Comments

1
Statistically, if a system was "fair", over time we would see a breakdown close to 50/50 surely, of custody decisions going in favor of men vs women?

How about some actual statistics to back up our arguments? Oh wait, there is, in the linked article:

"Of all the custody arrangements recorded by Washington courts between July 2009 and July 2010, nearly two-thirds had children spending more time with their mother than their father."


Or more:

Statistically, there's no question that commissioners tend to side with women in domestic-violence cases. In 2010, of the roughly 1,900 protection-order petitions ruled on after a hearing, commissioners granted 80 percent.


So why is this? Are we really trying to say that men are this much more violent and abusive toward children? Even if you take the domestic violence angle out of it, it's a cultural staple of the mother getting the kids for the week, and the dad for the weekend. Every single child of divorce I've ever known--myself, included--has seen this arrangement.

Why?
2

@1 It has to do with a few factors, including 1) the fact that WA requires only one parent to have "primary" custody, even if both parents have have joint physical custody and joint decision making, and 2) minimizing the transitions for the children. Bouncing back and forth between two homes in order to get an exact 50/50 split is a giant pain in the ass for the kid (and the parents, frankly), even if the location (parents still in the same neighborhood/school zone for the kid to take the bus or walk to school, or would one or both parents have to drive the children to school; is that a reasonable expectation with work schedules and access to transportation?) and scheduling allows. Have you seen some of those awful schedules, color coded per parent and grandparent and planned down to the hour to make sure nobody is butthurt except the poor kids who have to carry an overnight bag wherever they go? Ugh. Bigger blocks of time are generally much easier on everyone.

In the end, generally the primary custodian is the one who has done the most primary care of the children before the divorce. Usually this is the mother--whether that's because it's culturally enforced or not, it doesn't matter. If the kids are used to their mom taking them to their doctor, that's what should continue. If it's their dad who has done all that--if it's their dad that has gone to all of the parent-teacher conferences, little league games and dance rehearsals, the dentist appointments, the bedtime routine--that's going to come out in the petitions and arguments before the court, and that's who will get primary custody.

3

I think you answer your own question by assuming that "fair" means 50-50. Women (in general) still tend to do most of the childcare work and a "fair" arrangement that grants custody 50-50 where one party is willing and able to do more work to care for the child is likely not in the best interest of the child.

I don't know your situation, but although I'm married to the father of my child, I definitely do more of the day to day work! If I'm the person that comes home early and took the carreer sacrifices in order to look after our child, is a 50-50 arrangement "fair" OR in the best interestest of our child? I think very rarely the answer is yes.

4

@1 Except that this assumes that men and women are the same, and we are not. And yes, domestic violence really is perpetrated by men that much more often than by women. Because we are big, and strong, and in a house with a fully grown man, a woman, and a couple kids, who's going to stop dad from beating the shit out of everyone if he decides he wants to?

Sure, there exist cases in which the woman is the one perpetrating it (either hitting their husband or the kids). But way, way more often, it's men.

And while it may seem like there's "bias against men," I've seen way more situations in which the woman is set up to be the more effective primary caregiver. I've also seen situations in which the man is. One of my best friends and his brother lived with their father after their parents divorced, because he had a stable job and home and their mother did not. It's about what's best for the kids, not what's best for the parents, and to look at the numbers and decide it MUST be bias because it CAN'T not be even is silly, because men and women are not the same, especially as adults, and there are too many confounding variables here to assume bias without looking at all the results, which includes what the kids go on to do, how successful they are, depression rates, etc.

5
You criticize an article for being filled with one-sided anecdotes, and then what do you do? Present a one-side anecdote. That's compelling stuff.

I'm glad Nina Shapiro is shining a light on the broken family court system. The system subjects both men and women to commissioners with absolute power who make arbitrary rulings based on first impressions and a few scraps of unverified evidence. Systems like that are inevitably going to be biased.

@3: If men aren't entitled to equal access to their kids, then women aren't entitled to equal pay for their work.
6
@2
It's a parents responsibility to deal with what a pain it might be to have a more equal split, it is far worse for the child to not see the other parent(typically the father) for two weeks at a time.
And really, an overnight bag?? My child has his own clothes and toothbrush etc. at our house.
I can only speak for experience but the court does not seek to verify evidence and when that is absent, takes the mothers side In a he said she said disagreement.
7
@3 Bad argument. The person didn't say men weren't entitled to equal access. They are entitled to a fair hearing, and any man who has been doing the majority of the childcare and who isn't unfit should probably win primary custody. The point was that most men choose not to do this. Women are entitled to a fair and equal pay if they do the same job as a man, the same way a man is entitled to the same ruling if they do the same job as a woman. You are saying that because women are more likely to be willing to put more work into childcare, women as a whole should be given fewer options in the workplace and treated unfairly? What kind of argument is that?
8
I went through a four year child custody battle. There was no possibility under reasonable circumstances that my ex-wife could provide the level of parenting necessary for our then-two-and-a-half year old daughter, but her parents and their lawyer churned a lot of cash into a lot of accusations and delays. This is what I learned from the process…

1) Single parenthood ain’t no beanbag. I’ve known a couple of wanna-be single dads that came across as focused more on not paying child custody rather than how they were going to make single parenthood work. Most men simply have no idea of what being a single parent means – they’re usually focused more on trying to bring home a paycheck, and didn’t always have to deal with most of the “not fun” stuff of child rearing while married. I’m glad to have been able to raise my daughter, but it will demand a lot of time and effort – do not take this lightly.

2) There will be setbacks and stress – get used to it. One example…my ex-wife and I both had to go through a psychiatric evaluation. I made the mistake of letting them pick the evaluator. In different ways, he essentially considered neither of us were where we needed to be, in his eyes, as parents. My evaluation was based more on my lack of parenting experience than anything else, but it was enough to delay things for at least a year. (The evaluator lost their license around a year later.)

3) You have to establish a “credibility history” – and that takes time. Some people deliver lip service regarding what’s best for the children – some mean it. My experience was that, as a dad, the ones that meant it kept a very close eye on me, but over time, as I established myself as someone who cared about my daughter and consistently did what was best for her, I was given the benefit of the doubt. Toward that end, acquiring a Guardian Ad Litem to represent the best interest of your child or children is a must. Not cheap, but worth every penny.

4) Get counseling – Especially for your child, but also for you. Divorce is a traumatic event for all involved, but especially the kids, who somehow almost always seem to think either that they are at fault or could have prevented it from happening. They need to hear you say it’s not, and they need someone to talk to that they can trust about stuff that they aren’t ready to talk with you about. And unless your divorce was very, very amicable, you’re going to need to get a bit of frustration, anger and sadness out of your system in a constructive way.

5) Unless nobody involved has any money, it’s going to cost you money. You’ll pay now or you’ll pay later. Pay now – you’ll be glad you did.

My two bits…

Oh, and as to final custody. First, it’s almost never a true 50-50 arrangement unless both parents work mightily to make it so. And your child will eventually, through their activities or their preferences or both, adjust the balance. In my case, I never had less than 90% custody of my daughter for the first few years, and by 4th grade, it was, for all intents and purposes, over 95%.
9
I've seen a few friends go through the courts and, male or female, it's the sane one who prevails.
10
@5 - your argument makes no sense and actually (sort of) agrees with what I was saying. I made the carreer sacrifice (less pay since I work less hours, less chance for advancement) to have more time so I can have more time with our toddler. My husband did not, and spends less time with her. These are trade-offs and compromises we make as a couple.

So why do I deserve less pay for the time I spend at my job again???
11
@6, sure, it's the parents' responsibility to deal with transitions. But those transitions should not be every day. Does that mean they don't see their dad except every other weekend? Not unless the dad agrees to that. No judge or commissioner is going to order an every-other-weekend plus two weeks in the summer for parents who live in the same area and who have similar parenting patterns (i.e., they have both been active parents throughout their child's life) against the wishes of the other parent. It is up to both parents to make their respective cases about what would be best for the child, and if it gets messy, you need to get a Guardian ad Litem for the kid to be the unbiased advocate who will verfiy the stories of both parents.

And judges don't order this stuff until it's been discussed and verified anyway, unless you're at trial, which is extraordinarily rare for family law cases. All dissolutions are required to meet with a mediator before coming to court for finalization anyway. Everyone gets their say in mediation, so unless you have a shitty attorney or are pro se AND an asshole to the mediator/arbitrator, you're going to get something as equitable as possible while still being in the best interest of the child.

And yes, some kids very often have an overnight bag. Because homework and books and the Brownies uniform and the trumpet and the science project due next week all need to travel with the kid, unless you have copies of everything. If you can work it so that the kiddo is with mom for one week and dad the next, great. But sometimes for whatever reason that's not possible, and transitioning between houses across town three or four times a week is not ideal. Both the kid's stuff and quality time with the child get lost in the shuffle.
12
@7: I'm saying that a system that favors women as primary caregivers is the exact same system that favors men as breadwinners.

Furthermore, if 50/50 access to children isn't the hallmark of an unbiased system, why should we assume that equal pay is?
13
@10: By your logic, a divorce court should grant you primary custody because you have more experience raising your children. Doesn't it follow that your husband should earn more than you because he has more professional experience?

Also, please be honest - was it really a "sacrifice"? I know hundreds of women who consider themselves lucky to have the opportunity to be stay-at-home moms, and I know hundreds more who wish they had that opportunity but didn't because the family needed their income. I don't know a single mom who was forced to quit work - when both parents want to keep working they bottle feed and hire a nanny.
14
@1- that primary custory should end up 50/50 between men/women in a fair court makes a lot of assumptions. The biggest is probably that equal proportions of men and women WANT primary custody, and that was not shown in the article.

In any divorce with kids, at least in my state, which is not Washington, there is a custody hearing regardless of if there is any contest on custody. So just because more of the cases end up with primary custody awarded to the mother doesn't necessarily mean that father even wanted it, just that the courts had to have an official record of who got it.

I know there are lots of men who want and/or deserve primary custody, but before I'll take "66% of primary custody decisions go to the mothers" as anti-men bias, I'm gonna need to see that more than 34% of men actually petitioned for primary custody.
15
@12 - the hallmark of an unbiased system is doing what's best for the child. That's not easy. A 50-50 split sounds fair in theory and would work if everything else was equal. However, "everthing else" rarely is.

One party is usually the one to take on more responsibility for childcare, the other more responsibility for financial support. Is that equal? No. Is it fair? Possibly - or its the best, or only, way to manage raising a child and earning a living.

Even today, with better arrangements for maternity leave, time off for doctors appointments, etc. - it's usually easier for one party to do this, while the other takes less of a hit at work.

Equal and fair don't mean the same thing.
16
@12, "equal pay" means that for pay for men and women with the same level of experience and for the same amount of work should be the same. Not that any two persons, one man and one woman, should make the same.

It means that a part time woman with (X) level of experience and a part time man with the same (X) level of experience should make the same per hour. A system that "favors men as breadwinners" lets the male make more per hour for the same experience, because "he has a family to feed," which, no, isn't fair.
17
Christopher:

Thank you for your article and for sending it around to the legal community, where there is an above-average level of discussion on this presented topic.

While there is a lot to say on the issue, the first thing I note is that my comment is being typed over an ad for "Mens-Custody Rights Lawyer" here in Seattle, WA.

Goes to show that the Stranger truly has a sense of humor.

Your last comment is the most salient: for families in transition there must be a focus on the children.

Over twenty years of litigating has highlighted the following for me:

1. Too often the lawyers make it about themselves, their views, their bias, their competitiveness, their need to win. The children, and their own clients, get lost in the process and the parents are left paying a bill for "sevices rendered" for a result created by someone who has no responsibility for parenting the kids.

2. Too often the parents are in such a state of distress, fear, etc . . . that they fall under the influence of the attorneys in item 1, above, they get their own attorneys to fall into their own emotional state and make it a parent vs. parent issue (right vs. wrong), or, if pro se and speaking for themselves before the court they think the court only wants to hear how the other parent failed, not what is best for the children.

3. On occasion the bias of the Commissioner rules the day. They may not like your client. They may not like you, whether you are the attorney or the party. They have bad days, as we all do, and the children pay the consequences.

As a result of the above I have shifted my practice from the "standard" litigation to one designed to create dialogue between clients and the attorneys so that the agreements that are reached reflect both parties and what they hold most important.

While I encounter resistance from opposing counsel on occasion, I keep coming back to the commonality between most divorcing parents: that the best interests of the children, above all, is most important to them. There is almost always an agreement that they, as the parents, would rather make the final decision on what is in the best interests of the children rather than delegating that decision to a Commissioner or Judge.

So how can I make that happen as the attorney?

Do I file motions with the court? Do I prepare Declarations that disparage the other parent and which have the effect of creating rifts between parents and extended family that never heal and actually create a worse environment for the children?

No. Instead I work to create dialogue. Most often this dialogues is started with both attorneys and both parties in the same room. I want to hear what the other party feels is in the best interests of the children. I want MY CLIENT to hear what his / her spouse feels is in the best interests of the children. I want the OTHER CLIENT to hear what my client is saying. Oftentimes it will be the first time in years that they have listened to each other in a calm, controlled, safe, setting. The information, and goodwill, generated in these sessions positively changes the tone of the discord between the parties and provides everyone with more information on which to base both a temporary and eventually, a final resolution.

More often than not there is a lot of commonality. A lot of agreement. Not everything is agreed to of course but the impact on the clients of seeing that there is agreement helps them to see if is POSSIBLE to work together, rather than spending a horrendous amount of money going to court (I always point out that I would rather see that money spent on the kids, rather than being paid to me).

Not all cases settle. I have a trial going out this week on a dissolution action.

The second paragraph of my trial brief includes the line " . . . the parties and their counsel have been cooperative with each other, diligent and forthright in exchanging information needed to evaluate the case . . . "

My opposing counsel outdid me. In the FIRST paragraph of his trial brief he has written about the parties: " . . they have both managed to maintain a courteous and amicable attitude throughout separation, and wnat to continue, through, and beyond, trial. May we all be up to the task."

I see no downside to using client-focused dialogue to doing our jobs as attorneys. Yes, there are serious issues of DV, alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness and personality disorders that get in the way of the ability of our clients to dialogue but we, as attorneys, should do the best we can to take our clients where they are (not where we want them to be) and get them the information they need to make the best decisions for them given the facts of their life.

For those cases that do not settle, the trial date is always waiting for them.

For this method to work, however, start the dialogue early. Waiting to talk about client-driven resolutions until a couple of months before trial is neither best practice nor the best service we can provide our clients. How many of us have been in settlement conferences a few weeks before trial where all we can say to our client is "trial is going to be expensive, you need to come up with a trial retainer, so you need to choose if you are going to take the deal on the table or pay me to go to trial where we do not know what the court will do. We do not even know which Judge will be hearing your case."

If I were a party in a dissolution action, rather than an attorney, would I want to be subjected to choosing between the two evils.

No I wouldn't, so why would I want my client to be subjected to the same terrible choice.

So my job is to get my clients information they need to make the decisions they need to make.

As a result of my doing my job in this fashion I am finding that my clients leave our attorney-client relationship much further along the healing process (considered to be two years after the divorce is finalized by some researchers) PLUS these clients have fewer problems with their ex-spouses because the agreements that are reached reflect BOTH parties and compliance is higher than a court-issued decision that is one-sided or meets the need of either party.

I can imagine many readers of this note getting triggered by my thoughts. I ask you to remember, however, that these are just my two-cents worth.

I also pass on an invitiation, however, to continue the dialogue. The objective is the best interests of our clients and their children. That objective is well worth the dialogue.

Kevin R. Scudder
Seattle, WA
http://www.scudderlaw.net/
18
@13 - "sacrifice" doesn't mean I don't feel lucky, but any mother who tells you they had NO second thoughts about putting on hold or giving up carreers they love when cleaning up poop at 3am is lying.

Plus "forced" to leave work is a tough standard. Work can be unmanageable, or made unmanageable by your workplace. Many ways to do that without firing a pregnant lady, or one with a small child.

Also, @13, if you think that he won't be paid more for the experience he gained while I was home, let me know where that workplace is because I'd love to apply!
19
@16: Pay doesn't just depend on experience. It depends on the quality of work, the raw number of hours spent over the years, how aggressively the employee lobbies for pay raises, and the amount of respect the employee has earned from his/her superiors and peers.

All of these factors could be used to justify the gender pay gap, just as everyone here points to mitigating factors that justify the gender custody gap.

But let's set aside the statistics for a moment - when faced with a case of clear and obvious sexual discrimination in the workplace, most of us enlightened folks cry foul and allow that it may well be indicative of a larger pattern. Yet, strangely, when Nina Shapiro presents several cases of clear and obvious sexual discrimination against men, these are dismissed as "selective fact finding". I find this sort of hypocritical, self-serving feminism to be a tad disappointing.

Nina Shapiro, who authored the original article, is among the best journalists in the region. You'd be better served by reading her article as opposed to the drivel coming from this vulture, oops, I mean divorce attorney.
20
There is a significant and verifiable bias against fathers in King County. I've never heard any co-worker or attorney infer that it is women commissioners that are being biased. The male commissioners and judges are just as biased in the favor of women in custody cases as their male counterparts.

A lot of the article is true though, every time a lawyer loses (that I've worked for), they blame the judge...

The system is really geared towards getting the mothers custody. It's very sad, but it's about as fair of a system that we are going to get until there is a large scale shift in thinking about men and women. A lot is spoken of how unfairly women are treated, and surely, some of it is legitimate, but when someone tries to talk about a man's suffering, then it's a whole different story, and nobody wants to hear it.

Men are on the receiving end of just as many societal pressures to act this way, dress this way, behave this way, etc, as women are.

Lets face it, when people think domestic violence, they tend to think about men; alternately, when people think about child rearing, they tend to think about women.

We all need to get over this pre-conceived notions that men are the abusers, that women make the sacrifices, that men are rapists, that women are victims, that men don't give enough, and women too much...

It's all bullshit. Both women and men are powerful creatures that are capable of an equivalent set of skills, both good and evil. They're both responsible for horrible things, but I think that men catch the blame pretty often, unfairly. When a man hits a woman, you are likely going to hear about it; when a woman hits a man, that, you will likely not hear about: There is very little support for abused men, both systemically, or within their own family and friend groups.

Lets cut all the sexist garbage out. MEN and WOMEN are EQUALS.

I know that for you science types out there, you'll think, "how can they be equal when they're different?". Think outside the box...Just because men weigh more, does that mean that their IQ is higher? No, it does not. Now extrapolate that to a 10000 scenario, and there is your answer. Quit being sexist, all of you, and yes, men are discriminated against in King County Family Court, by male and female commissioners. It's a fact, and it can be tracked, go out there and create the data if you want to see, somebody needs to but I aint going to...

There is a judge in King County that is so insanley biased against men that we always petitioned to have the judge taken off any case where we represented the man. This judge found cause for domestic violence in every single case that has ever come before this particular judge, so long as it was alleged against a man. Consequently, on cases in which women were the clients, we LOVED getting that judge, because it put us in the best bargaining position with opposing counsel, since they knew that if we had to go to trial, that this judge would rule against their male client, guaranteed. Every frickin time. No, I will not name the judge, I don't need that kind of heat... Pissing off judges is bad business.
21
Pay doesn't just depend on experience. It depends on the quality of work, the raw number of hours spent over the years, how aggressively the employee lobbies for pay raises, and the amount of respect the employee has earned from his/her superiors and peers.


You really live in a fucking fantasyland, don't you?
22
@19:

First, how does "raw number of hours spent over the years" mean something different from "experience"?

I agree (without thinking that it's "fair") that one factor in the gender pay disparity is how aggressively men vs women lobby for raises.

Second argument: you state in your comment that the great gender pay disparity is based in part on "the amount of respect the employee has earned." And yet somehow, mysteriously, all of that respect tilts towards men. How is that not the definition of institutional sexism?

But as far as "you should read the article" goes, I'm not sure where you're getting that I didn't read the article. I did read the whole thing. And while individual anecdotes are terribly touching and all, I am not going to say they indicate the existence of systematic bias without the numbers to back it up. (Just as the difference in pay between one woman and her husband does not add up to systematic gender bias, as frustrating as it is for her individually. It is the state of the *system* that determines *systematic* bias.)

The most at-a-glance damning numbers in the article were that two thirds of custody cases award primary custody to women. But as I stated in my first comment, we need to know if the proportion of men vs women awarded primary custody matches the proportion of men vs women that WANT primary custody before we know if that's evidence of bias.

This is the same line of logic whereby it's not evidence of a racial problem for a college to have only 10% of a given graduating class to be minority students if only 10% of the student body or any given class is minority students. If 30% of freshmen are minority students, however, and only 10% of each graduating class are minority students, then you might think you have a problem. The MISMATCH indicates a problem, not absolute percentages.

23
@19. Vulture here. I dismissed these anecdotes specifically because they DON'T add up to "cases of clear and obvious sexual discrimination." There are bad court rulings sometimes. Everyone knows that. But where is proof that they amount to systemic bias, or any bias at all?

Likewise, claims of gender discrimination in the workplace must rise and fall on facts, not narrative laced with selective anecdotes. Turns out that life is complex, and there are few simple answers.

Show me real data, beyond "4 of 5 Family Law Commissioners are women," and let's talk about what it actually means. For that matter, cite one statistic in the entire article that you think proves the case.

More facts, less narrative.

Wag more, bark less.
24
@23

Awesome fucking response!!! Seriously, now you, are the kind of person I want to talk politics with!

Nice job
:)
25
@20. You start by claiming that "There is a significant and verifiable bias against fathers in King County." Then you end up with "It's a fact, and it can be tracked, go out there and create the data if you want to see, somebody needs to but I aint going to..."

Why, yes, it would be nice to see someone actually go and get, you know, real data, rather than just complain.

You also write that "every time a lawyer loses (that I've worked for), they blame the judge..." Losing sucks. Especially when there are kids on the line.

When you lose, there are usually just 3 realistic possibilities - the client's case was bad, the lawyer's presentation was bad, or the judge's decision-making was bad. If you're talking to a horribly disappointed client (who might also still owe you money), why blame the client's own behavior, or your own performance and pleadings when you can just blame the judge? It's the lawyer equivalent of "my dog ate my homework."

When I lose, and yes it does suck, I ask myself these questions (usually as I toss and turn, unable to sleep):
1) How could my legal analysis of the case have been better?
2) How could I have elicited better evidence from my client, my witnesses, my experts?
3) How could I have better tracked down, and distilled, the extrinsic evidence?
4) How could my own legal argument have been more compelling - to that particular judge?
5) If all these things didn't add up to a win, was I surprised. If so, then why? If not, then why did I let the case go to court to begin with? Could I have gotten the client a decent settlement, at substantially lower cost - a settlement he or she would agree to, and could live with?

On second thought, yeah, just blame the judge. It's way easier.
26
I've been a family law lawyer for some 26 years.

I act, approximately equally, for men and women.

It is beyond discussion, in my opinion, that the system has established a systemic bias against the interests of men - both in terms of the "appearance" and in terms of the "substance" of what courts and legislators do.

I have yet to talk to a fellow lawyer in the area who believes otherwise.

No disrespect, Christopher, but your blog offers little beyond what you complain about - anecdotes and personal observations.

I would encourage anyone who has an interest in this issue to read an article by Gene C. Colman, presented to the Federation of Law Societies National Family Law Program 2000.

There are biases both against men and women.. however, the suggestion, backed up by more than simple anecdotal commentary, is that Famly Law has become somewhat rife with system bais against male litigants.

27
@ 26

Well Rob, apparently you've been in practice 12 years longer than I. You say that systemic bias against men is "beyond discussion," and that you have yet to talk to a family law attorney "who believes otherwise." Well, now you have. And I don't think it's "beyond discussion."

One thing though: I'm not familiar with you, and am not sure where you practice. A search on wsba.org turns up no listing for any "Harvie," just one for a "Harvie-Watt." I am not competent to speculate on whether such bias exists in other jurisdictions, as my entire career has been in Washington state. Do you practice in Washington or some other jurisdiction?
28
@25, Though I agree with most of your comments, the combination of a statute that errs on the victim's side and a societal view of men as aggressors leads me to conclude that systemic bias is likely.

I've been practicing family law in King County for over a decade. I won't speak to trials or trial judges, as they are fact specific. But temporary and emergency orders are a different animal. Usually, the evidence is thin and the time is short. Instead of a judge, a commissioner presides. Instead of months of evidence discovery, it is days. Commissioners have no easy job determining the truth under these circumstances.

The real issue is that the domestic violence statute eschews the traditional assumption of innocence. It errs on the side of the accuser. It defines domestic violence, in part, as "the infliction of FEAR of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault." No actual harm need occur. If a person simply feels fear, then a commissioner is obligated to find domestic violence. This is a very low bar. Couple that with the cultural bias that men are aggressors*, and the results are predictable.

I find that the commissioners are not intentionally biased (i.e., man haters). It stands to reason, however, that cultural bias (i.e. men are aggressors) creeps into their decisions. In my experience, it is easier to convince a commissioner that a man inflicted fear on a woman rather than vice versa. That said, it would be wrong to make a blanket statement that a commissioner's bias affected a particular result.

*I concede that, statistically, men are more likely to be violent.

29
@28 After parsing through your post a couple of times, I'm confused, and I just don't see how you get to the idea that "systemic bias is likely."

You note that hearings under RCW 26.050 "eschew the traditional assumptions of innocence." Of course they do, because DV hearings are not criminal in nature. The goal is not to punish, but rather to protect victims. It's a public safety issue, so it errs on the side of keeping people from getting hurt and killed, just like metal detectors at airports.

You will note that the 1992 legislative findings for RCW 26.050.30 explain this reasoning in grim detail - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?… A key point is that while about 33% of female murder victims are killed by an intimate partner, just 4% of male murder victims are killed by an intimate partner. This is real. http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViole…

It is further incorrect that a commissioner is obligated to find DV "if a person simply feels fear." RCW 26.050.010(1)(a) contains the key definition: (1) "Domestic violence" means: (a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault..." http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…

Thus the standard is "infliction" of fear, not simply fear. Plus, if the fear is not reasonable in nature, the court will often decline to grant the Order for Protection. People have all sorts of crazy fears. Some wear tinfoil hats. But that doesn't get you an OFP.

Finally you claim a "cultural bias that men are aggressors," while simultaneously conceding
"statistically, men are more likely to be violent." I'm not sure how to read these two statements together. My experience is that the court looks at a number of issues, including written documents, extrinsic evidence where available, courtroom demeanor, and some things that may not seem intuitive, like suicide threarts and on partner's refusal to accept that a relationship is over. Why are these relevant? Because there are fairly strong correlations between both suicidal ideation and refusing to accept a break up and eventual violence towards the other party. None of these things show bias.

They show common sense.

30
@28

Thank you, you make a lot of sense. I agree completely.

I'll also concede that the statistics aren't in men's favor.

However, I take issue with statistics. They are not accurate, nor will they be until society moves beyond the perception of men as perpetrators of violence and women as the recipient victims of the violence.

Men are not evil. Women are not victims. They're both good, they're both bad. Who should get custody? Frankly, after what I've seen, if both parties were interested and the logistics manageable, I would rule in favor of week on week off living arrangements. Of course, I am not qualified to be a family law commissioner, so oh well... I think it's fare and minimally disruptive. Let's face it, divorcees aren't divorced because they were awesome at being a husband or wife. Some were, but most aren't and just blame their problems on the other. So to say that one parent should get only every other weekend and a mid-week dinner is absurd. Both parents, mother and father, or father and father, or mother and mother, or mother mother father mother father father mother father warehouse, have unique skills they bring. Honestly, some parents are too controlling, or too neglectful. Having a week on week off schedule eliminates some of the bad shit our parents teach us and provides balance. I'd like to see more split custody arrangement. But man, King County is a mess for divorce. It's very complex (depending on the issues) and everybody loses. Your best bet is to have about $50,000 ready to be spent on your divorce. By some standards, that's cheap! Be ready to spend $7,000 + just on the temporary orders hearing and supporting documents, and that's just barely getting the case started! It sucks, but it is extremely labor intensive, and lawyers actually don't make that much money, at least the ones that I've known. For the record, $120k annually isn't that much money. Not in Seattle...
31
@30

Joe,

No one I know is saying that men all are evil and that women are all victims. In fact, I represent many good dads in my practice, some of them unfairly accused of sh*t they didn't do (as I note in my article).

It's true that statistics, just like the facts they are based on, can be twisted. But that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. The perception that men are the greater perpetrators of domestic violence is, actually, based on the numbers. Facts.
There are many many statistics to show the huge gender discrepancy which forms the backdrop for every court case. But since you distrust domestic violence statistics, I’ll try to make my point with baseball instead.

Ichiro and Langerhans were both left-handed outfielders for the 2011 Mariners. The historical perception is that Ichiro is a much better hitter than Langerhans. Yes, on any given at bat, Ichiro might strike out and Langerhans might hit a home run. But the fact remains that Ichiro is a lifetime .326 hitter and “no hit” Langerhans is a career .226 hitter (yeah, we could talk about more advanced statistical methods like OPS and even WAR, but I don't want to bore anyone to death). Langerhans can complain about perceptions all he wants, but he has to prove that he can hit day in, day out, before such perceptions are likely to change.

Now, when managers decide when to let someone hit, and when to replace the guy with a pinch-hitter, they rely, in part, on something called platooning. That is, in most but not all cases, left-handed batters tend to hit better against right-handed pitchers. Sometimes this means that Ryan Langherhans has to ride the bench, only to watch some right-handed pinch-hitter strike out. Sometimes, of course, the manager makes the wrong call. Sometimes maybe a manager just plain doesn't like Langerhans. Sometimes maybe it's horribly unfair to poor Ryan. But none of this makes it systemic bias against leftys. After all, Ichiro is a lefty too, and managers don’t pinch hit for him, no matter who’s pitching. Because the dude flat out hits, lights out. Every day of the damn week.

In the end, to change such conceptions, all Ryan Langerhans has to do is show that he hits consistently.

And we men who want to change societal gender conceptions? We just have to show that we don't ;)
32
50/50 half-time custody arrangements are a pain for both child, parents, and schools where the child is enlisted. It's not practical, it's a burden on the child. Mostly, it has become a way for the father not to pay alimony. While at the father's, the child is let loose, and the mother who does all the actual rearing and education has only one week to do it.

