Fathers Bear the Brunt of Gender Bias in Family Courts

**Tyrael** · 2nd-April-2009

Fathers Bear the Brunt of Gender Bias in
Family Courts
By Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks

The National Organization for Women's recently released Family Court Report 2002 claims that family courts are "wrought with gender bias" against women. However, the respondents to the survey upon which the report is based were not chosen at random, but were instead self-selected from among those whom NOW calls its "constituents." If one selects a survey's respondents, one can make the survey show almost anything. For this reason, these types of Self-selected Listener Opinion Polls, commonly known as SLOPs, are viewed as junk social science by serious researchers.

NOW's report sounds the alarm on women's "loss of custody through gender bias" but the vacuity of this claim can be demonstrated by examining how rarely courts grant custody to fathers in contested cases.

For example, a Stanford study of 1,000 divorced couples selected at random found that divorcing mothers were awarded sole custody four times as often as divorcing fathers in contested custody cases. A study of all divorce-custody decrees in Arlington County, Virginia over an 18 month period found that no father was given sole or even joint custody unless the mother agreed to it. According to Frank Bishop, the former director of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, almost 95% of custody cases in Virginia were won by mothers.

An Ohio study published in Family Advocate found that fathers seeking sole custody obtain it in less than 10% of cases, and a Utah study conducted over 23 years found similar results. According to the 2000 Census Bureau report, mothers comprise 85% of all custodial parents.

Even the 80% to 95% maternal preference documented by these studies and others understates family court discrimination against fathers by identifying many coerced child custody arrangements as "uncontested." The vast majority of divorces involving children are initiated by women, and women are usually granted temporary custody of the children.

Judges are reluctant to switch children from the custody of one parent to another. Fathers, left to fight an uphill battle to gain custody and often out of both money and hope, sometimes give up. Others spend their life's savings trying to obtain joint physical or sole custody so they can remain a part of their children's lives. Devastated financially and with little hope of winning, they often sign consent orders granting custody to mothers. In both of these common scenarios, the child custody arrangement is "uncontested."

NOW has attempted to obscure this anti-father family court bias by claiming "according to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases." In other words, men don't get custody because they don't want it. Yet NOW's claim, proclaimed in its 1996 National Conference Resolution attacking the fathers' rights movement, and again in Family Court Report 2002, is without merit. All three of the sources NOW cites used survey pools which were either nonrandom or in which contested and uncontested custody cases were lumped together.

Once custody is lost divorced dads are often at the mercy of both custodial mothers and the family courts. Divorced dads' complaints include: blocked visitation and unenforced visitation orders; "move away" spouses who permit or even use geography as a method of driving noncustodial parents out of their children's lives; acceptance by the courts of false and/or uncorroborated accusations as a basis for denying custody or even contact between parent and child; rigid, excessive, and often punitive child support awards; and burdensome legal costs.

The presence (or absence) of a father in a child's life is one of the largest factors in predicting whether a child will graduate high school, attend college, become involved in crime or drugs, or get pregnant before age 18. The greatest and least recognized force behind America's epidemic of fatherlessness is the way courts allow custodial mothers to drive fathers out of their children's lives.

The solution to the problem is shared parenting, which creates equality between divorcing couples by replacing the option of sole physical custody, which occurs in the vast majority of custody cases, with the presumption of joint legal and physical custody.

If divorcing parents are unable to agree on a shared parenting plan, the courts would order a plan which would afford both parents equal physical time and decision-making power. Children gain from shared parenting because it allows them to retain the ongoing emotional, physical, and financial support of both parents.

The National Organization for Women has lobbied hard against shared parenting legislation and today is the main obstacle to equality in family court. Yet during the 1960s and 1970s many of NOW's leaders, including former president Karen DeCrow, were sympathetic to shared parenting as part of their efforts to erase all gender inequalities. Family Court Report 2002 again reveals just how far NOW has drifted from this admirable goal.

This column first appeared in Insight magazine (8/19/02).

Dianna Thompson is a founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (www.acfc.org).

Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

Article link

Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike?
By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

Kathleen is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirty-something software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan Syndrome--they refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up."

However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man.

"Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31 year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment--wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."

The US marriage rate has dipped 40% over the past four decades, to its lowest point ever. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system which is hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike."

It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Kathleen, and has two children. There is a 50% likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does the odds are two to one that it will be Kathleen, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband--studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men.

While the courts may grant Dan and Kathleen joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Kathleen, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Over night Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad"--a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every 7 days with his own children.

Once divorced, odds are at least even that Dan's ex-wife will interfere with his visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40% of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes.

Kathleen will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay a substantial portion of his take-home pay to Kathleen in child support.

As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals.

He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them.

He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70% or 80% of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back.

"It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk."

This column first appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer (7/5/02).

Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

Article Link

**shaazam** · 2nd-April-2009

Family Courts are by definition politically correct feminit star chambers in their typical mode of operation

the core skewed attitude of these star chambers is agin men and for wimyn

these star chambers know all the good reasons to sell daddy down the river at her behest and do so as I type

after this chamber is finished with him he is not mych ore than an ambulatory slave for his ex

gotcha she thinks in malicious triumph

she get his assets kids and probably eternal peonage instalments; she gets the goldmine he gets the shaft - Divorce American Style circa 1966

of course fathers bear the brunt of the cockeyed biased pronouncements of these star chambers - the chambers were set up for this rotten purpose

**Tyrael** · 2nd-April-2009

Australian Law: Family Courts still secretive and still denying equal custody..

If you have listened to my podcast you would have heard me explain where the term "in the best interest of the children" came from and here we have the feminised family courts using that same sentence that originated in Nazi Germany all those years ago by a fascist socialist by the name of Adolf Hitler, you remember that name ?

Now in the best interest of children, family courts decide that to be just the terminology they can hide behind..Ever wondered how feminism and Nazism are somewhat similar in doctrine and perceived outcomes ?

That is not by accident..

The feminist-McIntosh (Jennifer) beatup of conflict (pun intended) appears
to be taking hold.

It is to women's advantage to manufacture conflict (rebadged "acrimony" in
the article below) so as to increase the likelihood of a successful pillage:

Quote #1: Mothers are more likely to be granted the most time with their
children in the most acrimonious cases contested in court, according to
Family Court figures. Of mothers involved in contested cases, 60 per cent
were granted main residence, or the majority of time.

As much as possible, it is important to try and minimise conflict before
and during legal and court proceedings. But difficult to do when
alienated, robbed and under great pressure and stress.

Many of the agreements made outside court, or in the rollover lounge of the
court, tend to be disadvantageous to fathers (who realise the implications
some time later):

Quote #2: Most separated couples come to their own agreements without going
through the court. Matters that end up before the court are the most
difficult and contentious. But it is unknown whether that has altered since
the Howard government changes, as the figures for before 2006 were not
released.

There does appear to be some improvement, over the past 10 years, in the
time children can spend living with each parent. But much more to be done.

Quote #3: The Family Court granted 50-50 parenting in just 15 per cent of
contested cases, but the picture is similar for parents who come to their
own agreement and have it finalised by the court. A separate analysis of
2,700 of those cases shows that 19 per cent ended up in a 50-50 arrangement.

Note Bruce Smyth hosing down shared parenting, probably to maintain his
academic credentials:

Quote #4: Australian National University associate professor in sociology
Bruce Smyth said having parents share the care of their children was a
growing trend, but there was a need to assess how children fared in these
arrangements. "Social change more broadly all around the world is moving
towards increases in time sharing," he said. He said it was difficult
enough to make shared care work when the parents got along, let alone when
there was conflict. "Kids often get used as spies, messengers and
go-betweens ... when kids are stuck in a tug-of-war, it can take its toll,"
he said. "The arrangements might be lasting if they're 50-50, but it might
not mean that they're working well for kids."

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --

http://www.theage. com.au/national/ feuding-parents- unlikely- to-get-equal- custody-20090323 -97m7.html

The Age (Melbourne)
24 March 2009

Feuding parents unlikely to get equal custody
By Carol Nader

Family Court judges seem reluctant to order that children spend equal time
with parents in the most bitter and complex disputes, with only 15 per cent
of such cases resulting in a 50-50 parenting split.

Mothers are more likely to be granted the most time with their children in
the most acrimonious cases contested in court, according to Family Court
figures.

Of mothers involved in contested cases, 60 per cent were granted main
residence, or the majority of time.

Of fathers in such cases, 17 per cent were granted the majority of time.
The analysis is based on almost 1,450 cases contested in court that were
finalised in 2007-08.

Changes to family law that came into effect in July 2006 moved towards a
presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and an obligation for
the Family Court to consider shared time between parents when it was
thought to be in the best interests of children.

The figures suggest that in most of the more acrimonious cases, judges do
not consider it in the best interests of children to evenly divide their
time between parents, or even to have a more lopsided shared-care arrangement.

Of fathers involved in contested cases, 14 per cent were granted between 30
per cent and 45 per cent of time with their children.

Most separated couples come to their own agreements without going through
the court. Matters that end up before the court are the most difficult and
contentious. But it is unknown whether that has altered since the Howard
government changes, as the figures for before 2006 were not released.

The Family Court granted 50-50 parenting in just 15 per cent of contested
cases, but the picture is similar for parents who come to their own
agreement and have it finalised by the court. A separate analysis of 2,700
of those cases shows that 19 per cent ended up in a 50-50 arrangement.

Family law specialist Caroline Counsel, vice-president of the Law Institute
of Victoria, said judges and parents always had to make decisions about
what was best for children.

"It is not in the children's best interests to be put in highly conflictual
households where there are two households at war with each other," she
said. "And all you're doing is accelerating the conflict if you are
dividing a child's time in half. You are not giving that child a place
where they can grow away from the conflict."

Australian National University associate professor in sociology Bruce Smyth
said having parents share the care of their children was a growing trend,
but there was a need to assess how children fared in these arrangements.

"Social change more broadly all around the world is moving towards
increases in time sharing," he said. He said it was difficult enough to
make shared care work when the parents got along, let alone when there was
conflict.

"Kids often get used as spies, messengers and go-betweens ... when kids are
stuck in a tug-of-war, it can take its toll," he said.

