|
Why are fathers beaten up in the discriminatory family Courts? Because too
few men
protest. It's as simple as that. If you are indignant, let the authorities
know.
The current investigations by the Penna. Supreme Court committee on racial and
gender bias offer an ideal opportunity. Put your horror story into a simple
letter.
Emphasize how you were treated unfairly because you are male. Address it to
Nicholas
P. Cafardi, committee chairman, at 900 Locust Street, Pittsburgh PA 15282. Send
copies also to Governor Mark Schweiker, 225 Main Capitol, Harrisburg PA 17120,
and
to your state and federal representatives and senators. Send Fathers' Rights
Hotine
a copy as well. The politicians listen to the feminists because they are united.
Only when fathers unite and act will their voices be heard.
The following is self-explanatory:
EXCERPTS FROM A STATEMENT OF DONALD J. MIDDLEMAN DELIVERED TO THE PENNA. SUPREME
COURT COMMITTEE ON RACIAL AND GENDER BIAS, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2000, AT THE
PHILADELPHIA FREE LIBRARY, LOGAN CIRCLE.
The purpose of your inquiry today is to ascertain whether litigants are treated
fairly in the courts or whether outcomes are affected by racial or gender bias.
One
would need be deaf, dumb and blind to fail to see discrimination against men -
vicious and built in - under so-called family law and in the family
courts.. . .
Let's start with child custody. ..
Even though the current rule is that the best interests of the children
supposedly
come first, kids blindly are awarded to mothers. 1996 statistics from the
Pennsylvania Department of Health disclose that she wins ten times for every
father's win. Isn't it remarkable that women invariably should be such
superior
parents? . . .
In part. the problem lies with the child custody law. This document, filled with
"judges may do this. .. judges may do that. . ." is so weasel worded
that in effect
it empowers judges to do exactly as they please.
Among innovations, either statute or case law should spell out criteria for
custody
awards. In other words, a judge should be obliged to award custody to the
parent
with the better education, better physical and mental health, better conduct,
and
having some ability to earn a living. . . . Any judge deviating from the
criteria
would be required to give his reasons in writing. . .
As poor as the record is for physical custody awards, it is worse when fathers
must
go to court against vindictive women disobeying joint custody orders. In such
circumstances, judges universally are guilty of misfeasance and nonfeasance.
Invariably, in answer to a father's contempt action, they do nothing beyond
perhaps
wagging a finger.
Discrimination against men also is rampant in court handling of child support.
In
practice, much of this turns out to be a private welfare system coddling women.
If
judges truly were concerned about children's best interests, they would endeavor
to
assure that the money is preserved for the children. When a mother diverts
child
support to herself and the courts don't stop her, the father, in effect, has
suffered violation of his constitutional right to due process. . .
Missing also is respect for human dignity. Fathers calling me
spontaneously and
frequently say, I was treated like a criminal. I felt like a criminal.
In truth,
we commonly tell fathers that family court is tantamount to court in Nazi
Germany.
In contrast to what we pretend to think are American ideals, there is no fair
play,
no equal treatment, little due process, no jury trial, and the right to be
considered innocent until proved guilty is violated hourly.
. . . In my opinions, I am happy to have an ally in the form of the Penna. House
Judiciary Committee Task Force on Domestic Violence. Here are excerpts
from its
report for the 1997-1998 session. In 50 pages, the report reviews thc current
status
of domestic relations courts and practices in all 67 Pennsylvania counties. The
picture it gives is bleak.
Key findings and recommendations include,
· (page 4) ". . . the Court(s) of Common Pleas under the Domestic
Relations Code
have combined to create a matrimonial litigation system which is multi-layered,
segmented, bureaucratic, and idiosyncratic."
· (page 4) (the extent to which the system) ". . .encourages cost and
delay cannot
be overstated . . .many litigants cannot afford lawyers, expert witnesses,
mediation
or conciliation. . . .
· (page 6 ) "This statement from Mr. Ryan. . .symbolizes
and crystallizes the
sentiments expressed to us by citizens who have experienced matrimonial
litigation
first hand. Some citizens have complained that masters do not file
reports on time
and that they are not accountable to (any) court body. . .
Others have stated
that when they have contacted court personnel for help . . .they were treated
with
disrespect and a sense of annoyance. . . . Throughout all the varied
complaints,
ran the same theme : excessive monetary cost, excessive time, and
excessive human
cost. . . . the volume and ferocity of the complaints
invariably lead to a
conclusion that there is more here than simple dissatisfaction."
· (pages 8,9) ". . .'therapeutic justice' . . . is the underlying
principle of a
unified family court with comprehensive jurisdiction. . . (It's)
fulfillment . .
. means concentrating on empowering families with skill development, assisting
them
in resolving their own disputes, enhancing coordination of court events . . .,
providing direct services to families when and where they need them, and
building a
system of dispute resolution that is more cost efficient, user-friendly, and
time
conscious."
· (page 13) "The goal is to design a system which is user-friendly, one
which is
based on the notion that families are to be treated with dignity and
courtesy."
· (page 14) ". . . establishing an Ombudsman's Office in each judicial
district . .
. will better enable the court to serve families in crisis. The . . .
office will
be responsible for handling inquiries and making referrals. It will be the
place
where pro se litigants may obtain a Pro Se Manual, which will be required to be
written in each judicial district."
As frank as it is, the findings in the Task Force report are mild compared
with
what I hear from callers. Roughly, dissatisfaction focuses in these areas:
child
support, child custody, the absence of fair play and equal treatment in the
courts,
and the brusque, rude, and sarcastic demeanor of domestic office personnel.
Among ameliorative steps that have been suggested :
--Mandatory divorce mediation should be installed promptly in all 67 counties.
. .
.
-- This gross imbalance and obvious illegal discrimination against fathers
demand
formulation of a written definition of "children's best
interests" and prescribed
standards Consequently, when confronted with divorcing parents, the judge
should be
obligated to award primary physical custody based on those standards which I
discussed earlier in these remarks.
--Awards under the Child Support Guidelines are so high that 'obligors' commonly
cannot build new lives. In effect, although there is physical divorce of
the
parties, for fathers there is no financial divorce. Women should be barred
from
living off of their children's support . . .
--Under the law, a woman need only tell the police "I'm afraid of him"
or "I felt
menaced" in order to eject a troublesome mate from his home, gain custody
of the
children, and receive support. The need for an immediate, overhaul
of the law is
indicated. At minimum, standards for evidence of violence must be sharply
tightened,
stiff penalties provided for persons making false accusations, and a provision
added
allowing accused persons to ask for jury trials.
This is a time of national concern about the destruction of families and
absent
fathers. Unwittingly or not, the family courts carry heavy responsibility
by
making it a pushover for women to obtain custody of children, child and spousal
support, and a lion's share of family assets. Presently, there is a
considerable
noise about fathers abandoning families and not wanting to be involved with the
children. The reality is that fathers wanting to be involved are
driven away by
vindictive mothers and do-nothing courts. The reforms we are suggesting would go
far
towards bringing about amelioration. ####
For a complete copy of the above four-page statement send a self-addressed,
stamped
envelope to Fathers' Rights Hotline, Post Office Box 713, Havertown PA
19083. On
request and without charge, FRH also will furnish mailing labels for some
30
Pennsylvania sources influential in family law.
|
