Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Family Court Injustices to Men
Townhall.com ^ | July 21, 2009 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 07/21/2009 5:08:25 AM PDT by Kaslin

Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?

Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?

Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?

These are among the injustices that the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.

His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.

Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer.

Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.

Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support," and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.

But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father).

This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful.

Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wa., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.

The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone, for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream.

There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: agenda; childsupport; dna; economy; liberalfascism; liberalism; moralabsolutes; paternity; schlafly

1 posted on 07/21/2009 5:08:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
>a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled “child support,” that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related?

Kind of old news now.
Not from NJ where they do it all of the time?

He is the effective legal father. Don't you love these arcane concepts that they codify into law? tough crap for you dude! try voting the bastards out.
(Tough love from the liberal trash running the legal system)

2 posted on 07/21/2009 5:13:38 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
It is very bad out there for men.

I had an employee to whom I paid about $10 per hour. Good wages for the job he had.

He was a nice guy but did screw up and had a child out of wedlock.

The judge, female, ordered child support payments equal to his gross earnings, so he started going to jail every three or four months on a two to three week sentence for non-payment.

When he told the judge he obviously could not pay the whole amount each month she ordered him to get a better job, as if he was capable of that (he was not). He did have a second job but he did have to live somewhere and eat now and then. The judge did not care.

3 posted on 07/21/2009 5:22:03 AM PDT by OldMissileer (Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Phyllis Schlafly is a gift, I have only started to appreciate her the last few years but she is wonderful.

Yes the family courts are like Islamic courts in Iran and pro-life republicans made a deal with the feminists to promote single mom-hood and destroy marriage. Its why the whole Palin pro-life theme leaves me flat.

4 posted on 07/21/2009 5:35:01 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Socialist Conservatives: "'Big government is free because tax cuts pay for it'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldMissileer

I didn’t think the judges could order child support calculated differently than the law allowed. I do know that the judge in my divorce took my ex’s word for what he made and later took his atty’s word for what he made but they demanded to see MY paystub to substantiate the insurance deduction. His W-2 is never looked at to see the bonus he gets every year (that dried up as soon as he was out of the house - bet me!)

There is a lot of injustice out there. Just because the mother of a child says a certain guy is the father doesn’t make it so - but that is the name on the birth certificate. If not married, I think it should be mandatory for blood type match minimum to determine the father. DNA is the guy still says he “didn’t do it”!

I also think that Pam Stenzel’s film about teenage sex should be shown in every school in the nation! “Sex has a price tag.”


5 posted on 07/21/2009 5:35:40 AM PDT by RebelTXRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

One of the few reasons I can see that gay marriage should be allowed. It will be funny to see lesbians jailed under these laws when they get divorced from their wives.


6 posted on 07/21/2009 5:40:21 AM PDT by Bushwacker777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.

Wow, can we prosecute the Judge, the prosecution, the CPS (or agency in charge of child support) under USC TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 & § 242? (Conspiracy against rights AND Deprivation of rights under color of law, respectively)
Moreover, the cited law allows for the death-penalty in cases where kidnapping (or attempt) was used in such conspiracy/deprivation. (see: http://definitions.uslegal.com/k/kidnapping/ #3,5,& 6 may all be applicable)

And finally, just to cement that the cited federal laws ARE applicable: either Amendment 6 or 7 of the United States constitution is applicable; one deals with civil suits, the other with criminal, and both guarantee the right to a Jury trial in this instance.

7 posted on 07/21/2009 5:42:25 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Child support inequities often begin with false accusations of domestic abuse/violence.

"Out of Order?", a year 2000 WCVB-TV (Boston) Chronicle video is an excellent description of this ongoing injustice against men.

8 posted on 07/21/2009 5:48:57 AM PDT by joeu01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I tell this story a lot. Stop me if you’re heard it before.

Years ago when Cabbage Pattch dolls were all the rage, I was working with this woman (divorced, two children) who was always complaining about money. Her favorite complaint was about her ex-husband who she said did not pay enough child support. She was constantly dragging the poor guy into court for more money.

So right before Christmas, this woman who was so broke and poor announced that she had bought a Cabbage Patch doll for her daughter. big mouth that I am, I asked her how, if she was so broke and poor and not getting enough child support, could afford to buy her daughter this doll. If I remember right, those dolls cost about $100 or $200. Of course, this woman became all huffy. She told me that I wouldn’t understand because I didn’t have children, and that when you have children, you spend whatever you have to in order to ensure their happiness.

