will have to rely only on themselves. Dad's simply seem to be much more focused on how one takes care of oneself. Its what they teach their sons from a very young age. I guess the instinct to do this goes all the way back to hunter-gatherer days. And that's what this dad begins to offer.

The moms are essentially threatened by this. The kids being independent robs them of their control and of the children's dependence on them. Women biologically have an instinct to feel needed, loved and wanted. Independent kids are not the recipe for those emotions. The children are a bit immature and naive and they know it. They want to grow up. Dad's have always encouraged kids to do just that. Moms, in this situation, are not letting the kids grow up. Their son should be exhibiting good, strong, male behaviors. Responsibility, independence, honesty, integrity, strength of character, confidence. This boy is 0 for everything. He's a walking scarecrow ready to disintegrate. I'm sure girls ignore the fact he even exists. Would you go after a guy practically wearing a "INSECURE WEAKLING" label on his forehead? No. So who can turn this boy into a real man?

Not his two lesbian moms, I'm afraid.

He needs a real male role model. And no, the high school football coach will not do. I'm sick and tired of hearing people suggest all the boys from fatherless families can simply be given their right into manhood by an angry man putting pads on them and yelling at them. That's not day-to-day behavior. Furthermore, you may have noticed plenty of talented young men have made it all the way to the NFL and then dropped out of football due to personality problems, drugs, violence, or off-field incidents. BOYS NEED DADS. A REAL DAD. EVERY SINGLE DAY DADS. NOTHING LESS.

The boy in the movie gets a dad for only about 6 weeks, when dad and artsy-mom start hooking up (yeah, she's only partial-lesbian it seems). Alpha mom finds out, the kids find out and everything blows up in everyone's face. The boy makes tons of progress in 6 weeks. He basically starts to grow a pair. But when dad starts to threaten the lesbian nuclear family, he's treated as a threat and ejected. Kind of ironic given that the kids went seeking for him and not vice versa. He tries to remain part of the kids lives but its no go. The kids eject him and I imagine go back to their directionless ways.

This movie could've done a lot with the subject it had. But it decided to try to be more dramatic and that meant introducing a love affair between a straight man and a supposed lesbian. His impact on the kids was nothing but positive all the way around, but that's really rather forgotten after the family nearly falls apart. In fact, the movie disingenuously implies that the family only needed a father for a few weeks to straighten out a few kinks. Nothing could be further from the truth. The movie was worth watching just for the splendid portrayal of crazy-alpha-lesbian done by Annette Bening. My mom was far from perfect, but I think I'd rather have two lizards raise me before the character Annette Bening plays. And by the way, I've actually seen lesbian moms in real life who were frighteningly close to that person.

The movie kind of ends with this Que Sera, Sera attitude as if everyone will get along just fine in this dysfunctional ball of yarn. I thought it made a depressed house wife and drinking, gambling husband look like a good measure of improvement. Two thumbs down for its depiction of the father, who is somehow well-off financially but totally morally bankrupt. He seems to shoulder a great deal of blame and is nothing in the end but a disappointment, a dozen reasons why kids should not go looking for their fathers. Nevermind that this guy unselfishly gave sperm, making the dream of two lesbians possible; he did NOT sign up to be anyone's dad. He was too easily thrown into dad judgement court and fried, despite being ready, willing and able to be an active parent on a moment's notice.

The reviews of the movie are spot on and a total disaster. The character portrayal is great. But every serious review, from the LA Times to the SF Chronicle to the Boston Globe screws up the movie's message: that somehow the kids navigate through imperfect parents. These parents aren't imperfect - they're a science experiment gone awry. They made the family from American Beauty look stable. No, no one's perfect. But these people are highly dysfunctional. It felt like the movie's creators had to make the dad a grown up kid with a lot left to learn (are there really that many nearly-40 year old men like that? I'm 33 and I felt 12 years older than the man in this movie), otherwise it would be a movie about one sane man and two crazy lesbians and we just COULDN'T have that! The outrage it would cause! The commentary that two gay grown ups were batshit insane and the kids navigated to a stable, straight man? In the media's eyes these days, stable, straight men don't exist. We're told all straight men are Hollywood playboy, Tiger Woods-wannabe's, reality notwithstanding.

The idea that two lesbians, one who completely hates men, the other who is hung up on pleasing demanding women and obviously bi-sexual; both trying to raise a boy and a girl in a HEALTHY EMOTIONAL ENVIRONMENT is not a basis for summarizing everything is a-ok. "The kids are alright" is a phrase these two people use to convince themselves they don't have to address their own identity crises; its not a successful family motto. The kids are demonstrably NOT okay and they haven't been for a very long time. Kids used to be raised by two adults who made a genuine effort at stability and were ashamed of not dealing with their personal problems better. The "moms" in this movie use the fact their kids are not yet as crazy as they are as way to rationalize their own problems and their unreasonable behavior. Well done!

This kids in this family in real life would be like most American teenagers: drinking, sullen, depressed, and sexually active at a young age.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Men and Engagement Rings

This article is... well... too stupid for words, but I'll address it anyway. Its what I do: contend with stupid people.

The article is on, shock above shock, Yahoo's "Shine" site. Shine is like an angry young female blog that contains a mixture of lust, jealousy, bitterness, scorn and disgust at the "plight" of the modern day woman, whatever that is. The fact that statistics screamingly declare Western women have made more socioeconomic progress than any other human being on the planet over the past 30 years is completely ignored. Mainly the articles sound like what they are: a bunch of spoiled, over-indulged 26-35 year olds whining about having too many choices and not enough mystery Marlboro men to sweep them off their feet.

This particular Shine whine is about the unfairness of men not wearing engagement rings. Apparently its only men's good fortune to be required to spend 10 grand or more on a stupid rock for a person who will leave you after marriage, statistically speaking, 50% of the time. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that men should be the ones whining. Its not uncommon for a man's ex to keep the ring that represented his love for her, if the union fails. Despite being out 10 g's, having his heart broken, and potentially facing ruinous child support and alimony (yes, it still exists) payments, it is the ex-fiance or wife whom your heart should bleed for dear reader, didn't you know?


Because HE is not being "forced" to wear an engagement ring.

Oh, horror.

Refuse to give an engagement ring fellas. Let me know what kind of response that gets you from your sweetheart. Disgust, tears, and confusion to name a few. Want to solve this "problem" ladies? Fine. Buy us a ring. And please note we WILL be showing it to our friends for bragging purposes so you better drop at least 10k. Borrow it if you don't have it. Let's go. And don't give me any of your piddling excuses. I've seen your handbag and your designer shoes. I know you have the money. Don't be a cheapskate. Oh and if things don't work out, you can bet we're keeping our ring.

Despite women crying for equality, as I've mentioned before, women are not after equality. If they were, men would receive a ring too. A nice one. In platinum or gold. And we would be equals. Yup. Hasn't happened yet, though. Because it never will. Women want to be courted and to them that equals a man spending a boatload of cash to impress them while expecting nothing but her smiles in return and perhaps a very quiet "thank you." Certainly no promises are given and a girl is free to date others, after all, isn't she? I mean if he "wants it, he better put a ring on it." eh ladies?

Men in fact, don't mind spending money on their sweetheart. What else are we going to do with it? There are only so many rare baseball cards we can buy. No one holds a gun to our head. Men like to spoil their darling girl. They love being Mr. Bigshot (if they can). They know they're expected to be. They long to be that guy. The problem is that it is more and more challenging for a man to be that person. Thanks to a handful of greedy, corrupt alpha males at the top of society, bending, breaking and making new laws as they see fit, the lions share of the resources in any country quickly go to the top few percent while the rest of the men scrounge to make a living. Most women have no idea that's happening and role their eyes while muttering things about "ambition" while keeping their hard earned dollars squarely in their designer handbag.

So, Ms. PJ Gach, if you'd like a REAL debate on rings, promises, duties, responsibilities, obligations, and whatnot between the genders, before, during, AND after marriage, then please start talking sensibly, STARTING with what you intend to do to deserve any ring OR ANYTHING else AT ALL from us men. Presently, women are a tremendous LEGAL LIABILITY to men after marriage and children and men are taking more risk by marrying then women are and that is a PROVEN FACT.

So when he falls to his knees and offers you his heart, his life, and 10k worth of a stupid rock, why don't you show a little gratitude and just say "yes." Men don't get married with the intention of getting divorced, so calm the fuck down for a second and quit suggesting he's just dying to cheat. Some guy, once upon a time, that talked to you in a bar (talking isn't gratuitous sex, lady) isn't every man ever born. Not to mention I also have been personally hit on by women WHOSE BOYFRIENDS I HAVE MET. So I wouldn't act too high-and-mighty if I were you. If you want fairness, REFUSE THE RING, or better yet, BUY AN EQUALLY EXPENSIVE ONE FOR HIM. Whining that you're being forced to wear some man's $10,000 dollar present isn't a fine pillar to be standing on.


Friday, August 05, 2011

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Visitation Denied. No Repercussion.

Episode Part Pi.

My bewilderment, er, comments, to follow:

Meanwhile I have not seen our kids since March 6, because my ex-wife refuses to permit it.

My ex-wife is asking to make her sole custody permanent, because the supervised visitation is too much trouble for her. She said that if she had permanent sole custody with visitation entirely at her discretion, then she would be willing to let me attend one of the kids's soccer games, provided that I was accompanied by a visitation supervisor of her choice. The judge said that she believed my ex-wife's arguments that she want me involved in the kids' lives, but she is worried that there might be no visitation at all if my ex-wife gets what she wants.
From the angry dad again.

Jesus, what else is he supposed to be but an angry dad? Listen to that shit! The man's ex-wife refuses to allow him to see his own children, THE CHILDREN HE DUTIFULLY FINANCIALLY SUPPORTS, and what is the result?


Not one damn thing. The judge in the matter did nothing. According to angry dad the judge said "that she believed my ex-wife's arguments that she want me involved in the kids' lives..."

Pause right there a sec. Why would anyone believe that? His ex-wife is not letting him see the kids RIGHT NOW even though the court has ordered visitation with the kids.

So everyone blink and clear your head and listen. The court ordered a divorced man visit his kids. The children's mother denied him that right. What happened? Nothing.


Mom's next move? Not obeying the court, if anything.

Dad's next move? What move can he have? Appealing to the court doesn't matter, as the court's orders are not followed by his ex-wife, who simply just makes up excuses why she won't allow him to see his own kids. So if she denies him visitation and the court does nothing to enforce visitation, then what good is a visitation order?

Answer: it isn't.

So what if dad decides he's not going to financially support children he does not see?

Answer: His wages can be legally garnished by the state and he can be thrown in jail.

Do you wonder why there is a angry, angry, angry father's movement, dear reader?


Lastly, mom's offer is:

"She said that if she had permanent sole custody with visitation entirely at her discretion, then she would be willing to let me attend one of the kids's soccer games, provided that I was accompanied by a visitation supervisor of her choice."

This isn't even a joke. It isn't even a bad joke. ONE of the kids's [sic] soccer games? With a "visitation supervisor of her choice." What the Hell is a visitation supervisor? And why is one needed for a father to WATCH a soccer game and maybe pat his kids on the back afterwards? Is this man a monster or something? Seriously. Is this man some kind of drug-addled crackpot who likes to play with guns and matches? What possible reason could there be to entertain such a request? Why did the judge not say, "Forget it. There will be no visitation supervisor and there will be no mom-allowing-dad-a-soccer-game-provided-he-kisses-her-ass. I'm in charge here and dad is seeing the kids every other weekend and that's it. Done. Don't jerk me around or I will strip you of all custody rights, period."

Why wasn't that said? Who is this judge? She sounds like an employee working for mom. How do you even take this judge seriously? Mom wants FULL DISCRETION with dad's visits AND she wants him to be humiliated by a "visitation supervisor." Look, people. This man is a dad of 14 years. The kids are relatively speaking, healthy and normal, it sounds like. No supervisor is warranted, period. The ex-wife here is simply being an asshole. She wants her ex-husband humiliated and she wants him embarrassed and she wants it done publicly.

Why is that idea EVEN BEING ENTERTAINED by a grown, adult human being? There is NO CAUSE, NO EVIDENCE, NOTHING to sustain that idea even be considered.

In light of such things, the entire legal process here must be labeled a complete farce, a pathetic side show that does not intend, EVER, to consider the rights of the father.

My only advice to men in this land is not to have children. I'm afraid it can be no other way until serious family court reforms are taken up and passed into law. The current state of family law is ABYSMAL.

4 hours, Supervised, Once a Month

From the Angry Dad, a fellow blogger, father, divorced parent and tax-paying citizen who has two daughters, 14 and 11 years of age, respectively.

If you have a critical mind, a logical mind, that is to say, really, ANY MIND AT ALL, the below should seem BIZARRE at best and at worst, A SETUP.

Sloppy court interview

At court yesterday, I was given the following report (with names changed): Children: Mary age 14, Jenny age 11

At the direction of the court Mary and Jenny were interviewed separately on June 16, 2011. Both girls said that they are okay with supervised visitation with their father for 4 hours one time per month. They acknowledged that it is somewhat difficult to schedule because they both have very busy schedules. Mary is a dancer and Jenny plays competitive soccer.