"The arrangements might be lasting if they're 50-50, but it might not mean
that they're working well for kids."

More...

New Zealand Law: Rife with Anti-Father Bias..

Just as is the case in Australia, mothers can thumb their nose at the law and not be held accountable. As also in Australia and most western countries their is not checking system or penalty to stop mothers from lying about abuse or committing perjury with the assistance of lawyers who are surprisingly supposed to uphold the law..

Not encourage a felony to be perpetrated. Lawyers should be struck from the register for this type of behaviour..

But I am afraid it's the wrong sex in this case..it will never happen..

Media release - 24 03 2009
http://www.justice.govt.nz/lcro/home.asp

LCRO – and very poor law

For its first decision, the new Legal Complaints Review Office has begun in what should only be described as an appalling start. Advocate, Benjamin Easton of a father’s coalition for the first complainant, states that the injustice of the decision is profound.

The decision is on a family law matter where a lawyer has been challenged for failing to act responsibly or reasonably when fielding allegations of domestic violence. The lawyer was asked to support supervised access for the father over his son in a without notice application. An application of this type means that an order is made from the Family Court and the respondent is then given an opportunity to defend the allegations. In this case the time given to defend was 24 hours before the order became permanent. The father chose not to defend because the circumstances were openly oppressive and biased.

Mr Easton claims that the evidence to support the father that he has been treated unfairly and in a biased way is obvious and is indefensible. The decision itself states that there has been error on behalf of the lawyer and that the first authority to hear the complaint, the Manawatu Di strict Law Society has misinterpreted and mishandled the information it was provided. These facts appear to yield no consequence.

“It appears that no one is interested that the father and his son have been done a most serious injustice by a false Affidavit and its following order. Instead the emphasis further protects the mother and her lawyer after elaborating a story and promoting its fiction,” comments Mr Easton.

“The father has been wrongfully forced by the mother for allegations he has behavioral problems, into seeing his son under supervised conditions or otherwise, because of the order, not seeing him at all. The LCRO decision agreeing that the father has been wrongfully treated and then judging against him as if he should remain guilty of the fiction and its drama is completely preposterous. If anyone should want to observe the facts where New Zealand ’s family law is biased against fatherhood then they have no further to investigate,” continues Mr Easton.

The LCRO has excused the lawyer, Carly Davidson of Winter Woods in Palmerston North from the allegation against her of not acting, as would any reasonable or responsible lawyer. Ms Davidson supported the allegations that there was physical or sexual abuse by laying these claims in the original affidavit even though the text of the affidavit stated no such thing. Judge Twaddle somehow agreed even though the mistake is blindingly obvious. The allegations were later withdrawn by the counsel acting for the child and the LCRO has stated that this marks efficiency in family law rather than identifying the incompetence of Ms Davidson, the father's lawyer Mark Dobson, or Judge Twaddle where she has promoted alleged claims of violence that were never in fact alleged.

“It appears to me,” says Mr Easton, “that the LCRO has no idea of what a without notice application is all about or worse does not recognise the seriousness of an order separating the relationship between a natural father and his son/s and or daughter/s.

What I find most bewildering in this decision is that the LCRO is directly appointed as an authority that is not a lawyer. This provision apparently provides an ordinary person with a protection from lawyers ganging up to protect themselves against allegations from the public. It is supposed to provide protection for fathers like the complainant.

Yet the LCRO has rewritten the legislation in order to protect the lawyer from criticism of not doing her job properly. The law states that the lawyer was supposed to have made reasonable inquiries into the mother’s relevant circumstances to see if the order was one that “ought” to be made. Yet she didn’t seem to ask the mother why the father should realistically require supervised access other than because the mother thought he “had issues”. The Family Court is supposed to protect the interests of the child as the first and paramount consideration, but in this case, clearly what the mother wants is the status that is legally protected even to the point of protecting an obvious lie and its demonstrated perjury”.

Asked if the decision will be appealed Mr Easton is less confident. “ The case proves that there is an actual and protected bias against fatherhood in the family law system and the construction of the new LCRO office specifically gives it autonomy over that bias.

In reality this means that a judge is unlikely to move the decision because the judge has no authority over an LCRO appointed to make decisions that are not legally based. The authority of the LCRO is one of opinion. This means that the only entry to have the decision overturned is if it can be proved incompetent yet what the decision does is to protect lawyers who in the end will become judges. This means that the opinion expressed by the LCRO protects the lawyers rather than protecting the father and his natural right of access to his child and given our history of bias against fathers in New Zealand family law the father’s chances of success are virtually non-existent.

I have made preliminary inquiries with the Ministry’s of Justice and the Courts and will progress these on to the New Zealand Law Society,” says Mr Easton. “Yet what is most important now” he continues, “is whether or not those with the power to recognise the purity of this injustice will actually challenge it for what it is. Meanwhile, and while fathers continue to wait to be recognised as valuable, the mother has simply removed the child from Palmerston North to Christchurch without telling anyone. Her ability to do this and that of other mothers who behave similarly makes a mockery of the judicial system.”

Benjamin Easton 027 3902169

More...