I informed this woman that while I didn’t have children, I do know how I was raised. Basically, my partents provided food, clothing and shelter. If there was anything left over, it was put into savings accounts for our higher education. Anything else that might be left over after that would go for luxuries, such as toys. If we kids wanted some toy, and my parents didn’t have the money,
we did not get that toy.

From then on, every time she whined about her ex-husband, I just tuned her out or walked away.


9 posted on 07/21/2009 5:49:41 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Wow, can we prosecute the Judge, the prosecution...

No. Judges have unqualified immunity.

For example, the judge could order you castrated for screwing his daughter and there isn't really any recourse for you against him. - legally.

10 posted on 07/21/2009 5:53:11 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Since I am going through a divorce, I am well aware of these stories. Nothing this extreme has happened to me, yet. However the assumption made by the Court, before even one hearing is always that the child will stay with the mother, and that the father is a deadbeat who isn’t going to pay. I feel good about how I’m going to be treated when that is the starting point.


11 posted on 07/21/2009 5:57:09 AM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

That’s not what this law says, it says ANY persons.... that means judges, Senators, USSC Justices, and even the President are valid applicants/targets of this law.

Words DO have meanings.

Oh wait, only for us peons and grunts; the law doesn’t apply to government officials. [/cynic]


12 posted on 07/21/2009 6:05:46 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldMissileer
North Carolina child support is determined strictly by formula, and it isn't enforced very harshly. South Carolina, on the other hand, practices a type of sharia law when it comes to child support and enforcement.

When North Carolina first instituted a standardized system for child support about 9 years ago where support was paid to NC Child Support and then redistributed, they had a glitch in their system that put thousands of men in arrears even with the payments current on a personal level.

My ex and 18 year old daughter lived in South Carolina so I drove down there in a crane service truck to file for the emancipation of my daughter not knowing that there was a warrant outstanding for my arrest for NC's failure to pay support. Thanks to a sympathetic Clerk of Courts who explained the situation to me, I put a lot of road between the courthouse and myself until the situation resolved itself.

13 posted on 07/21/2009 6:09:06 AM PDT by Big_Harry ( Thank God I am an "Infidel"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
>That’s not what this law says, it says ANY persons..

sure - but judges have unqualified immunity from those laws. In case you didn't get that meaning from my prior post because I put it badly.

Like how diplomats have diplomatic immunity from almost everything and our laws can pound sand in that regard, no matter how they read.

14 posted on 07/21/2009 6:09:46 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
He is the effective legal father. Don't you love these arcane concepts that they codify into law? tough crap for you dude! try voting the bastards out.

(Tough love from the liberal trash running the legal system)

Yes, these are laws enforcing centuries-old doctrines.

I can't help but notice that for feminists, any laws (which apply to women) based upon centuries-old doctrines are suspect by definition.

15 posted on 07/21/2009 6:13:49 AM PDT by gogeo (Democrats want to support the troops by accusing them of war crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

>sure - but judges have unqualified immunity from those laws.

On what grounds? If they are rendering just and lawful judgments while living within the law then they need have no fear; the only thing such a system would ensure would be the corruption and arrogance of the judge.

>In case you didn’t get that meaning from my prior post because I put it badly.

Oh, I got your meaning; but it does not logically follow.
I’d like to see this unqualified immunity vs the laws of physics. (I get the feeling my .45 ACP, 357 Mag, or 5.7x28 would trump any judge’s “immunity” from said laws... but I could be wrong, they COULD be gods who rule the universe and stand above all law. I just don’t think that is the case.)


16 posted on 07/21/2009 6:37:23 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

maybe marrying a good girl and otherwise keeping it in your pants isn’t such a bad idea after all.


17 posted on 07/21/2009 6:41:43 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (WWFUAMLD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

For a while women hooked into the scam of accusing a random soldier in the war zone of being the father and the military, without question, took “support” money out of the soldier’s paycheck for the women and courts upheld it all. I haven’t heard about such an incident for a few years so I think it must have been stopped but it was a great scam while it lasted. I wasn’t sure that was true until I met such a damsel right here who bragged about it. She was still getting money from the soldier she never actually met several months later.