XY Supervisor, LCSW, reported that she withdrew from being the visit supervisor for this family. Ms. Supervisor said that it became apparent that her efforts in assisting Father were not helpful to Father. She also said that it is important that the children get to have a say about the locations of the monthly visits.

Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Virostko, LCSW
Family Law Investigator

[JB: The girls said they were "ok" with supervised visits for 4 hours ONCE a month? As an aside, HOW THE BLEEP DOES 4 HOURS PER MONTH MAKE A KID FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A DAD? How many readers reading this would ASK - that is, REQUEST to see their own father once a month for 4 hours!?!??! Jesus, don't you see the mail man more often than that? If someone on the street 15 years ago told me two girls saw their divorced dad once a month for 4 hours, I would assume he was: dead, a drunk, a felon, in jail, a drug addict, homeless, and/or harvesting his children's organs for profit. The man in question is NONE OF THE ABOVE, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

So again, WHY EXACTLY are the children being asked "Hey Suzy, how do you feel about seeing your dad once a month for 4 hours, is that ok?" If Suzy was not just a kid with a "Family law investigator" (how does that title not make you suspicious?), asking her in a way that makes the question seem normal, do you think she would become VERY curious as to why that was the only option? Geesh, why not have the only questions asked to defendants on trial be "so did you shoot him with a .38 caliber gun, or a .44? Answer: I didn't shoot him at all. Reply: That wasn't the question." You see, the questions you ask AS WELL AS the questions you don't ask, rather frame the answers, don't they?

Further, Suzy could say, "Well... yeah, I guess that's ok, I mean, its not very long, but if that's what my mom wants and that's what you're asking, then I guess so." and the family law investigator could correctly report "child agrees to supervised visit." Well what other option did she have? Not to mention, when girls - notoriously precocious and mature adolescents - don't wonder aloud WHY they only have one option, its probably for a very good reason; such as mom and family law lady are providing the answers to the test. "Here is what's good for you girls, ok, so here's the question, now what's good for you? That's right, just repeat back to me what I said." Girls know what makes mom and dad mad. The girls live with their mother (because she refuses to let their father see them AT ALL), so what are they going to do? Give an answer that makes their mother mad!!?!? Yeah, right! They live with her! They're not stupid! And this setup is supposed to pass for impartial interviewing and facts in court. WHAT A JOKE.

In a REAL courtroom in a REAL trial with a REAL judge, the fact that this little "interview" HARDLY passes for being impartial due to obvious potential for influence on the part of the SOLE guardian of the children would be brought up immediately and the terms of the interview CHANGED to meet something FAR more impartial.

The second sentence is your REAL tip off reader. If you don't see through that one, there is no hope for you.

"They acknowledged that it is somewhat difficult to schedule because they both have very busy schedules. Mary is a dancer and Jenny plays competitive soccer."

Okayyyy. In high school I played competitive tennis, did track, played pond hockey, worked two jobs, went to school, hung out with my friends, studied and STILL saw my dad EVERY DAY. Guess who played tennis with me all the time? DAD! And these two girls each have ONE hobby. Whoa. Pretty heavy. Does Mary dance Saturday ALL DAY and Sunday ALL DAY? Because that would be kind of insane, wouldn't it? Do 11-14 year old girls play competitive soccer EVERY SINGLE DAY?!?!?! I'm going to reach here and say No. But these two activities make it IMPOSSIBLE to see their father? THEIR FATHER. Give me a break. They're not 18, hanging out with boyfriends and getting ready to leave for college. They're still just girls. They need to hang out with dad. Play a board game, learn about boys, watch t.v., movies, play sports with dad, observe him as a man and as a person, learn about the world, etc.. Don't they have a right to that? Apparently their soccer schedule is just too demanding according to the "family law investigator." Could someone ask this woman how many kids can't see their fathers due to their DEMANDING hobby schedules?

When young girls wind up pregnant and profess to know nothing about how young men work, let's all be sure to blame the father they're not allowed to see.

The next paragraph is another joke.

"XY Supervisor, LCSW, reported that she withdrew from being the visit supervisor for this family. Ms. Supervisor said that it became apparent that her efforts in assisting Father were not helpful to Father."