Another type of fairyland gender equality would be : as many male parents get primary custody as female parents. But, correct me if I'm wrong, most fathers are not interested at all in becoming the primary custodian of the children. Raising children mostly by oneself is a sacrifice that the average father is not ready to make - unless there is a female partner around, who'll end up being the one raising the child.

Some fathers, however, are ready to make that sacrifice, ready to invest most of their time in their children - and to end up with a stunted career in the workplace, or no career as a result.

In a just system, among this small sub-group of families where the father and the mother are equally eager (and apt) to get the primary custody, 50% of the fathers should get primary custody, as 50% of the mothers. Is it the case, in King County Family Court ?
33
Christopher.. I practice in Canada, but have attended annual conferences in San Diego, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco.. and obviously in my own neck of the woods.

Certainly there are differences between jurisdictions, however, there are also broad similarities, including significant political pressure, directly and indirectly, upon our judiciary to "right the wrongs" of past treatment of women in the system..

It's fair that my opinions are predominantly restricted to the Canadian experience, I also follow what goes on South of the Border, and speak with many U.S. attorneys regularly.. And I've not spoken to a lawyer in the last decade who hasn't complained of feeling an uphill struggle in making a case for a male litigant.

Maybe I'm just in the wrong circles.

Or maybe I'm talking to lawyers not worried about having their words scrutinized as not being politically correct. It has for some, become a dangerous world when you express your honest thoughts.

34
@33

Rob, My article referred directly to a highly specific attack on the courts in King County, Washington - not San Diego, New Orleans, DC, Boston, Atlanta or San Francisco. And not Lethbridge, Alberta. I made no grand generalizations about national - or international - trends, because I restricted my comments to my own personal experience.

My quarrel is not that your words were politically incorrect (I could care less), but that they were geographically misleading - intentionally so, it appears.

In addition, saying "Everyone I know thinks X" is a strand of the classic Ad Populum logical fallacy. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies… I am not surprised that someone who believes men are the real victims in family court can find other attorneys who share this notion. I stand by my premise: that the victims of family court are children - at least in King County.
35
Um, I don't follow baseball, I don't know the rules, or care, frankly... But I do understand statistics. A wise professor once told me to assume that everyone is at least as intelligent and knowledgeable as I am (if not more), and I part this sentiment along to you. It's helped me tremendously. I hope it can help you, because dumbing down data is a sure way to come off as pretentious.

It's not that men need to prove that they aren't violent, rather, they need to report it to police when they're abused. Society does not take seriously when a woman abuses a man. Until it's taken seriously, we're not going to have any accurate statistics, whether relayed in ridiculous sports analogies or academically. Oh sure, the statistics can be accurate to say, that we have had x% of DV convictions perpetrated by men, but it can in no way accurately estimate the number of men suffering abuse that don't report the abuse.

I'd say that everyone loses in divorce. Sure, the kids lose, but I see both parents lose too. Everyone is a victim of that process and is subjected to the whims of the commissioners and their mood that morning. The biggest factor in any hearing is glucose or whether or not the commissioner had sexy time that morning... No sexy time or low blood sugar = scary angry commissioner making shitty choices.

36
@32

That is some truly despicable sexism you posted here. "a way for fathers to get out of paying alimony", and that the kids will run loose at the fathers house? How absolutely ridiculous a notion.

If we're going to be sexist, then lets add that women just get married so they don't have to work anymore because they're lazy. I don't agree with this, but your statement is tantamount to that. Plus, alimony and child support are separate issues, and a 50/50 parenting plan does not mean that child support will not have to be paid, and in many cases, child support is still ordered.

I encourage you to consider that it's possible that your statements are sexist, and just plain wrong. It's really not okay to lump an entire sex together and make wild proclamations that a single father cannot have a career, which is about the least offensive thing you said. Having kids doesn't hurt your career. Not being available to work a lot can hurt your career, but this is a simple logistical issue that can be handled with money or family and friends. It's really not a big deal. I've got an uncle that put himself through medical school while raising a family and working full time, at a major University. His daughter is the right hand of a US Senator that is the chair of a most powerful committee in the senate, so I'd say he did a pretty good job... I'll let you know how his two younger kids are doing later.

But mostly, I take strong issue with your notion that women are better caretakers, and that men don't want to take care of their children as much as the mothers do. That's just ridiculous. Can I assume that you're divorced and don't get along well with your ex? Do you think that he's not putting in his share of time with the kids and such? Don't extrapolate your problems to include all the men of the world, they truly are, your problems. Don't let them taint your view.

Why do you think it's okay to display this kind of sexism? You're not alone, many feel the same way you do. Many also feel that Mexicans are lazy. I've had to combat this my whole life, as a Mexican. People think that Mexicans are either lazy, or that they are only good for remedial jobs, because, as one firefighter I used to know (he died) told me once, "Mexicans don't understand the science of fire fighting".

That firefighter is basically you. Is that the legacy you desire to leave behind? If not, quit being bigoted towards men. It's not cool.
37
@35 Joe, you claim that my sports analogy is "ridiculous," yet don't say why.

You claim that "Society does not take seriously when a woman abuses a man." What evidence is there of this? Although I believe this statement to be generally false, I'll be happy to review any evidence you wish to provide.

The National Institute of Justice says:
A review of the research found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men. [8] BJS reports that 30 percent of female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners compared with 5 percent of male homicide victims, and that 22 percent of victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence are female but only 3 percent are male.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate…

Sure, you can claim reporting bias on minor DV incidents, but the the key statistic, the one that can't easily be twisted, relates to homicides. Can we agree that statistics relating to homicide victims are likely to be accurate, and not suffer from any form of statistical bias? I hope so.

My experience is that our courts in King County, in general, look first to reliable extrinsic evidence, next to testimony and credibility of witnesses, and finally to courtroom demeanor (if you can't keep in control in court, how likely are you to keep in control out of court?). My experience is that I've seen bad decisions, but no evidence of any systemic bias. If there is evidence to the contrary, by all means, let's see it.

38
Ahh the legal community come to the aid of the system which works just fine for them, that is the $100k's per year these "professionals" make. Shapiro's article addressed not only bias but misuse of a civil Domestic Violence Protection Order Process, all to common is this tactic employed by the woman. In fact Judge Doerty and Ponomarchuk says "hey how can you say, well you'er not scared, so we issue them" it is a scam designed to create conflict, to position a already abusive woman to continue power and control tactics for years, and the kids get left with the abuser.

Real Victims of Domestic Violence continue to suffer because an abuser does not care about some piece of paper, she is likely the one who never shows at the 14 day hearing.

Criminal Penalties for criminal actions is the answer to deal with DV abusers.

Mr. Rao you speak of "presenting the best evidence" WTH does this mean, in a Civil DVPO the statute says "rules of evidence shall not apply" there is no evidence and cannot be any be definition. I see no fiancial incentive from any member of the BAR to come forward and admit there is a problem or that they are the problem, and the position you stated in this article backs me up.

Gender bias is everyday down there these DVPO are so meaningless the King County Sheriff Deputies (by order of the Sheriff) do not even bother reading them when they serve process, why waste the time they know whats going on.

Chris Hupy
Washington Domestic Violence Commission
39
Christopher,

I know you want proof, but this blog site is not the best forum for that. Here is an article that provides some studies that may be of interest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-mandar…

As usual, lawyers are arguing semantics. You call them "bad decisions" rather than bias. So, I ask you, how do you prove the decision was bad? If you can't prove it, then by your logic, courts must never make bad decisions. Right?

40
I can tell you how to prove it. You can't. In my case I was falsely accused by an ex who was the perpetrator with a criminal history of Domestic Violence Assault against me. I never laid a hand on the woman, but she felt she could stick it to me by filing a protection order. I have not seen my son in months due to the fact that the courts will not consider, or even look at evidence. Had they spent five minutes looking into the history in my case, they would not have taken a child's loving father away from him.
What is happening in these courts is not only "bad", it's criminal. Ms. Shapiro's article was helpful, but change must and will happen. What I just read here made me sick to my stomach.
41
I can tell you how to prove it. You can't. In my case I was falsely accused by an ex who was the perpetrator with a criminal history of Domestic Violence Assault against me. I never laid a hand on the woman, but she felt she could stick it to me by filing a protection order. I have not seen my son in months due to the fact that the courts will not consider, or even look at evidence. Had they spent five minutes looking into the history in my case, they would not have taken a child's loving father away from him.
What is happening in these courts is not only "bad", it's criminal. Ms. Shapiro's article was helpful, but change must and will happen. What I just read here made me sick to my stomach.
42
When considering the merit of this "story," one might want to consider two things:

First, the author suggests men who lose contact with their children do because they or their legal representatives failed to get the facts before the judge or commissioner [or are guilty];

Second, the author's logic suggests women, somehow, manage to, significantly more often than men, find quality representation to accomplish the task of making the record with facts?
43
@ CHRISTOPHER RAO: What a fake, phony, punk, coward and HYPOCRITE. He practices multiple, civil ares of law, according to his Bar Profile, since 1997 and ALL OF A SUDDEN he is an EXPERT on what a man experiences in every situation, in every court hearing. The Seattle Weekly's article had dozens of comments. RAO brought ONE SINGLE anectdote. He doesn't say who the Commissioner was (probably a pro tem) ALL WHILE he ADMITS the major flaw with the system: easy Ex Parte restraining orders, which his client was a VICTIM OF.

I've seen HUNDREDS OF CASES over about the same time that RAO has been an attorney. 99% of the time in contested cases dads get screwed.

I am a CUSTODIAL DAD myself and the mother is allowed to come to court and harass me, violate Civil Rule 11 and abuse the system against me in mere child support modification actions.

This punk intellectual coward doesn't have the gonads to actually be a man and look at this for what it is. He's a sellout to his own gender AND his race as you see in the comments below.

The fact that he is on the RPC committe and with the Family Law Section of the Bar PROVES that he is blind to reality. The WSBA 99% of the time ignores the RPC and lets corrupt attorneys off the hook. It is because of the Family Law Section that we have corruption in this system. Bragging about his memberships with the RPC committed and the FLS is like bragging that you love Jewish folks because you are part of the Third Reich.
44
CHRISTOPHER RAO is a sellout to his own gender.....as a member of the RPC committee, and of an Asian Bar group, Rao APPROVED OF AN OLD CRUSTY WHILE MALE FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY calling a young, female Asian attorney a "LYING CHINK"!!!!!!!

Rao APPROVED of this by not doing anything about this egregious misconduct, along with the rest of the sellouts in the WSBA.

So, Rao is not only a sellout to fatherhood and his own gender, he's a sellout to his own ethnicity/race.

What an "uncle Tom" who wants to "get in the house"....At the WSBA, they all PREACH racial equality and talk about inequities in the justice system (during their aristocrat, fake, phony little meetings and drivel orgies/fundraisers). But, they turn around and APPROVE OF THEIR OWN racism within the WSBA, sexual harassment at the WSBA office, and beligerant abuse by elder white men in the cult...all while folks like Rao bow down to the good ol' boy network and say "Yes massa, no massa".

BTW, check out Rao on his website....he looks like a greasy-haired pedophile, does he not?
See www.RaoAndPierce.com
45
@3 and 10: Karla, first you DISQUALIFY yourself from the experience of a man in family court. You are a married mother, from what you say. You don't know jacksquat about this subject. 60% of child abusers are biological mothers. Mothers/wives commit domestic violence as much as fathers/husbands. How can you be so blatantly stupid to say that mothers handle their biz more than dads. The safest place for a child is with a biological father. Period.

You're dumb. Come up with some facts and not your own vague opinions. If that's you in the pic, you should be disqualified as being biased, as you look like a typical borderline butch manhater who probably has your sissy hubby henpecked (which you obviously would think works out great).

Stop trying to speak for an entire gender when you are not part of that gender. Do you also speak for all Hispanics? All blacks? All midgets? All diabled veterans? Get a life and speak on something you have the ability to speak on and go meddle in your hen-pecked husband's affairs.
46
@ CHRISTOPHER RAO: Another imbacilic comment (only a weasel family law attorney could come up with)...Rao paints disgruntled litigants as ONLY being mad ONLY because they lost.

You stupid bafoon...was MLK or Malcolm X "only mad because they always lost out when it came to the advancement of their causes?"

Your argument is an intellectual punk coward's debate trick. You take the punk coward route because you have no ability to argue your point on the merits.

This is not a matter of being mad. What's at issue is whether the disgruntled party is right. You make a dumbass attempt to say that just because they are mad, that makes them wrong. You give into mantra of the PERVERT Stuart Greenberg and other mentally ill psychologists who say that anger makes one evil. Are you angry if a stranger kidnaps your kids? If some drunk driver hits your car? There. Examples of being angry for a just reason.

It's IMPOSSIBLE that 90% of the time in contested cases that women are the better custodial parent. A 60/40 split would be discrimination. But, your dumbass doesn't see that because you are pimped, controlled and brainwashed by the radical feminist dominated Family Law Section of the Bar. I mean WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND wants to make their living dealing with family law drama and setting policy? Attorneys who don't practice family law think that you are scum...bottom of the barrell...that family law is not real law...and you BRAG about being entrenched in the entities that help continue to bring along this twisted perversion that MAKES MONEY off of family dysfunction...giving the $$$ to your friends like Stuart Greenberg (a mentally ill voyeur who did parenting evaluations and videotaped women children in his bathroom then masturbated to the videos)...to family law facilitators who GIVE ERRANT LEGAL ADVICE when they are not allowed to give any....to man hating radical feminist lesbian GAL's like Megan Stanley-O'Brien who always domineeringly bribe dads into taking DV classes...You try and flaunt your credentials by bragging on being in bed with a bunch of perverts....but then again, you look like a pedophile on your website. So...
47
Let's also factor into the equation guys who want former wives to have primary custody until they can find new partners who stay at home at least part of the time and then seek changes in parenting plans. They treat former wives as glorified baby sitters then complain profusely when courts don’t sympathize.
49
@ CHRISTOPHER RAO: You say "victims are children"......whoooaaaaa!!! Stop the presses!!! Rao is a genius!!! How did he actually come up with this!!!??? AMAAAAAZING!!!

You dumbass...that's like saying, "Hey everyone, there's a force called gravity" and getting credit for coming up with it.

So, dumbass, let me enlighten you: Children are vicitmized by being pulled from one parent cuz WEASELS like you think that ONE parent should have custody and a child would be traumatized by going back and forth and seeing both parents equally. Again, you rely on perverts who voyeur women and children in their own office bathroom like YOUR FRIEND Greenberg (but then again, you look like a greasy pedophile yourself).

Guess what? It only takes ONE SINGLE PSYCHO parent to create conflict and go to court and lie that she was raped, abused, or a DV victim.

If your DUMBASS could actually read, you would see in the Seattle Weekly article that man-hating attorney Deborah Bianco said that judges/commissioners will ERR and grant protection orders (without facts) because they worry about their reputation or the 1 / 1,000,000 chance that that woman will be killed or assaulted (which would happend with or without the protection order, if the man is REALLY a threat--only the 'good guys') obey the protection orders. THAT SAID, you have one of your friends/comrades with 2x your experience, ADMITTING that they ERRANTLY grant protection orders. Courts are supposed to make findings of facts and conclusions of law. They are NOT ALLOWED TO ERR. Yet, Bianco ADMITTED they REGULARLY ERR (on the side of caution). And YOU affiliate yourself with this weirdo, distorted, bizarre pervsion on the law.

ALL THAT SAID, a woman can easily cry in court, get a protection order, all in the name of getting leverage to get child support, control a dad (with "Wheel of Power & Control" elements, ironically), get the home, maintenance and not care about the kid, cuz he/she is just a paycheck and COMMIT abuse of a child by alienating him/her from a dad and/or bringing her sex offender boyfriend around the child.

AND YOU APPROVE OF ALL OF THIS by your blissful ignorance cuz you're entrenched in the perversion.
50
#13 - I think your posts are good and thoughtful even if I don't agree at all times, however, I am 50 and I do know many couples where both parents agreed she should stay home. I always thought this was a bad decision for women to make. Well about half my freinds are divorced and the ones who stayed home may not have been "forced", but the decisions were made mutually and the women did get screwed in the end. Sadly, regardless of stats that say men get screwed it boils down to those who can afford good attourneys are usually the ones that win.
51
@ CHRISTOPHER RAO: You are the epitome of a hypocrite, sellout (to gender, race, fatherhood), but you also EPITOMIZE the Milgram Experiment.

You have given into the wave of power and control and influence of the radical feminist authority. You follow orders, repeat the mantra and do as they do because you are entrenched in it.

Educate your own blind, dumbass and look up Milgram Experiment. It helped enlighten folks on human nature to give into authority and/or its influence, explaining how Nazi Germany soldiers could actually follow such heinous orders without standing up for what's right.

Well, you're a punk ass coward sheeple just like those in the experience or in Hitler's regime. Since you AGREE that it's okay for a white racist old attorney to call a young female Asian attorney a "LYING CHINK", then I guess selling out to the family law feminists is right up your alley.
52
@ CHRISTOPHER RAO: Cite the rate at which a Motion for Reconsideration of a commissioner's ruling is granted. Cite also the rate at which a Motion for Revision is granted versus a judge DEFERRING to a commissioner without re-looking at the matter de novo.

Back up your BS, liar.
53
@ CHRISTOPHER RAO: Did anyone NOTICE THIS...In all the hype and BS of Rao's radical feminist punk coward weasel attorney bullcrap I overlooked the following.

RAO thinks that his example was a VICTORY. This story was MERELY about a dad gettin a Christmas Break visit. This was not a VICTORY...the dad was dragged into court and FALSELY ACCUSED of domestic violence. THAT ALONE was harassing to the dad and abusive toward him. That's like saying, "Hey my client who was falsely accused of robbery was found innocent...he should be happy about the process that he went through and the stress he endured." This is how blind this dumbass attorney is.

That's like saying, "Hey people of color, you should be happy you have YOUR OWN WATER FOUNTAIN here in Mississippi in the 50s". No one is preventing them from their second class access to their own water fountain, so they should be happy, even though along the way they have to duck and dodge rocks, jeers, dogs, etc.

The example dad who "won" at the wonderful hand of Rao representation is supposed to be happy that he only gets to be a second class VISITOR in his child's life and when the mother abuses the system against him, he should be happy cuz he got the "status quo" of the court system (according to Rao).

What a dumbass, PAB. I hope, I sooooo hope that Rao has to go through his own divorce and custody battle so he can reap what he sows and actually FEEL what he thinks does not exist.

What a PAB and a pathetic excuse of a gender claiming to have testicles.
54
A of one which has been around for some time, since it, obviously, is applicable here:

"Shortly after his retirement, Chief Justice Warren Burger shocked the ABA and just about every other lawyer and judge, by publicly speaking out in his keynote address, with his famous quote
that was well covered by mainstream media."

"In all my years as a judge at every level of the bench, including the Supreme court, at least 85% of all lawyers that practiced before me were either INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT, OR BOTH."
55
Wow, folks. Lots of opinions tonight. Let me try to respond to each of you in turn. First, to the gentleman who made 9 posts and even sent me an email (ImRightAndRaoKnowsIt):

@43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 & 53
Your email subject line to me reads: “Hey, LYING CHINK !!! I dare you to engage in serious debate” I’m happy to engage in serious debate, and can see that you are too. But I think the racial epithet you’re looking for is “dothead.” I’m of east Indian descent, on my dad’s side (white on my mom’s side).

@ 43 – You write that I am “a fake, phony, punk, coward and HYOCRITE.” Pretty sure I’ve been all those things at some point in my life, but I never ever smoked clove cigarettes (even when they were cool). As for the coward part, you know my name (and, apparently, lots more about me), but I know nothing about you. To whom do I have the pleasure of conversing with?

You rightly point that I “brought ONE SINGLE anecdote.” Quite right. I was given a word limit by The Powers That Be, so one was all that would fit. In fact, I’m not so much a fan of argument by anecdote, but the one I gave was literally the last time I had been in court at the time I wrote the article, so it came easily to mind. The problem with anecdotes is that they are by nature self-selected, and so tend to confirm one’s prior impressions, whatever they may be. Hard data is my preference (see my post @37)

You say that I’m a sellout to my race. Since I’m mixed, that’s perhaps inevitable ;)

@44 – You write that I look “like a greasy-haired pedophile.” I don’t really know many pedophiles, so I don’t have an adequate basis for comparison. Oh, and by the way, I’m no longer on the RPC committee (keep meaning to update that website!).

@46 – You write that I am “pimped, controlled and brainwashed by the radical feminist dominated Family Law Section of the Bar. I mean WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND wants to make their living dealing with family law drama and setting policy?” I like practicing family law because it matters. Period. But I don’t set policy. I could claim that I’m not brainwashed by radical feminists, but no one who is really brainwashed actually believes that they’re brainwashed, right?

You call Stuart Greenberg a pervert. I only met the man once before he died, but sadly, you appear to be correct.

@48 – Thanks for giving out my work and home addresses. I have two small children at home, so this is super-cool.

You list my email address as topher@RoaandPierce.com. It’s actually topher@raoandpierce.com.

You write “I dared Christopher Rao to actually debate me on his hot-air, empty, no fact having, specious, drivel-filled diatribe bullcrap above.” I'd be happy to debate you. Let’s do it in person. Just let me know where and when, and I’ll make it if I can. How about a restaurant, with plenty of good eats and drinks? Bring your friends. I’ll even buy the first round.

If you’d rather talk one on one, just call my office and make an appointment. There’s a cool coffee shop across the street and we can talk there. I’ll even buy you coffee. Who knows? We might have more in common than you think. I do represent lots of guys who are accused of domestic violence, after all.
56
@38

I may surprise you here – I totally agree that DVPO’s are sometimes abused. In the past year, I’ve had two male clients and one female client who were on the wrong end of a DVPO I believe should never have been issued. In each case I read the pleadings and wondered, even if every word was true, how the DVPO could have been granted without the responding party even being able to defend himself or herself.

To me, using bogus claims of domestic violence to get the upper hand in a custody fight is reprehensible – right up there with selling drugs to middle schoolers. I don’t blame the parties as much, because both moms and dads are so freaked out by the whole process. But we lawyers ought to know better. And pleading this crap is an affront to victims of true domestic violence.

Tell you what? Every single protection order I’ve ever filed for a client is public record. If you want, look through them all and let me know if you can find a single case that you think follows this pattern. I stand by my record on this, precisely for the reasons that you list- because DV is a serious thing, and should not be thrown around like it’s some sort of game. Just today, I told two clients (yeah, two), that we weren't going to file a protection order because we just didn't have the facts to justify it. You may be surprised to learn that there are a lot of family law attorneys who take this conservative attitude towards ex parte orders. And - I routinely show up at a hearing two weeks later and blast these dubious orders out of the water, on behalf of my clients.

I do disagree with you that handing out DVPO’s too loosely is a gender bias issue. I think it’s more an issue of Front Page Phobia – where ex parte Commissioners are afraid of ending up on the front page because of a homicide.

I’ll tell you what I told the unnamed dude who posted 9 comments – if you want to talk to me about any of this, I’m happy to buy you a cup of coffee (or a beer – your choice) so that we can discuss it in greater detail. As I told the unnamed gentleman, we may have more in common than you think. Even if we don’t, I think it quite possible that we can disagree without being disagreeable. First round’s on me!
57
Black or White, Red or Green, Nina or Christopher.

Havin spent many years working with Fathers Rights activists, I am biased, no doubt. However, it was only after witnessing bias that I learned to start fighting to protect fathers and their relationship with their children. It makes no sense to debate this with Christopher Rao, he has his opinion, and he values it highly for whatever he and everyone else choses to believe in themselves.

I would only caution men, I don't believe that his line of reasoning will help you in a bar fight, that is a fight at the bar in a court of law. His failure to open his mind to view the facts that others have presented will only cloud his judgement.

Men, you need to chose your attorney's carefully. You need to research who will her your case, and understand their personal biases based on cases they have handled. Even go watch them prior to your own hearing.

When Senator Kastama presented to the House Judiciary Committee about shared parenting, he quoted a Pierce County Judge when the judge asked for his support and he asked the Judge for his support - The judge stated simply - "In this County we do every other weekend for dads, thats what we do". Christopher, that is a fact, that is available from that hearing. Now, tell me how that has anything to do with the best interest of the child, and how that doesn't show bias by the courts in Pierce County.

Yes, I know, you will have some smug response to this, that will make you feel loftier than everyone one else. This has obviously become your person debate. Just think about this - nobody really gives a crap about your opinion, you have proven in this forum that it is of little value to anyone unless they believe in your narrow minded version of the courts.
58
On choosing your legal representative carefully, good advice. Remember too, it is your case, not your attorneys. While he may be paid to handle some or all aspects of it, that fact does not terminate your right to control your own case. This applies even when dealing with court appointed attorneys.

Some individuals give their attorneys notice of what they expect in the case. For example, they may direct them on building a record (many attorneys really are ignorant of the laws and rules they are working under and erroneously claim the case file is the record for appeal, for example). Building a record can include making objections, introducing exhibits an moving them into evidence and so forth.

In addition to looking into an attorney's experience in the type of law you need help with (e.g., family law, criminal law, etc.), check to see if he is overloaded. Too many cases make an attorney incompetent.
59
@39
Derek (it is you, right?),

The article you pointed me to is excellent – and I agree with many things the author says. The studies she cites are listed, but without links, so I can’t speak to the veracity of the statistics she quotes (and they aren’t from Washington), but her common sense advice is great. Here’s the link again for anyone who missed it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-mandar…

You write: “So, I ask you, how do you prove the decision was bad? If you can't prove it, then by your logic, courts must never make bad decisions. Right?“ Courts make bad decisions every day because judges/commissioners are human and family law cases are messy. As I wrote earlier, the way you prove a decision was bad is to provide the court with reliable, impartial evidence whenever possible.

I disagree that it’s a gender issue because I’ve also defended many women who were on the wrong end of such an order. In the end, in nearly every case I believe that the best evidence – yes, evidence – has prevailed. Here is my advice to anyone, male or female, who gets this kind of order entered against them:

1) Take it seriously, even if the underlying facts are BS: Prosecutors rarely bring criminal charges on the underlying DV (because it’s hard to prove), but instead bring charges for violating a protection order because it’s so easy to prove - even an otherwise innocent text message (“Please say hi to the kids for me.”) is often enough evidence of a violation.

2) Get a good attorney for the hearing two weeks later. Hire Derek! Seriously, the real gatekeepers in this arena are not the ex parte commissioners, but the much-maligned Family Law commissioners. Making sure that you have great evidence for that hearing is what it’s all about. Too many lawyers combat dubious attacks with their own dubious attacks, then claim that the judge/commissioner was biased.

3) In general, don’t attack the petitioner in your court pleadings, even if she (or he) is lying. Courts don’t really like he-said, she-said. Instead, look for reliable third party information – declarations from your boss or even an ex-spouse (who is less likely to lie for you), school attendance records, court records for both you and the other party.

4) When there are kids involved, always focus on what the kids need, not what you need. If the other party is attacking you right and left, it’s tempting to tell the court “She (or he) is a liar!” but commissioners get really tired of hearing that all day. Instead, if your ex is always pointing the finger at you, show the court that you care more about the injustice to your kid than whatever perceived injustice there is towards you. Like for instance “Because I have historically put Joey to bed every night, and made him breakfast every morning, I’m concerned that this disruption in his routine will be confusing for him.” It’s not about “I deserve my son (or daughter). It’s about “My son (or daughter) deserves his/her dad (or mom).”

5) Present a calm demeanor in court: it’s easy enough to claim that you aren’t a hothead. Similarly, walking into court with an attitude that the court is just against you makes you look like a jerk. Don’t be a jerk. Don’t ever interrupt the judge or commissioner. Don’t make faces when your ex lies through her/his teeth. Showing that you can listen to spurious accusations with grace and dignity proves the point more eloquently than any words can. If anyone’s going to challenge the court more aggressively, let it be your lawyer.

6) Tell the truth, no more no less. Don’t embellish. Being nice to the other party in your pleadings and in court also usually doesn’t hurt, nor does showing some insight into your own failings. Most abusers have very little self-insight, and think that everything is the fault of their ex. Saying something as simple as “She’s a really good mom” (if it’s true) can go a long way to showing the court that you care more about your kids than about proving someone wrong, or proving yourself right. And if you screwed something up, like yelling at your ex in front of your small child, just admit it, say it was a mistake, and move on. True abusers are rarely able to show this much self-insight in court.

7) If you think the results are unfair, ask for a reconsideration, and then, perhaps, a revision. Be aggressive in protecting your rights, but always respectful to everyone in the process.

8) Whatever the result, follow the orders in spirit, and to the absolute letter. If the order says to pee in a cup, pee in a cup. If it says to undergo a DV evaluation, do it with candor and humility. Use humor. If you show the court that you can comply with court orders – even ones you don’t agree with – it’s far more likely that the court will trust you in relaxing those orders at a later time. Don’t give up. Believe me, we’ve had some long-ass fights. But in the end, if you’re smart, humble, you follow orders, and you focus on your kids, you will usually succeed.

60
@40, 41

I'm really sorry to hear that you haven't seen your son in months.

You apparently don't like what I have written, but tell you what? Give me a call and I'll be happy to discuss it with you, and perhaps offer some helpful advice. No charge.

Your son needs you. Don't give up.
61
@ 52:

You write: "Cite the rate at which a Motion for Reconsideration of a commissioner's ruling is granted. Cite also the rate at which a Motion for Revision is granted versus a judge DEFERRING to a commissioner without re-looking at the matter de novo.

Back up your BS, liar."

Very good question, actually.

I don't have statistics for all reconsiderations and revisions, county-wide. Conventional wisdom is that they usually fail. I would guesstimate that about 50-60% of the ones my firm has filed in the last two years have succeeded, but a big reason why it's this high is because we only do reconsiderations/revisions when we think the ruling below was really in left field.

Otherwise, it's just a waste of the client's money.

Plus, I really don't enjoy getting my ass kicked in court ;)
62
Christopher Rao, you clearly have the patience of a saint.
63
Christopher,

All of your suggestions are spot on. And it is possible to win TROs or DVPOs with enough hard work.

But a victim has a built in or systemic advantage including the use of ex parte orders and DV advocates. A victim is given all the information and help. Declarations are tailored to hit all the right statutory factors. The other side is not present. To me, that is an advantage or bias.

During my volunteer work with legal clinics, I see too many pro se clients restrained with Ex Parte orders. They didn't even have a chance to respond or have time to hire an attorney. Because of that, he either loses the case or it is delayed. By far most of the clients with this problem are men.

Some commissioners claim its only a restraint of a couple weeks, but I've seen ex parte ROs and DVPOs extended for weeks and months. That is a long time to be out your house and children being denied time with a parent. To say the person is not being punished stretches credulity. To say the kids are better off is dubious.

Whether bias or other factor, the system needs correction. Perhaps we can talk more about this (maybe on the listserve) and discuss solutions.

Derek
www.medina-law.com

64
Derek,

Thanks for the constructive comments.

You say that “it is possible to win TRO’s or DVPO’s with enough hard work.” Isn’t hard work what we’re paid for, whoever we represent? I can’t speak for others, but in my personal experience, I’ve never found it particularly difficult to blow away hysterical accusations.
You write that “a victim has a built in or systemic advantage including the use of ex parte orders and DV advocates. A victim is given all the information and help. Declarations are tailored to hit all the right statutory factors. The other side is not present. To me, that is an advantage or bias.”

First and foremost, this is a public health issue. The year by year statistics I have found for domestic violence fatalities in Washington State, by gender are:
1997 – 4 male victims, 20 female victims
1998 – 2 male victims, 30 female victims
1999 – 4 male victims, 20 female victims
2000 – 2 male victims, 18 female victims
2001 – 1 male victim, 30 female victims
2002 – 3 male victims, 24 female victims
2003 – 4 male victims , 24 female victims
2004 – 3 male victims, 25 female victims
2005 – 6 male victims, 34 female victims
2006 – 8 male victims, 18 female victims
2007 – 5 male victims, 24 female victims
2008 – 2 male victims, 23 female victims
2009 – 5 male victims, 28 female victims
2010 – 6 male victims, 24 female victims
==================================
1997-2010 – 55 male victims, 342 female victims
http://www.wscadv.org/docs/DVHomicideRat… For much more in depth analysis, see http://www.ncdsv.org/publications_domhom…

I use fatality statistics because they are inherently more reliable. What is striking about these statistics is how little they change from year to year. Note that in this 14 year period, the number of female victims was less than 20 just once (18) and more than 30 just once (34). Likewise the number of male victims was below 2 just once (1) and above 6 just once (8).

Incidentally, I just remembered that I wrote an article on this back in 2009, after reading that a Graham, WA dad shot all 5 of his kids, apparently because his wife was cheating on him. He couldn’t find his wife, so then he shot himself. - http://decouplingblog.com/2009/04/virtua…

Note that these five children are not part of the above statistics - nor are any other child victims of DV.

It’s also important to note that many “familicide” perpetrators – who kill their children as well as their partner – had no prior criminal record. I believe that neither of the dads I wrote about, who killed their families a few days apart in April 2009 had criminal records. One was a white diesel mechanic, the other an Indian-American software engineer.

All this leads to an imperfect balancing act for our ex parte commissioners. They may err a bit on the side of caution, but what would you do, given the above statistics?

Clearly, most of us guys are not homicidal lunatics, just as most guys who look like me are not terrorists. And yet pretty much every time I fly I get “special” attention, ever since 9/11 (well, unless my wife is with me). I don’t know that it’s fair to me, but I sure understand it. It's just part of being brown in America.

This issue is tough because there are fundamental asymmetries at play (see above statistics). Similarly, I would guess that someone who owns a restaurant or other cash-based business probably faces more scrutiny by the IRS than say, a Boeing engineer. Not all restaurant owners cheat on their taxes, and some Boeing engineers certainly do, but that doesn’t change the fundamental dynamics of the situation.

Yes, if anyone is a victim of a dubious DVPO, and they don’t properly bring the facts to the court’s attention, two weeks can easily turn into two months or longer. Obviously, this is just plain wrong. Like you, I defend these folks regularly against hysterical accusations, and statistically, it's likely that a majority of these folks are men (because statistically, more men commit violent acts against their families). But the ex parte court is not in a vacuum. And if we remove protections, and cut funding for DV advocates, what do you think the likely results will be?

The class of people who have the greatest ability to change these dynamics are lawyers. DV advocates have a hard, but narrowly defined job. It’s not reasonable given their budgetary constraints to ask them to create a further hurdle to people coming for help. But too many of these hysterical ex parte motions are drafted by lawyers – including, ironically, lawyers who publicly complain about bias against men (not you, Derek). Such practice is reprehensible, just as it is reprehensible when lawyers knowingly intimidate the victims of domestic violence, and effectively perpetuate the cycle of domestic violence in the litigation process itself.

On the occasions when I have asked these attorneys who drafted hysterical accusations why they filed such mean-spirited tripe (usually after my client defeated the order at a hearing a couple of weeks later), I generally get either a) more hysterical accusations, or b) some lame excuse like “This is what my client told me; there’s nothing I could do.” Poppycock. We family law attorneys need to change the culture so that it's just not cool to use domestic violence for tactical advantage.

Once again, I believe that the misuse of the ex parte calendar is a complex and multi-faceted issue rather than a gender-specific issue. Right now in my practice I have a fairly equal gender split of clients who were on the wrong end of a hysterical ex parte order. For my practice at least, this is common. The only real difference I see is that male clients appear more likely to believe that they are the victim of bias than female clients.

I would love to talk more about possible solutions. The first thing I can think of off the bat is that ex parte commissioners could more closely scrutinize why the opposing party cannot be present at the hearing - at least by phone. True, in some cases, giving the other party notice itself creates a public safety hazard. But in many cases I see, just from reading the petition and declaration, there was just no good reason not to at least give the other party 2 or 3 hours notice, and at least let them talk to the court by phone. One reason I think it happens is that if the ex parte order is granted anyway, the other party may evade service of process - and without the actual order in hand, that party cannot be arrested for violating that order. This isn't an issue if the restrained party is there in person, but of course, that creates other public health issues - because a pre-scheduled court hearing is the one place an abuser knows when and where his victim will be. Every time you take the 4th avenue entrance you walk past the plaque commemorating the woman  Susana Blackwell, 25, who has eight months pregnant when she was shot and killed by her estranged husband at the courthouse in 1995, along with two of her friends, Phoebe Dizon, 46, and Veronica Laureta Johnson, 42. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…

Not every guy is a dick like Timothy Blackwell. And yes, some guys get shafted by the court just like some women get shafted. But when we throw around incendiary terms like "systemic bias," and talk about all the "advantages" that victims get, let's at least look at both sides of the equation with cold, discerning eyes.
65
@Rao (regarding your statistics):

So, 20 - 40 murders per year justifies 100s and 100s of bogus, domestic violence restraining orders WITHOUT a full hearing, WITHOUT evidence, except the word of a woman?

How many of those murder victims would have been protected with a protection order. I can confidently say: NONE. Why? Cuz someone risking the DEATH PENALTY or LIFE in prison doesn't give a crap about a piece of paper that says don't go near the person you want to kill. Many psychologists will admit the restraining order system is a scam. And here you are justifying it because sometimes murder occurs. You are comparing apples with oranges....you're doing a spin doctor attorney misdirection trick.

66
@Rao 64:

You mention you understand a responding party's absence in Ex Parte. You know how attorneys USUALLY proceed in Ex Parte. They call a responding party father while he is at work or they DON'T call him AT ALL and they LIE to the Commissioner and say they gave him notice.

Or if it's a pro se mom she goes in there NOT knowing about the notice requirement and doesn't give the dad notice at all and the court grants it anyway. Or she says that she's afraid he will get violent so the notice requirement is waived.

BUT THINK ABOUT IT....the "waiver of notice requirement" is based upon actual harm. Most women say, "If he finds out I'm coming down here, he will get violent." Well, (1) he's gonna find out about the return hearing, won't he get violent THEN? and (2) If he shows up in Ex Parte, there's Sheriff Deputies everywhere and the court will LIKELY GRANT THE ORDER ANYWAY.

The ENTIRE proceeding in Ex Parte restraining orders is SCAM. Like PreTend Comm. Deborah Bianco ADMITTED, the courts grant them because they are afraid of a hypothetical: that the mother may be killed or assaulted if they don't. YOUR COMRADES ADMIT that they err in order to protect their own hypothetical reputation...they are afraid of the boogeyman. They hand out THOUSANDS of restraining orders without due process, setting a guy up for a crime, all for the fear of that ONE person who MIGHT get killed. (which is bogus, again, because a killer does NOT care about a restraining order)
67
@Rao 64:

Why are there "special" DV laws for assaults and murders? Why don't the courts just criminally prosecute the murder/assault laws? Answer: the radical feminists created a "special" law that makes intimate victims of murder/assault more special than others SO THAT they could prosecute them easier, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Anyone with half a brain, who thinks for themselves, and thinks about this issue for a minute can see this for what it really is. Explanation:

Domestic Violence has to do with a violent CRIME. But, many times a woman ONLY goes to family court and gets a CIVIL protection order. What's the burden in civil court to prove that a man will kill, assault or harm her (in the future)? A preponderance of evidence. If she says she fears that, then they grant it, PERIOD. The dad is deprived of life, liberty, property, his Constitutional right to access to his children WITHOUT a trial, WITHOUT a jury of his peers, WITHOUT the right to an attorney, WITHOUT a hearing lasting longer than 5 minutes, WITHOUT any evidence except the wife/girlfriend/babymama's WORD.

This is the ONLY law that will deprive someone of freedom based upon what they MIGHT do in the future (except for THREATS, but those are tangible and its the actual incident of a threat that's prosecuted). But, here, the issue at hand is that if a psychotic, schizophrenic woman is in fear for her life, then those around her have committed DV because of her paranoia. Or if she lies, she is believed, because idiots like you have set up the laws, the court's M.O. and all other systems to deprive men of their rights on demand.

If you cannot see the scam of DV protection orders and the Ex Parte department, then you are blind. Period. I've seen many DV protection orders entered WITHOUT notice and EVEN WITHOUT a claim of imminent harm. Psycho Bradburn-Johnson, or Hollis Holman, or Arden Bedle, or little-man-disease Velategui (who never reads anything) all sign off on these orders ALWAYS.
68
@ Rao 64: And what if a dad wants a restraining order against a child abusing/DV perpetrating mother. Does he get one? Never. If he goes to Ex Parte without notice, it is demanded that he notifies her. If he notifies and she's a no-show it is denied because they assume he's lying.

Recently, a dad walked into Arden Bedle's courtroom and provided PROOF that the mother committed DV. On top of that, she SWORE UNDER OATH in a protection order petition that her new husband committed DV against her. RCW 26.09.191(2) requires restrictions against the mother because SHE IS and her live-in husband IS a domestic violence perpetrator.

What does Bedle end up doing? Taking every-other-weekend visitation from the dad altogether...because he harassed the mom by attempting this legit motion. And the mom gets a free attorney because she is giving sexual favors to James Michael Gallagher (who brags to you and your comrades about all the coochie he gets from female clients who are destitute).

And YOU say that there is NO bias whatsoever in this family court system full of perverts like Bedle, and Gallagher and Stuart Greenberg, and GAL Don Layton (who writes favorable reports for sexual favors), and so on.
69
@Rao (re complaint of home address):

Your home address is public record, just like your office address is, you idiot. Don't complain to me that it's available on the internet. Talk to Google.

I just posted all the info for the convenience of anyone who wanted to write you, complain, or share information with you directly to help change your distorted, illogical views.

What makes you think that your children are in danger because your PUBLIC address was once again made public? You sound like those feminists who create paranoia and an emotional frenzy in order to pass illogical, unconstitutional laws, in order to execute their agenda. If you don't want to be subject to public scrutiny, then stop being a horrible father and putting yourself out in the public. (or maybe you were just being specious with your concern to project blame on me for doing something wrong). Whatever, dude.
70
@69 I can imagine that it's just possible that having an anonymous and fairly deranged Internet stalker post your address in the same thread that they accuse you of being a pedophile (among other things) might be just a little bit unsettling.

As a MALE divorce client of Christopher's I can you that he's been extremely professional and done a great job of navigating me through what is / is not reasonable in the process. On the other hand, I have no kids, and am also lucky enough to have kept a good enough relationship with my ex-wife to do this on a mediated / uncontested basis so I thankfully don't have direct experience of the tougher side of the family court.

By the way, I have to assume that your choice in women must be absolutely atrocious - the idea that any judge would give custody of a kid to someone as clearly unhinged as you is frightening, even if the system were fair. I hate to imagine what kind of woman could lose a custody battle to someone with your temperament in a system as biased as you claim it to be.

You've made your points and you've also demonstrated a broken sense of proportion combined with a complete lack of civility which means nobody is listening anymore - the only reason I'm here is because Christopher canceled an appointment with me this morning because he's behind in his real work from answering these questions. I don't know how many other clients have bad their stuff rescheduled because of this but I'm pretty sure I speak for all of Christopher's clients when I ask you, politely, to stop bugging my lawyer so he can get on with working on my stuff.

This conversation is over - feel free to crawl back under whatever rock you came from (Ok, maybe that bit wasn't so polite...)

71
@65,66,67,68,69

James (the name I got from the email you sent me),

You actually raise some good points, and I'm happy to discuss them further, in a coffee shop or restaurant of your choice. Feel free to invite Chris Hupy, GoodDad, Medina, and anyone else you wish. As I said, I'll buy the first cup of coffee for anyone who shows. Till then, I’ll try to respond to as many of your points as I can reasonably track.

@65, you write: “So, 20 - 40 murders per year justifies 100s and 100s of bogus, domestic violence restraining orders WITHOUT a full hearing, WITHOUT evidence, except the word of a woman?”

Briefly, yes. Every human life is sacred. To put this in perspective, a 2003 Center for Disease control report summarizes: Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur among U.S. women ages 18 and older each year. This violence results in nearly 2.0 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths.” http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cos… Let’s just ignore the 2 million injuries a year and look only to DV fatalities – which as I’ve noted earlier are statistically very reliable indicators. If we use a conservative estimate of 1,200 homicides a year, that makes 13,200 homicides between 2001 and 2011. To put this in perspective, it’s estimated by one anti-Islamic website that 3,094 people have died in the US from 66 Islamic extremist attacks between 1972 and 2011 (including 2,996 on 9/11/2001). http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/….

Yes, this means that 4 times as many women were murdered by intimate partners in just ten years than by Islamic extremists in 40 years.

I think we all know what some of the civil liberties consequences have been for brown people – and for everyone - in America after 9/11 (!). As a person of color, I accept this scrutiny every time I fly even though it’s ridiculous to think I would ever harm anyone on an airplane or anywhere else.

Statistically, think how much more dangerous it is for women in their own homes than flying on a plane. I believe the public safety issue alone justifies a heightened level of scrutiny for men accused of threatening and/or violent behavior. We can agree to disagree on this, but these particular numbers show the extent of the public safety issue.

You also write: “How many of those murder victims would have been protected with a protection order. I can confidently say: NONE. Why? Cuz someone risking the DEATH PENALTY or LIFE in prison doesn't give a crap about a piece of paper that says don't go near the person you want to kill.”