18 posted on 07/21/2009 6:47:23 AM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

A “good girl” who is befriended by a good feminist attorney or just an attorney who sees fees from the husband and from the state is every bit as dangerous as a conniving %$#@*.


19 posted on 07/21/2009 6:52:41 AM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose
“Sex has a price tag.”

And it is men who pay it.

20 posted on 07/21/2009 6:55:06 AM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
That's a contradiction, homeboy. A "good girl," in my lexicon, is that one-in-10,000 who wouldn't dream of holding anyone over a barrel because it's not what good people do.

All-that-glitters alert.

21 posted on 07/21/2009 6:56:53 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (WWFUAMLD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
And it is men who pay it.

Talked to a women who's had an abortion, lately?

22 posted on 07/21/2009 7:05:49 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (WWFUAMLD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Oh, you are talking about needles in haystacks. Such a ratio renders the argument for the good girl as fantasy. The average conscientious guy has little chance of meeting one such or marrying one. I work at a beach resort and have lived in the area off and on for many years, continuously only for the last 20. I have seen the changes in attitude of both sexes. Most young men no longer contemplate marriage at all. They see it as dangerous and totally unnecessary for the preferred lifestyle and for frequent gratification.


23 posted on 07/21/2009 7:36:56 AM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I have hope that when gay marriage is the law of the land the resulting confusion in the courts, caused by the lack of gender bias, will effect a change in, or better the abolishment of Family Courts.


24 posted on 07/21/2009 7:57:58 AM PDT by captwgn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Let me get this bit of logic straight:

Your pro-choice, because statists have set up a separate system of justice for men that is so biased and bereft of Constitutionality, that a military tribunal would actually afford more due process?

So, we are going to kill children because live statists have created a version of gulag justice in America?

Am I following this right? Oh, and its all Palin’s fault for backing such a wacky scheme as taking the ‘self-evident’ right to life away from the very crowd who benefits from this same system of injustice.

The logic of allowing a baby to come to term and be put up for adoption is tenuous, but the logic of sentencing a man who is scientifically proven not to be the father to jail indefinitely is plain.

The mind boggles.


25 posted on 07/21/2009 8:10:05 AM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

there are a lot of STD’s out there that last a lifetime!


26 posted on 07/21/2009 9:01:32 AM PDT by RebelTXRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Jerry Reed had a song called “She got the gold mine, I got the shaft”. Ex husbands are cash cows.


27 posted on 07/21/2009 9:08:13 AM PDT by Texas resident ( Boys and Girls, it's us against them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
I certainly agree that the pickings are slim. That's the way it is.

There are other awful truths in this matter. Women often emulate men -- when a man is a conniver, well, guess what? Such is the nature of the man-woman relationship. Also, people often get exactly what they want.

And, finally, in a twisted and perverse way, justice does happen. There are lots and lots of real deadbeats out there, in and amongst the the decent guys that the system eats alive.

The system is wicked, through and through. Any justice that it enables is coincidental to its real purpose, which seems to the be exorcising of the collective misery of all women of all time by punishing men. Call it the Bitch State.

28 posted on 07/21/2009 9:28:57 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (WWFUAMLD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Hatley's case isn't the worst example. At any rate he had an affair with the mother and initially thought it was his kid (presumably not realizing that she was two-timing him). Other men have been named as fathers by women they never even met, and been forced to pay child support.

Phyllis Schafley had a column a couple of years ago about a more outrageous case, where a man in Michigan whose wife (pregnant by her boyfriend) falsely accused him of marital rape and of child abuse. There was no evidence beyond her say-so. Because of the latter accusation his funds were frozen so he couldn't pay for a lawyer, but because in theory he had money, he didn't get a court-appointed lawyer, so his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel was violated. The prosecutor was running for election and was determined to have him found guilty to please the feminists. The guy was found guilty but couldn't appeal the conviction because he had no money. I don't know if he is still in prison or if he finally got help after Schlafley's column publicizing his case.

29 posted on 07/21/2009 9:47:29 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RebelTXRose

The attitude toward those STDs among those who have do not yet have them as well as among those who have them already seems to be ah, well, that is an inevitable part of life. They see it as a price for living because promiscuous sex is absolutely required in life.


30 posted on 07/21/2009 2:28:11 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson