Posted on 04/26/2012 6:22:43 AM PDT by Love for Israel
What a strange situation this is - Israeli fathers are being abused by the Israeli legal system, while their muslim counterparts are given more rights than muslim female mates under sharia law ...
In western countries divorce courts are strongly biased in favor of women.In this country I’ve read that it’s now SOP,when a divorce is initiated,for the woman to charge spousal and/or child abuse.Of course there *are* men who do such things...sadly,more than a few...but not EVERY guy does it.Not even a majority.
And how far behind is the U.S.S.A.
The feminists in the U.S. courts are not far behind from what I read here. In some regards, worse.
Bitter much? If you don’t want to have this happen then don’t get divorced while living in Israel.
I’ve got to think that an appeals court would reverse this inclusion of foreigners beiung affected by foreign courts in a NY minute, as they say. To do otherwise opens the US court system to any number of abuses.
That is so true. I was thinking the same thing myself.
There is a difference between 70% bias and 99% bias. As bias as the American courts are, they base child support on the father’s abilities to pay and do not deliberately drive him to homelessness and then chase after him as a ‘deadbeat dad’.
I do not believe it is legal in the USA to torture divorced fathers. That’s how much more control Israeli feminists have over our government.
Sad but true. It really shouldn’t be that way.
I doubt it for two reasons. Number one, there is a law that has been in force since 1798 called the Alien Tort Claims Act. It specifically allows foreigners to file lawsuits in the USA. Secondly, the Defendants in this case specifically demanded the inclusion of foreign plaintiffs. It would be hard for them to back-peddle on their own demands in an appeal.
That would be nice. However, the feminists really have a strong choke hold on the Israeli family courts.
Perhaps that is why nobody has heard of Henry Youngman.
True. . .but in the US (Texas specifically that I know of), when a father dies and obviously can’t make child support payments, he officially becomes a “deadbeat dad.”
He dies, can’t make payments and the county automatically records him as no longer making payments-—therefore he is a deadbeat dad.
He will remain on the deadbeat list, inflating the numbers, until someone petitions the court to remove him from the child support list.
All “deadbeat dad” stats are suspect in my mind.
How many more ‘deadbeat dads’ would there be in Texas if courts were to order child support payments that ranged from 85% to 400% of most fathers’ incomes? That is the reality in Israel.
How many more ‘deadbeat dads’ would there be in Texas if courts were to order child support payments that ranged from 85% to 400% of most fathers’ incomes? That is the reality in Israel.
When I read the title of that act, I picture foreigners suign a US party in a US court because the US court would have jurisdiction. Foreigners suing other foreigners in the US over an event in a foreign country makes no sense. Or did I mis-read the case entirely?
Good question. The issue is whether ‘Alien’ refers to the offshore tort, the plaintiff or the defendant. Certainly the tort takes place offshore under the ATCA. In 1991 congress resolved the vagueness of the wording by saying both Americans and aliens can be plaintiffs, there should be at least one American defendant and there can also be alien defendants. In these four cases referenced in the article, there are both Americans and aliens named both as plaintiffs and as defendants.
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.