I respectfully disagree with this premise, for a number of reasons. Certainly it’s true that someone completely committed to violence cannot be stopped by a piece of paper. In fact, the rise of suicide bombers has shown that dedicated murderers often can’t be stopped by laws, guns, police checkpoints, and concrete barricades (each of which are a pain in the ass for law-abiding citizens). But that doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to prevent suicide bombers, or that we should try to use our civil laws to protect victims of DV.

There's also plenty of statistical evidence showing the correlation between "paper restraints" and declines in violence. For example, a 2004 study published by the National Institute of Health succinctly concluded: “Abused women who apply and qualify for a 2-year protection order, irrespective of whether or not they are granted the order, report significantly lower levels of violence during the subsequent 18 months.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…

More in the next post…
72
James,

@65- You claim that there are “100s and 100s of bogus, domestic violence restraining orders.” I wonder what evidence you have of this.

@66- You write: “You mention you understand a responding party's absence in Ex Parte. You know how attorneys USUALLY proceed in Ex Parte. They call a responding party father while he is at work or they DON'T call him AT ALL and they LIE to the Commissioner and say they gave him notice.”

Dude, I am seriously with you on this one. Using ticky-tack specious allegations, then not giving proper notice is despicable. And yes, some lawyers lie (as do some engineers, carpenters, computer programmers, hair dressers, etc.) They should be sanctioned by the bar – in my opinion, these bad apples should actually be sanctioned far more than they are now. On the other hand, some of the very most honest people I have ever met are lawyers – because lawyers see the slippery slope from puffery to exaggeration to white lie to bald-faced lie every damn day. This experience makes some people more dishonest, and some people far more diligent in the being honest, even in the small things.

You write “The ENTIRE proceeding in Ex Parte restraining orders is SCAM.” Sorry, but I just don’t see this. As I've written earlier, the restraining orders and OFP's that I've filed - sometimes with notice, sometimes without notice, depending on the risks involved as I saw them - are public record. I stand behind every single one I ever filed. And like you, I think that lawyers who file these motions purely for tactical advantage suck nasty cow pies.

You write: “They hand out THOUSANDS of restraining orders without due process, setting a guy up for a crime, all for the fear of that ONE person who MIGHT get killed.” Legal due process is not a rigid line. Rather, it’s a delicate and imperfect balancing act between protecting civil liberties and assessing real threats to public safety. Just ask some of the hundred of poor folks stuck at Guantanamo Bay for years, who never committed any crime at all. http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0425/guantan…

Again, let me reiterate my invitation to have this discussion in a coffee shop or restaurant, at your convenience. Just not tomorrow – it’s the Super Bowl! I find that talking to people who disagree with me is far more interesting than preaching to the choir.
73
James,

@67 – You write: “Why are there "special" DV laws for assaults and murders? Why don't the courts just criminally prosecute the murder/assault laws? … What's the burden in civil court to prove that a man will kill, assault or harm her (in the future)? A preponderance of evidence. If she says she fears that, then they grant it, PERIOD. The dad is deprived of life, liberty, property, his Constitutional right to access to his children WITHOUT a trial, WITHOUT a jury of his peers, WITHOUT the right to an attorney, WITHOUT a hearing lasting longer than 5 minutes, WITHOUT any evidence except the wife/girlfriend/babymama's WORD.”

This is a decent question. The purpose of criminal laws is to punish. The purpose of civil protection orders is to protect – especially to protect children. Yes, preponderance of evidence is the standard, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Again, it’s an imperfect balancing act designed to prevent serious injuries and fatalities – and as I think I’ve shown, there are a lot of them.

Remember that all ex parte orders are temporary, usually no more than 2 weeks. And as long as the restrained party follows legal process and doesn’t violate the order in that 2-week period, no one’s getting locked up.

I definitely think that this process can be, and is, abused. BUT it’s abused by lawyers for both men and women, as I’ve said earlier.

Also, I absolutely believe that there are good, fairly predictable safeguards in the system – motions to quash, full hearings, reconsiderations, revisions, CR 60 motions, parenting evaluations. http://decouplingblog.com/2009/05/ask-a-…

My own experience is that the courts don't always get it right the first time around, for a variety of reasons - but if you present good evidence in a calm, methodical and respectful way - then upon further review, the court will almost always get it right.

My experience is that the cases I see where men and women fail to reverse adverse paper restraints, their lawyers typically present their own dubious, hysterical, angry, he-said, she-said statements, ignore proper extrinsic evidence, often treat the court with open disrespect and even contempt - then complain about how unfair the court was. Yeah, lazy lawyers don't usually blame their own lack of preparation. Big surprise.

Obviously you disagree about how good these safeguards are. I’m happy to discuss this in detail with you, and with anyone else who believes that these processes are inadequate to protect the rights of fathers or mothers. You got my number. Just call me to set up a time and place.
74
James,
@68

I’m not going to comment specifically on individual commissioners or lawyers, or DV evaluators, or GALs in a public forum, because I think that it’s just irresponsible. I will say that a couple of the names you list have widespread reputations that are not terribly dissimilar to your characterizations. Look, there are bad eggs everywhere – contractors who hide their crappy work behind sheet rock; engineers who rubber stamp dangerous designs that end up killing people; auto mechanics who rip off the unwary as a matter of course; reporters who ignore facts that don't fit the headline they want to write; politicians who use fear and sleight of hand to get elected, then pick the pockets of the people who put them there; over-privileged athletes and rock stars who can’t be bothered to be nice to the fans who are responsible for their millions of dollars; jerks who dent your car in a parking lot and don't leave a note, and so on.

The world is an imperfect place.

You write: “And YOU say that there is NO bias whatsoever in this family court system…”

No, I have never said this. I have harshly attacked a slapdash article which makes broad accusations which I believe were not supported in any significant way by the facts that Ms. Shapiro presents.

I have stated that my personal experience is that our family courts usually get it right, based on the most credible evidence presented, and that I have seen no significant bias against men or women.

Do I think that commissions, judges, and evaluators sometimes make awful mistakes? Of course I do. These are human beings, and human beings are full of pre-conceived notions. It's part of being human, part of how we are able to make sense of the onslaught of new data we get each and every day.

I have been personally involved on the wrong side of some major injustices – representing both women and men - including a former client dad who has gone to the Court of Appeals three times because of a series of terrible decisions. This is a matter of public record. http://law.justia.com/cases/washington/c…

Representing moms, I have also been on the wrong end of some bonehead orders, like the commissioner who ruled that, several years after the divorce, my client’s long-time boyfriend of could never spend the night at her house while her teenage kids were there because it suddenly offended the deadbeat dad’s religious sensibilities – even though the boyfriend knew the kids well and the kids liked him, had been spending the night there for 3 years without incident, and did nothing else wrong.

These are examples of two truly awful court orders, made by commissioners/judges – orders that really messed with my clients, and did no favors their kids. Maybe the decision makers were biased, maybe they didn’t read the materials carefully, maybe they didn’t like my client, maybe they didn’t like me. You can get on your soap box and say the whole system is corrupt in one way or another, or you can look at each individually, and not jump to rash conclusions unless there is truly compelling impartial evidence to support it.

You want an example of compelling impartial evidence? About 15 years ago the Seattle Times reported that although 92% or so all heroin overdose fatalities were white people, 50% of all SPD arrests for possessing heroin were black people. (I have no idea if this discrepancy is as big now.) Now, I just don't know any way you can look at those two numbers without seeing institutional bias of some sort. I mean, unless you really want to argue that black heroin addicts are somehow smarter about not overdosing... Note again that I look to fatality statistics because I believe them to be more generally reliable.

I am perfectly willing to read, and listen to, evidence that contradicts my specific experiences. After all, I’m just one lawyer, working in a small firm. I don’t see thousands of cases a year; I see dozens of cases a year, maybe a couple of hundred. I like to think I can look evidence as it is, and not as I wish it to be.

What I'm arguing for is getting good data so that we don't mistakenly put 2 and 2 together and get 13. Yeah, before I was a lawyer I was a wannabe policy wonk. True story.

Again, let me know if you want to meet in person, 1 on 1, or with some of your other friends present. You can find me most days at my Rao & Pierce office on Beacon Hill. You can call me at 206.721.8880 to set up a time. I ask only one thing. I’m not terribly concerned with any names you want to call me, but I insist that you – and anyone else who calls my firm - treat my staff politely and respectfully. Whatever you think of me, it’s on me and not the nice people who work for me. This is not their fight.
75
James,
@69

You write: “If you don't want to be subject to public scrutiny, then stop being a horrible father and putting yourself out in the public.” I honestly don’t know what you mean by “horrible father.” I am, I think, better than some and worse than others. I just hope, like most parents, that my love for my kids is stronger than the prejudices and insecurities I unintentionally inflict on them, just by being who I am. Hopefully, I won’t ruin my kids by accident!

And I’m not sure what I have written – and it’s a few thousand words by now – that would make anyone think I “don’t want to be subject to public scrutiny.”

You write: “Your home address is public record, just like your office address is, you idiot. Don't complain to me that it's available on the internet. Talk to Google. I just posted all the info for the convenience of anyone who wanted to write you, complain, or share information with you directly to help change your distorted, illogical views.”

I have no problem with your posting my office coordinates. In fact, my original article links to my firm’s blog, which in turn gives my firm address. I am not hard to find. But to claim that you post someone’s home address for the “convenience” of people who could already reach me at my office, nearly in the same breath as you call me a “lying chink” and a “greasy pedophile”?

Sorry dude, but I call bullsh*t.

I will say that since your original posts on Wednesday I’ve been contacted 8-10 times by other family law attorneys who appeared genuinely concerned for my personal safety, and for the safety of my family. Several of these people told me that they thought I was not concerned enough. A couple of people told me of their own scary stories with disgruntled opposing parties in family law cases. Another couple of people told me about Tom Neville (he was killed before I moved to Seattle, and I had never heard of him) - http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/16/…

I’m not trying to be dramatic; I’m just offering a reality check on how you may be perceived, at least by some of my fellow vultures, and perhaps by some of the readers here.

You don’t strike me as a violent guy, just a guy who has been very frustrated for a long long time, and who perhaps thinks that no one is listening or cares. In other words, you sound like a lot of my clients. Clearly, this is something you care about deeply, and I respect the passion of your convictions. No joke.

I also don’t think you are necessarily off base with everything you say. Even if I don’t agree with your conclusions, I think that you rightly put your finger on some difficult issues, and you’ve obviously done some homework on all this. But if you use needlessly invasive, bullying tactics, your ideas won’t be taken seriously and you’ll be written off by a lot of people (though perhaps not by me) as a creepy, unhinged jerk. Trust me on this, even if you believe nothing else I say.

Look, you want to seriously debate these issues - and I suspect you do, given all the energy you’ve put into your posts – then let’s talk in person and see where that takes us. Just leave my office staff and my family out of it, and you can call me whatever the hell you want. I’m at 206.721.8880.

Also, apropos of nothing perhaps: WAG MORE. BARK LESS. LIFE’S JUST TOO SHORT.

Now I gotta go be a dad. Ever since we got back from Chuck E. Cheese around 3 pm, my kid’s been patiently awaiting my attention. I’ll try not to ruin him ;)
76
Wow, I don’t know where to start.

You state as evidence of lack of bias a case that began with a biased ex-parte restraining order “based on flimsy evidence”. Isn’t that an admission of bias? The case ends happily as the commissioner makes the right decision after being given lots and lots of reliable evidence. I certainly hope so. The point of the article is to describe bias when there is ANY gray area. A commissioner who consistently made biased rulings in one party’s favor despite solid evidence to the contrary would eventually (we hope) lose their job. They’re not that stupid.

Regarding the “numerous checks and balances” – a commissioner won’t overturn themselves on reconsideration. By law, they cannot look at new evidence. So you’re stating inaccurate legal information.

Here’s the law on that:

"After a formal order has been entered, it is improper to offer new evidence. New evidence may not be submitted to a court for purposes of reconsideration after a formal order has been entered."
AIMCOR v. Melton;
Meridian Minerals Co. v. King Cy., 61 Wn. App. 195, 203, 810 P.2d 31, review denied;
Felsman v. Kessler;

So, given they can’t look at new evidence, why would they overrule themselves? Again, they’re not that stupid. I’d love to see the statistics on reconsideration. What’s the success rate on that? 5%?

You can’t consider new evidence in a revision either. Here’s the law on that:

"A judge in a revision hearing must remand if additional evidence is sought by the judge because no new evidence is allowed at a revision hearing (Iturribarria)."
Iturribarria Perez v Bazaldua Garcia

By the way, judges are extremely busy people, have little time to attend to revisions and schedule them between morning coffee and a bathroom break. Since they’re the ones who appoint, work alongside, socialize and trade favors with, the commissioners, they tend to rubber stamp commissioner’s decisions unless they’re egregiously wrong. They certainly don’t check or balance bias.

One other thing Mr. Rao-it will probably cost someone several thousand dollars to hire you to even seek a revision. The client has already paid you several thousand for hearing on temporary orders. At some point, he has to decide where best to strategically allocate the money he has left….seeking an unlikely revision or saving it for to fight custody.

The analogy to losing a Seahawks game is distasteful. Do you GET the pain that’s being inflicted here. Please try to put yourself in these men’s shoes. This is not a football game. This is loss of their parenting rights, loss of their dignity, loss of their savings, and yes even the loss of their spousal relationship is painful.

You speak of there being a lack of "proper data". True, there is no scientific data. But at what point do the opinions of the 4-5 well known and regarded attorneys in the article, the attorneys responding to your blog, the attorneys responding on the listserves and discussion groups, etc. etc. at what point do their own experiences regarding the bias of certain commissioners deserve any weight in your judgment? How many King County attorneys does it take before you’d be convinced there may be a shred of truth here? 50%? 75%?

You state “The truth is that most men—and women—in family courts would rather blame anyone but themselves for their predicament”. Well, that certainly begs the question, doesn’t it? That they “are in court to begin with because of their own bad decisions and/or behavior” makes no sense at all. Are you referring to their decision to marry a liar, or live in a county with certain biased commissioners? I don’t get it.

The claims of “lazy lawyering” is just a cheap shot. I think marketing to men is a sham, but still a cheap shot to your colleagues.

Finally, the article did not parade men as victims. It specifically pointed out children as the chief victims of the bias.
77
John,
@76

First, thank you for your thoughtful post.I may not agree with you, but I enjoyed reading your post. If nothing else, you have raised the level of discourse here by stating the "bias exists" argument with restraint and some logic.

You write: “You state as evidence of lack of bias a case that began with a biased ex-parte restraining order “based on flimsy evidence”. Isn’t that an admission of bias?” No, it’s simply evidence of what I believe to be a bad order. Bad orders happen. As I’ve written in detail above, 1) Ex parte commissioners have a really hard job, balancing the rights of those who are not present against possible devastating harm for not granting orders; 2) I myself am critical of granting orders when the pleadings themselves, even if 100% true, don’t add to up, IMO, to a good enough reason to grant orders without any notice to the restrained party. But I am sympathetic to the very tough job these commissioners have; 3) In my experience, both men and women sometimes end up on the wrong end of these orders, and I have seen no credible evidence that men are unfairly targeted.

You write “The point of the article is to describe bias when there is ANY gray area.” It’s family law. There are ALWAYS gray areas. Our courts wrestle with them every single day, and, I believe, overwhelmingly get it right. The fact that they sometimes get it wrong is not evidence of bias.