Um, just what EXACTLY does she assist in doing for the father of 14 YEARS? Has she... been a father? For 14 years? So how the Hell could she know what to do? Does she cook and clean or something? "Rate" his parenting skills? Judge how well he tells his daughters the facts of life? What is her function? What is she doing looking over the shoulder of A GROWN MAN with no drug abuse or history of crime or violence, i.e. just some regular guy who is divorced? Is she part of some "sponsor women into jobs" legislation that recently passed? Doing some outreach for a non-profit? (in which case, cooking and cleaning would help, thanks). What does she correct or supply to this situation? The situation being one 4 hour visit?!?!?!

Answer: Nothing.

Next: "She also said that it is important that the children get to have a say about the locations of the monthly visits."

Hold on, the kids can say WHERE the visits take place? Oh, how nice. How about HOW OFTEN? How about FOR HOW LONG. How about, CHOOSE WHO THEY WANT TO LIVE WITH TO BEGIN WITH? Their mother is determined to not pay a cent for them it seems as well as make sure they don't see the person who does pay for their expenses: their father. Is that woman acting on behalf of their best interests?!?!?! I would say no, given girls without dads tend to wind up on drugs, drop out of school, and get pregnant. She won't even let her girls VISIT their father, and offers no legitimate reason for doing so.

To summarize, the court, the family law investigator, the mother and the girls all get choices in this matter. Dad gets none. Not one. He pays $1,000+/month and is not given one choice here. I mean, did you ever wonder, reader, why "conservative" cultures are absolutely terrified of the Western world's moral behavior coming to their country? Men being treated like slaves with no rights? Guess the men in those countries aren't in a hurry to embrace that concept.

This is in-sane. Further it seems mom gets the most choices, she seems to be a self-anointed dictator. The court decides which of mom's decrees shall be made law. The family law women asks the children a set of narrow questions that correspond to what mom and the court have allowed as choices, but in reality the choices barely qualify as choices at all. Dad? Dad gets to show up and listen to what the other 3 women have decided and his poor daughters have been manipulated into. That's it.

Welcome to Hell on a hot day.

Angry Dad, you have a choice. Mom wants the conflict and she wants to decide everything and she wants to fight with you. Ignore her. Tell her you want a paternity test proving the girls are yours. Withdraw all motions. Threaten to move and prepare to move. Demand your business relocate you. Tell your ex-wife. Quit your job. Move overseas if possible. Cut all ties. Unless your ex comes to you needing something, asking for something, you are wasting your time, love, and energy. Your girls are doomed. Your wife is a bitter, obsessed, control-freak with serious man-issues; she has ALL the leverage and you have NONE. Let your daughters find you some day and welcome them with loving, open arms. For now, you're just running on a hamster wheel while they laugh at you.]

Monday, August 01, 2011

The Secret Lives of Wives

Socrates said it best: Want to be a solider? Then do what soldiers do. Want to be a fisherman? Then do what fisherman do.

You won't know WHY they do it, at first. But eventually you will. And if you don't start doing what they do, you never will.

Want to be a wife, ladies?

Do what wives do.

Don't know what they do?


The Secret Lives of Wives: Women Share What it Really Takes to Stay Married

Either this generation of college-educated moms and dads has it figured out — "peer" marriages where both parents are in the yoke and duties are shared — or they have seen the headlines that warn of poor outcomes for children of single parents. And this cohort of parents wants only the best outcomes for their children.
In any case, it is easier to put the kids first if you remember too well the pain and confusion of your own parents' divorce. Even if the break-up is civilized, the disruption is tough on children.
This is a different spin on "staying together for the sake of the kids," and it is a worthy goal. But how do you make it to the finish line? What happens when the magic ends?
Author Iris Krasnow, who has been chronicling the angst of Boomers since she wrote "Surrendering to Motherhood" in 1997, has just completed a new book, "The Secret Lives of Wives: Women Share What it Really Takes to Stay Married." It is due out in October.
She spent two years interviewing 200 couples who had been married from 15 to 70 years to find out what makes marriage last.Understand that no one else can make you happy, Ms. Krasnow said. Only you can do that.
"If we all left our marriages when they became unromantic, none of us would be married. The renewal has to spring from within."
If this generation is expecting to stay married, they have their work cut out for them. They need to start, Ms. Krasnow said, by lowering their expectations. "The march down the aisle is not a march to happiness."
Read the below and you will know how a man can come to have extreme views on women and feminism and the judicial/police DV "establishment."

