My point is that if you want to minimize your losses in family court, it is best to recognize the forces arrayed against you and adapt accordingly, rather than being confrontational. Your relationship with your kids is on the line; if you've been dragged into the system, it's too late to engage in confrontation (if your goal is preserving your father-child relationship). My advice to the men who are facing the family court soon or now: adapt to the court, and don't attack it (because you'll lose).

It's perfectly explainable why men who get involved in the father's movement fade away once their case is resolved; they no longer have anything to gain by their involvement. That's why it's so hard for us to overcome the obstacles imposed by feminist-styled family law. Fatherhood itself is a choice (because fathers don't give birth, and can abandon the mother and kids at any time); you have to be highly motivated to behave as a father. Once the court decisively blocks that very fragile link between fathers and their children, a lot of motivation to reform the system is lost. Altruism to agitate for family law reform is in short supply once all your hope to actively be a father to your kids is gone.

But for those who are politically active in the father's movement, there are both effective and ineffective ways at achieving our goals. Full scale political assaults upon the family court will likely yield very little (or even set back the cause, by providing caricatures for ideologues to point to when policy reforms are being considered). If you want to reform policy, then do it quietly, diplomatically, with professional paid lobbyists (and we should make donations to these). If you want to transcend policy, then take the Leykis approach and use/promote contraception and the marriage strike -- i.e. unplug, before black-robed judges can get their clutches into you.