The point of my article is that Shapiro’s claims of bias were mostly anecdotal, speaking only to the attorney for the man, and not backed by any credible evidence. Institutional bias exists in this world, as does good evidence. As I wrote, if for example, there is a huge difference between the percentage of drug overdose deaths by race and the percentage of heroin possession arrests by race, well to me, that creates a pretty credible prima facie presumption of bias. See also http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06d…

You write: “Regarding the “numerous checks and balances” – a commissioner won’t overturn themselves on reconsideration.” Commissioners often reverse themselves on reconsideration – if there’s good reason to. And they often look at new evidence – but only if there’s a good reason why the evidence wasn’t available in the first place. I stand by my statement (and can probably supplement with my own case law when I get back to the office on Monday).

I don’t know what the statistics are for reconsiderations, but I suspect that many reconsiderations are filed pro forma, making all the same tired arguments again. As I wrote, we file reconsiderations and revisions sparingly, and only when we think a decision is truly without merit – and win about 50-60% of them. I can’t speak to the experience of other attorneys, but nearly everything we file is a matter of public record (except for parentage actions, which are sealed).

You are correct that judges won’t consider new evidence on revision. This is why lawyers typically offer new evidence on reconsideration, even if they think they’ll lose the reconsideration – so that it’s part of the record for an eventual revision.

You write that judges “tend to rubber stamp commissioner’s decisions unless they’re egregiously wrong. They certainly don’t check or balance bias.” Revisions are a check on all sorts of errors at the commissioner level, whether you call those errors bias, legal error, or what have you. Also, the mere knowledge that any ruling can easily be revised itself tends to make commissioners more careful, IMO. But judges SHOULDN’T reverse lower court rulings unless they are egregiously wrong. The family courts are there to create a safe and stable status quo up until trial. If every tough 51/49 decision were routinely overturned, it would mean chaos in the court system.

Revisions don’t cost thousands of dollars. They are relatively cheap because no new evidence is presented. The typical revision motion is a two or three page long pro forma exercise. It’s a do over.

You write: “The analogy to losing a Seahawks game is distasteful. Do you GET the pain that’s being inflicted here. Please try to put yourself in these men’s shoes.” I put myself in their shows just about every day. My point was that if people vociferously complain about the refs in a football game years later, it’s natural to do so when there is so much more at stake. I think we’re both saying that football games are trivial compared to the heartache of divorce.

You write “You speak of there being a lack of "proper data". True, there is no scientific data. But at what point do the opinions of the 4-5 well known and regarded attorneys in the article, the attorneys responding to your blog, the attorneys responding on the listserves and discussion groups, etc. etc. at what point do their own experiences regarding the bias of certain commissioners deserve any weight in your judgment?” I’ve been very clear that I’m just one attorney, running a small firm of just five attorneys. I certainly don’t think I have a monopoly on objective truth. But I do know a little about data. The point is not simply that there’s no scientific data presented, but that this data is obtainable, and those who complain make little effort to obtain it.

IF THE CLAIMED ANTI-MALE BIAS REALLY EXISTS, I BELIEVE THAT RELIABLE DATA CAN BE FOUND TO PROVE IT.

I am happy to look at any purported data. Little has been offered. I am inherently suspicious of anyone who eschews hard data in favor of an emotionally resonant narrative.
By contrast, I believe that I have cited to several fairly reliable academic studies - and these have been ignored by those on this thread who disagree with me.

It’s true that a few fairly well know attorneys were quoted claiming bias. This is disappointing, but not terribly surprising to me. It’s easy to blame the court rather your client or your own bad lawyering. Ultimately, the percentage of lawyers who make this claim is less relevant to me than getting to the truth of the matter. With data. Absent such data,I believe that I have made my own systemic analysis as to what factors might help prompt some lawyers to say such things. I stand by this.

You question my statement that most men and women are in family courts because of their own bad decisions, and that they “would rather blame anyone but themselves for their predicament.” This is an uncomfortable point, but it does reflect my experience.

You write: “Are you referring to their decision to marry a liar …?” I think you live in a simpler world than I do, a world where good people simply marry bad people.” The world in which I live is substantially more complex. It’s a world where everyone has good and bad in them, everyone wants to do better but most do not, and everyone, in these cases, is carrying around a great deal of pain – all of it real. I see family courts not so much as good vs. evil but as a cadre of flawed individuals doing the best that they can.

You write: “The claims of “lazy lawyering” is just a cheap shot.” If you say so. Doesn’t make it any less true.

You write: “I think marketing to men is a sham, but still a cheap shot to your colleagues.” I think that wild, unsupported accusations of institutional bias are cheap shots. But you think that pointing out a marketing sham that results in more pain and poverty to guys who are already in a world of hurt is a cheap shot?

Yes, I believe that the article indeed paraded men as victims - and that this inference is fundamentally misleading.

The questions we should be asking ourselves are this: What agenda is being furthered by these largely unsupported claims of systemic bias, leveled primarily at female professionals? Who does this agenda benefit? And why are the chief complainers not spending their plentiful energies collecting actual data? Talk is cheap.

My own agenda is simple:

First, I want more quality lawyering in King County family courts, and I want us lawyers to take more responsibility for the mistakes that we make.

Second, I want to see more respect given to our courts, who do a very hard job, and do it admirably, even with terrible funding cuts.

Third, I want more focus placed on the needs of children, who are substantially more vulnerable than either their mothers or their fathers.

Let’s demand solid evidence, instead of giving in to hysteria. To use a non-football analogy, let’s actually find the weapons of mass destruction first, BEFORE spending a trillion dollars we don’t have.
78
@ Rao 75: YOU ARE THE ONE who claimed/insinuated that I put your children at risk by posting your contact information. You insinuate that doing so endangers the children. You tried to pin that on me. But, your info is PUBLIC and ON THE WEB. YOU are putting YOURSELF out there on a regular basis. So, YOU ARE THE ONE opening yourself up to public scrutiny and/or observation. Since your home address is ALREADY PUBLIC then YOU ARE THE ONE who is "putting your kids at risk".

UNLESS that was just a disingenuous, specious lawyer trick to somehow make me look bad and de-legitimize the merits of my claims here. But, you're a lawyer, you're bound to be honest at all times, you couldn't possibly ever play misleading games right?

How is it that you passed the LSAT but you have a hard time with deductive reasoning or following the logic of this point and I have to break it down to you as if I'm an elementary school teacher? Bizarre. I guess Justice Burger was right (as quoted above).
79
@ Rao 74: OF COURSE you are not going to comment on specific judges, GALs or commissioners....because you're a coward, just like 95% of all family law attorneys are. You're afraid of the "boogeyman"....the untrue legend that if you call a commissioner or judge out, then your profession will suffer.

Also, this "there's always a few bad apples crap" is a crock. In Mississippi, in the 50s would you say there's "a few bad racist apples"? No, idiot, you would say the entire system is corrupt. So, being the truth-teller that I am, I declare that THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM is corrupt. It is IMPOSSIBLE that 90% of the time in contested cases that the mother is the better custodial parent. A 60/40 ratio would be biased. 90/10 is outrageous. That speaks of SYSTEM-WIDE corruption.

And your buddies are all in on it. They give custody to mom cuz dad usually has the $$. Then DSHS and DCS get Federal money matching the child support, which all goes in to a pool that pays commissioner salaries. So, the transfer of wealth, corruption of child support racket brings money to the state agents who impose custody and determine child support. Morevover, Child Support Orders are routinely signed off on with enforcement collections (by incompetent attorneys as yourself) so that DCS can put the $$ in interest bearing accounts, further making money. Also, incompetent attorneys will include daycare in the transfer payment so that if mom pulls a kid from daycare and dad doesn't know it, he still gets $$ extorted from him and then has to go back to get reimbursement for the money ripped off (which is only a credit and not actually reimbursement). Don't tell me there's only "a few bad apples" you ignorant fool! You are further and further incriminating yourself as being incompetent on this issue.

Moreover, your admission of "a few bad apples" (an understatement) is STILL contradictory to your blog that the system is fair and just. Hypocrite!
80
@Rao72: the "evidence" I have of bogus restraining orders is the 100s and 100s of cases I have personally observed as a paralegal at two family law firms and as a volunteer for a couple other organizations AS WELL AS the overhelming complaints of men about the bogus restraining orders in existence. On top of this, an ACTUALLY COMPETENT well known attorney who was an instructor of mine, who does criminal defense and is a pro tem says that they "hand out restraining order 100% of the time to anyone who asks". Also, this includes my personal observations in court. How's that for evidence for your ignorant azz?

Before you go saying these men's word isn't evidence, you should use half a brain and think and realize that the vast majority of domestic violence restraining orders are entered solely upon the word of a petitioning mother, wife, girlfriend. So, the court's "orders" are entered on the same basis that I am claiming that they are bogus. So, don't use that cockamamy point that the court made a finding so it can't be bogus. It's all based on his word vs. her word.

Also, COMMON SENSE and personal experience tell me that the REAL victims of DV actually DONT get restraining orders because they are too afraid. Women get them against "good guys" cuz they know they can punk them and those guys will obey the orders. REAL CRIMINALS won't bother. That's why many psychologists think that the restraining order system is a scam. But, weasel attorneys like you think that the system serves justice.
81
John,

@78,79,80

It's not really clear to me that you read any of my detailed responses at all. Seems like you're just repeating yourself to get the last word. That's fine.

If you want to talk sensibly about these issues, call me at my firm - 206.721.8880 - and we can set something up.

Peace out.

Christopher
82
As someone who has been on the receiving end of 5 temprary protection orders, I think I'm qualified to offer a laymans opnion and advice.

1.) Suck it up an obey it to the letter. After the first one I sent my then wife flowers followed by divorce papers a few weeks later. When she received the divorce papers she called the cops becuase I sent flowers in violation of the protection order. Note: I got custody of one of my daughers in the process.

2.) If you are innocent, Don't freak out, and that is hard to do if there are kids involved. TPO's are rubberstamped by the courts. My 4th temporary protection order was for making a U-turn during an exchange of the kids AFTER I had inadvertendly involved CPS in a situation where my ex wifes boyfreind had made sexual advances on the daughter I didn't get custody of. My 5th one was a month later, after my ex had lost at trail, for the same 'offense", the u-turn. That one was also thrown out during trial .

3.) Get used to the idea that if you hire a lawyer, you can expect to pay about 2-4 thousand dollars. Personally, absent kids, I wouldn't have bothered although they always try to stick those DV treatments on you which will cost about the same.

All said, I now have custody of both my daughters and after spending 18k over the past 2 years, mom has been ordered to pay us support. Doesn't mean she's doing it though:>