What is described below is the most heinous form of predatory entrapment I've ever seen in my life. The cops were in on it, a man's ex-wife, who should be assumed to be out for personal gain and not public gain, was in on it.

The point of this story, readers, is that you cannot make assumptions about someone when others are sent in to alter their behavior purposely and radically. If I shoved a gun in your face and you panicked and did something rash or stupid and I hauled you into court and tried to have your children taken from you, using the highly unusual circumstance as evidence that you do rash and stupid things and therefore do not deserve access to your own children, you would roar that the circumstances are 1) HIGHLY unusual and rare and 2) Setup for the sole purpose of vilifying you and therefore are untrustworthy. In other words, you would be arguing that you were entrapped.

You would be right.

Let's suppose a lonely woman, divorced, with 3 kids and no money meets her dream man online and is wildly excited, even if she's quite apprehensive about telling him she's divorced with 3 kids. He shows up, handsome and well dressed, takes her out for a romantic evening, makes her laugh, kisses her goodnight and sets up another date. Then he does the same again and also gets a few drinks in her. After she's inebriated he manages to take her back to his place for a little sex. She is head over heels for the man and drunk and lonely and desperately wants the feel of another human being holding her close so she's goes along with it. She then drives home, a bit drunk still.

Now suppose it was all a setup. That the suave gentleman was paid by her ex-husband to get her to do something that could be used against her in court for purposes of changing their custody arrangement. A prosecutor, 2 weeks later is telling a jury that she is some kind of whore who goes home with any strange man and is a risk to her children since such strange men could clearly harm her or her kids., therefore she should be stripped of all visitation, despite the fact that her children were nowhere near when all these events transpired. He further sites that she was arrested for D.U.I., after police, knowing who she was, where she was, and what she was doing, tailed her home and arrested her on the spot.

Women's groups would be APOPLECTIC. They would roar "setup!, entrapment!, abuse of power!, frame-job, she was only lonely!, what about her needs!, the man did it to her!, he used her!, he set her up!, he's guilty!, he used her fragile emotional state against her!, who are you to judge her!" and on and on.

Below essentially the same thing happens but its a man and not a woman who is setup. The result? He hardly ever sees his own children. Does the man have any other misdeeds, violations, criminal conduct, etc.?

No. In fact, he's a former cop.

What did the police do?

Help remove an otherwise innocent man from his children.

Who suffers the most from this?

Innocent children.

Who wins?

A bitter, manipulative, nasty ex-wife.

Rejoice everyone.

Duped by a blonde too good to be true

I posted before about Crooked cops fueling nasty divorces with dirty DUI charges. Sunday's paper has this followup:
She was a striking blonde who spent a lot of time in Hawaii, just like he did. She was an avid Sharks fan, just like him. She said all the right things and made it clear that she wanted him.

"I haven't had sex in so long," she cooed on their first date.

Deep down, Dave Dutcher -- unassuming aeronautics engineer, father of three, recently split from his wife -- suspected that his sweetheart was too good to be true. And when a wildly flirtatious second date ended in a DUI, Dutcher wondered whether his ex-wife was somehow connected to the woman who had fed him shots and invited him hot-tubbing with an equally coquettish friend.

Then, two years later, a major police corruption scandal centered on a Concord private investigator exploded, and a prosecutor confirmed Dutcher's suspicions: He had been set up. ...

On that night, when his date and her friend flashed their breasts at Dutcher, he said he was as confused as the other men at the bar who wondered whether he was some kind of movie producer. ...

"Again, there was no plan to set up a DUI arrest; I only wanted Mr. Butler to watch Mr. Dutcher drink and drive so he could report this to the court for the safety and protection of my children," Susan Dutcher wrote in a declaration to the court. "There was never a discussion with me about Mr. Butler notifying the police if he saw Mr. Dutcher driving after drinking to excess."

Butler, one of five former police officers who have pleaded not guilty to a 38-count felony complaint, told a DA inspector that Dutcher was the second divorcing spouse of a Nolan client who was arrested for DUI as a result of one of his undercover stings using female decoys. ...

"Everything changed after the arrest," Dutcher said. "Custody went from 60/40 to 90/10, though it's really more like 4 (percent). My kids are so alienated now, I rarely ever see them."
This scheme by the police and ex-wives is thoroughly reprehensible. No man should be held responsible if some hot blonde flashes her breasts, gets him drunk, and seduces him. The cops participated in this entrapment. The family court should not be punishing the kids by cutting them off from the dad.