Bottom line, don't freak out, if you are innocent and there are kids involved, fight it.
83
While married, my x cut my finger off in a rage, repeatedly slapped me, choked me almost to death, killed my daughters kitten in front of her and told her not to tell me, killed the neighbors dog, killed two other family pets, told me he would kill me if I ever left him, told me he would take my kids and I would never see them again, admitted to me that he molested his brother when he was 14, I have permanent damage to my ear and teeth from being hit so hard by him. He had a previous DV arrest before me, unknown to me. All of this was documented by third party witnesses and police reports. I did not make it up and I have never lied about anything. I did call the cops once in 03 and he was arrested and it was such a waste of money and a joke that I never called again for 6 years. He always gets off because he looks and acts so normal and is a world class liar. Fast forward to our divorce. He again DV's me, I file a protection order. I had no clue how I could have used that in my divorce at the time. I just wanted him to go away and leave us alone and I thought he would if I agreed to everything he wanted. Joint decision making [even though the GAL said no to this I agreed, to appear agreeable as counseled. Kiss of death for my kids]and every other weekend visitations were just the beginning of the requests I agreed to. I just kept on agreeing like a fool. Anytime I try to advocate for myself and our kids I am slapped down HARD by his attorneys. Slowly over time they asked me to agree to things as they purposely dragged out the divorce. I was being advised to agree so I would seem compliant and he would stop harassing me. {Kind of like "if you stop fighting me I will stop punching you in the face."} As I was agreeing, his attorney kept telling everyone involved that I was the one dragging out the divorce, I am the one harassing him, If I tried to say no his attorney would blame me and shame me repeatedly into agreeing to everything. All of the things I agreed to slowly led to the decree leading people to believe I am a money squanderer. No mention of my x not paying or withholding portion of support for 29 months, despite getting a $131,000 pay check in one of those months. No mention at all of him being a DV perp, or our houses being in foreclosure{that's my fault too, because at 50 years old with a GED and never having worked outside the home I was supposed to pay $10,000 worth of bills every month with the money that grows on my money tree} or all the items he left with when he left the house. {he was not arrested because he was not home when I filed the order, and left on his own accord with a car load of household items} withholding over $13,000 in support so I couldn't pay bills let alone put food on the table. All documents filed by his attorneys are filled with mistakes, false information, fraud, and omissions. He lies and purposely does not follow court orders so I have to have my attorney[s] write letters and file motions which he satisfies before the court hearing and then gets off on carefully crafted technicalities. I had an anti-harrassment order filed against me when I tried to write and release a book about the truth. [ImRightAndIKnowIt please be very careful] My x's attorney wrote me a letter while I was pro-se in which they told me they would not answer interrogatories until 4 weeks after my trial date. ?????? because I did not answer mine. Rule violation. And Confusing. That is the strategy. My x has been taught by someone[counsel?] to make everything, especially the money transfers super confusing so the commissioners can't make sense of it. Then when I try to explain it all in my response I am blamed by his counsel for too much paperwork. Common sense says it is quick and easy to state a fraud but it takes hours of exhausting document gathering and writing to prove the truth. And even then you have to have someone willing to READ IT. This costs me horrendous attorneys fees, which in turn forces me to be periodically pro se. When I can afford another attorney I am accused of attorney hopping. Funny in divorce no one really knows the back story but the victim, because yes, I can't explain this all in a 5 minute court appearance. And as one of the opposing counsel said to me outside of the courtroom "nobody cares about you" I am a real victim, I am really scared and I did not seek another order. My 17 years of abuse has taught me not to fight back. I can't advocate for myself and have been further damaged by bad advice from my legal counsel. It doesn't do any good to try to fight back when my x has an attorney that will forge documents, lie, cheat, make everything confusing so my counsel has to charge me hours and hours to decipher it, won't show up for court appearances or telephone conferences because of "emergencies with a disabled son" "a car wreck" "pneumonia" "a trial" "a CASA appointment" files papers late for a contempt motion on the eve of my preparation for mediation, and is sanctioned but just happens to have the $250.00 cash sanction money in his pocket, submits a made up spreadsheet of a paycheck stub to support the child support order and it is accepted by the arbitrator no questions asked, files one year old docs for the parenting plan, confusing docs at the financial settlement, play trickeries with words, bullies me, and builds a case against me based on lies. My x's attorneys play a game of tag team, one attorney{the one from a foreign country who knows best how to trick and confuse our courts using experience she gained overseas in the kangaroo courts} started the circus and makes everything really confusing, the next one comes in and says "oh I am so unfamiliar with the case I am so confused I have to have my helper here to help me, when really the helper's purpose is only to keep the lies straight and the 3rd attorney comes along just to keep the ball rolling at the end of the case. Keeping me in a constant state of fear of what they are going to lie about next. I have been harassed by his attorney for 3 years now. It is constant, it is relentless and it is 100% legal. I am a woman and I can say that the court does not always rule in the favor of my gender. It rules in favor of the liar and his lying attorneys. As above mentioned my x is a very bad man and he has an excellent attorney well versed in circumventing all the laws. My x's attorney also hides behind the Bar Association and all his ties to it. He himself a hypocrite blaming a single mom for not paying bills when I had to choose between bills and putting food on the table while his client dined at Seraphina, Canlis and picks up our kids for visitation in a new Jag. The attorney himself taken to court and judgment entered against him for not paying for his own law degree!! And even now years later still paying a paltry repayment amount every month. They are all above the law. I am doing what they want. I am hiding under a rock. Waiting for the "what goes around comes around" thing to happen. I figure at some point this is going to catch up or maybe not. My only consolation is knowing my own truth. I sympathize with Iamrightandiknowit. After years of being traumatized, emotionally abused and forced to suffer legal abuse by this attorney we do sound like crazy ranting people. My x's attorney will read this and he will respond with a psychologically taunting response that only he and I will know the real meaning of and then all of this will promptly be twisted, turned and used against me in court.I will be swiftly punished by him for crawling out from under my rock, but I couldn't resist.
84
While married, my x cut my finger off in a rage, repeatedly slapped me, choked me almost to death, killed my daughters kitten in front of her and told her not to tell me, killed the neighbors dog, killed two other family pets, told me he would kill me if I ever left him, told me he would take our kids and I would never see them again, admitted to me that he molested his brother when he was 14, I have permanent damage to my ear and teeth from being hit so hard by him and having my head shoved and sat on. I've been dragged and pulled around the room by my hair repeatedly. I won't even go into the verbal assaults. He had a previous DV arrest before me, unknown to me. All of this was documented by third party witnesses and police reports. I did not make it up and I have never lied about anything. I did call the cops once in 03 and he was arrested and it was such a waste of money and a joke that I never called again for 6 years. He always gets off because he looks and acts so normal and is a world class liar. Fast forward to our divorce. He again DV's me, I file a protection order. I had no clue how I could have used that in my divorce at the time. He was ordered to go to DV treatment and that is such a joke as he violated about 10 court orders every month and even though I told NWFL they just kept finding him in compliance every month. I am sure that is because his attorneys were writing threatening letters to them stating "it would be a mistake to not find him in compliance". I just wanted him to go away and leave us alone and I thought he would if I agreed to everything he wanted. Joint decision making [even though the GAL said no to this I agreed, to appear agreeable as counseled. Kiss of death for our kids]and every other weekend visitations were just the beginning of the requests I agreed to. I just kept on agreeing like a fool. Anytime I try to advocate for myself and our kids I am slapped down HARD by his attorneys. Slowly over time they asked me to agree to things as they purposely dragged out the divorce. I was being advised to agree so I would seem compliant and he would stop harassing me. {Kind of like "if you stop fighting me I will stop punching you in the face."} As I was agreeing, his attorney kept telling everyone involved that I was the one dragging out the divorce, I am the one harassing him, If I tried to say no his attorney would blame me and shame me repeatedly into agreeing to everything. All of the things I agreed to slowly led to the decree leading people to believe I am a money squanderer. No mention of my x not paying or withholding portions of support for 29 months, despite getting a $131,000 pay check in one of those months. No mention at all of him being a DV perp, or our houses being in foreclosure{that's my fault too, because at 50 years old with a GED and never having worked outside the home I was supposed to pay $10,000 worth of bills every month with the money that grows on my money tree} or all the items he left with when he left the house. {he was not arrested because he was not home when I filed the order, and left on his own accord with a car load of household items} withholding over $13,000 in support so I couldn't pay bills let alone put food on the table. All documents filed by his attorneys are filled with mistakes, false information, fraud, and omissions. He lies and purposely does not follow court orders so I have to have my attorney[s] write letters and file motions which he satisfies before the court hearing and then gets off on carefully crafted technicalities. I had an anti-harrassment order filed against me when I tried to write and release a book about the truth. [ImRightAndIKnowIt please be very careful] My x's attorney wrote me a letter while I was pro-se in which they told me they would not answer interrogatories until 4 weeks after my trial date. ?????? because I did not answer mine. Rule violation. And Confusing. That is the strategy. My x has been taught by someone[counsel?] to make everything, especially the money transfers super confusing so the commissioners can't make sense of it. Then when I try to explain it all in my response I am blamed by his counsel for too much paperwork. Common sense says it is quick and easy to state a fraud but it takes hours of exhausting document gathering and writing to prove the truth. And even then you have to have someone willing to READ IT. This costs me horrendous attorneys fees, which in turn forces me to be periodically pro se. When I can afford another attorney I am accused of attorney hopping. Funny in divorce no one really knows the back story but the victim, because yes, I can't explain this all in a 5 minute court appearance. And as one of the opposing counsel said to me outside of the courtroom "nobody cares about you" I am a real victim, I am really scared and I did not seek another order. My 17 years of abuse has taught me not to fight back. I can't advocate for myself and have been further damaged by bad advice from my legal counsel. It doesn't do any good to try to fight back when my x has an attorney that will forge documents, lie, cheat, make everything confusing so my counsel has to charge me hours and hours to decipher it, won't show up for court appearances or telephone conferences because of "emergencies with a disabled son" "a car wreck" "pneumonia" "a trial" "a CASA appointment" files papers late for a contempt motion on the eve of my pro se preparation for mediation, and is sanctioned, but just happens to have the $250.00 cash sanction money in his pocket, submits a made up spreadsheet of a paycheck stub to support the child support order and it is accepted by the arbitrator no questions asked, files one year old docs for the parenting plan, confusing docs at the financial settlement, play trickeries with words, bullies me, and builds a case against me based on lies. My x's attorneys play a game of tag team, one attorney{the one from a foreign country who knows best how to trick and confuse our courts using experience she gained overseas in the kangaroo courts} started the circus and makes everything really confusing, the next one comes in and says "oh I am so unfamiliar with the case I am so confused I have to have my helper here to help me, when really the helper's purpose is only to keep the lies straight and the 3rd attorney comes along just to keep the ball rolling at the end of the case. Keeping me in a constant state of fear of what they are going to lie about next. I have been harassed by his attorney for 3 years now. It is constant, it is relentless and it is 100% legal. I am a woman and I can say that the court does not always rule in the favor of my gender. It rules in favor of the liar and his lying attorneys. As above mentioned my x is a very bad man and he has an excellent attorney well versed in circumventing all the laws. My x's attorney also hides behind the Bar Association and all his ties to it. He himself a hypocrite blaming a single mom for not paying bills when I had to choose between bills and putting food on the table for our kids while his client dined at Seraphina, Canlis and picks up our kids for visitation in a new Jag. The attorney himself taken to court and judgment entered against him for not paying for his own law degree!! And even now years later still paying a paltry repayment amount every month. They are all above the law. I am doing what they want. I am hiding under a rock. Waiting for the "what goes around comes around" thing to happen. I figure at some point this is going to catch up or maybe not. My only consolation is knowing my own truth. I sympathize with Iamrightandiknowit. After years of being traumatized, emotionally abused and forced to suffer legal abuse by this attorney we do sound like crazy ranting people. My x's attorney will read this and he will respond with a psychologically taunting response that only he and I will know the real meaning of and then all of this will promptly be twisted, turned and used against me in court. I will be swiftly punished by him for crawling out from under my rock, but I couldn't resist.
85
@ Pandorasbox 83,84: This is yet another problem with the DV system...it actually doesn't often work for REAL victims of DV. It's almost like the court finds out who ever is wrong and rules in their favor.
86
This is a money game. Period. I am a WOMAN who had my life and my children's lives torn apart due to this "system". If you don't have money, this system will CRUSH you - especially when the EX lies.

My ex controlled all the money in our household, so when he suprised me with attorney prepared divorce papers (he wanted a divorce because he claimed I am a "talented musician" - how weird), he suggested I "better sign the papers, or get an attorney" while laughing when I pleaded to have access to even one penny of my paycheck, or all of the money we had equally invested together for our 5.5 year marriage.

HE began withholding our young sons from me in the absence of a custody order, and despite my daily attempts at contacting my sons, I was ignored. I managed to hire an attorney (Robert E. Stark) who after two months of representation, disappeared with all of the money that I had in the world. He was disbarred for his conduct in my case effective January 12, 2012, the WSBA investigation concluded that his conduct prejudiced my case.

After Stark disappeared, I was again, Pro Se - which, I quickly learned that meant that my ex's attorney simply ignored me.

ENTER the EXPERTS: My ex falsely accused me of being a drug user, we were both ordered to undergo comprehensive drug assessments. Interestingly, my assessment came back as "no substance abuse disorder", my ex was ordered to go to treatment for 6 months (he has multiple DUI's - but also works at Microsoft). Did I get my children back at this point? NO. I was still being charged $50 per hour to see my kids with a professional supervisor - this went on for 9 months.

I had never been away from my kids in their life. I have never been arrested or had any problem with the law. My wish was that my kids would have both parents - again, ignored.

Parenting evaluator Marsha Hedrick's report was an absolute joke, littered with grammar issues, referring to my children by the wrong names and not addressing one single concern that I raised in the 30+ page questionaire that I completed and promptly returned to her. At trial, her report was thrown out. I was contacted by a couple other female victims of Hedrick - there is an investigative reporter working on a story about her and the lives that she has destroyed with her biased parenting evaluations.

I hired J. Michael Gallagher three months before trial. I'm very suprised at the comment above about Mike - and I'd have to disagree. Mike is a damn good lawyer, and he busted his ass for our five day trial... Contrary to the bullshit above, Mike was never once inappropriate toward me.

1. This is a money game.

2. This is a game where you MUST have good representation, especially if the ex is a liar. If you don't have a good lawyer, or your lawyer gets disbarred like my first lawyer did - the case will not stop, you will continue to get screwed.

3. Document everything.

Andrea Lockwood

www.reverbnation.com/annielockwood

87
Bridget Llewelyn is a weaselly person. She acts normal in person and then goes out of her way to be as negative and condescending as possible while writing reports. Basically this woman has very little integrity. I understand it is very hard to be 'objective' but from the transparent bias in her reports it seems like the element of control which the GAL conveys tends to attract disproportionately manipulative and maladjusted individuals.
88
Racketeering lawsuit against family courts - A Voice for Men
www.avoiceformen.com/.../racketeering-la…‎
Aug 30, 2013 - California Parents File Federal Racketeering Lawsuit against Family Court Judges; Charge Criminal Extortion, Bribery, Abuse of Office.
89
The problem is assuming that men are more violent and therefore treating every case the same and by default give the child to the mothers. But remember that EVERYONE is capable to violence, and the statistics become much less accurate when we know that men tend to avoid reporting being abused by women, and that women DO lie about being abused for personal gains and/or revenge!!
90
The problem is assuming that men are more violent and therefore treating every case the same and by default give the child to the mothers. But remember that EVERYONE is capable to violence, and the statistics become much less accurate when we know that men tend to avoid reporting being abused by women, and that women DO lie about being abused for personal gains and/or revenge, and that violence come in many forms like mental abuse that women are perfectly capable of. The sad part is that many people and experts rely on the flawed statistics to prove their points and so often it is MEN vs WOMEN. It is easy to put men in a bad light by using such biased statistics.
91
To Helix #4 You are very biased. You simply start off saying men commit more violence and "justify" why women get the children! This is why the system is biased. How about treating every case on it's own? How about looking into the credibility of the women?
92
My experience has been 100% the opposite. Snohomish County (Washington State) Commisioners (female) seem to have a bias against women. I have been before the family court four times now, and not once did I feel the Commissioner's either listened to those in front of her, nor knew anything about the rest of her courthouse systems (referred to departments that would not answer questions, referred to mailstops to do business, etc.), nor made fair or even truthful statements. Here is my experience in a nutshell when I had to get divorced from my husband of 18 years because he has an illness (won't go into the nature of it). 1) First was the divorce and custody arrangement, which was not contested - I have 100% custody of our girls - the Woman Commissioner looked at ME, admonished ME, and said it was my job to keep the girls safe (as if I had been the one with the problem) - did not even look at my ex, 2)Second time was my ex petitioned to have child support reduced (had been unemployed, just received a job). Child support was reduced in half, and the Commissioner chastised me for expecting him to pay more than he could! Acted as if I was greedy. Yes, I had clearly documented that I was working 4 jobs!! to try and support my daughters - she just didn't think he needed to provide his fair share. 3) Third time I petitioned the court to continue support through College (ex agreed, he just wouldn't put in writing without going to court). Ex was given two months notice - did not do his paperwork. Only showed up in court because I called him that morning. The Commissioner reinforced it is a good thing to ignore your summoned paperwork by giving him a two week extension. 4)So that brought me back to court today. This lunatic female Commissioner stated she could not determine if College support would continue (although she acknowledged it already said in our documents that it should) because although I had given her College costs, I had not given her 100% guarantee of where my daughter would attend in future, how many hours week she would be working, etc. She also sent us to arbitration (we have never needed to even consult an attorney) because we couldn't "agree" that the support should be reviewed and increased (certainly that isn't something we have to AGREE on!!!). She played "chess" with us and the other parties in court today. They prey on those in the toughest situation, play God, and make judgements without even really understanding the facts. It is a scam and certainly has not once benefited my daughters. The Family Law Court hurts children, does not help them.
93
Obviously child custody agreements leave both parents feeling like they've made compromises they wish they didn't have to: nobody wants to "compromise" when it comes to their child. Every parent wants the best for their child, and if they are divorcing then they've pretty much decided the other parent isn't "the best". Nobody is going to be thrilled about any sort of compromise but compromise is what needs to happen to reach an agreement.

I'm curious about cases that I've heard about where the child stays in the family home and it's the parents who move in and out each week. I believe one case involved a disabled child who's home had substancial modifications and another case involved a large number of children (and pets). This seems like a good idea to me: let the adults take on the burden of switching between two locations. I do wonder how many parents who feel it's "no big deal" for kids to go back n forth 50-50 would be willing to do it themselves?
94
Stay away from Snohomish County GAL Judy Dyer at all costs. She is a disturbing liar.
95
The system is incredibly biased against the father.
You want evidence? Do you really want evidence, or are you just saying that for this discussion?
I have an article that relays my several year experience in family court, where my daughter was taken from me and given to her mother, without a custody trial. Calling it 'temporary' doesn't cut it, when temporary is years long.
Everything I wrote in that article I have documentation for. Contact me if you are truly serious about wanting to see evidence - or you can just believe me, your choice:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/gov…
96
avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyr…

or you can just Google: "Missing Anya"
97
Thank you for this informative post. I just want to share a good source for tax forms and tutorials - PDFfiller. It has a ton of tax forms and legal templates. It helps me fill out a needed form neatly and gives me the option to esign. http://www.pdffiller.com/en/categories
98
I seem to not have a home due to child support. I sure wish there was a way to fix a broken system. I was married nine years she fell in love with a man at work I first got custody. Court system made me broke and bankrupt took my kids and gave her custody. Lost everything including time with my kids. All for absolutely no reason on my part. So I lost everything for being a good faithful man and all because she found another man, me and my kids have suffered. Something is seriously wrong with this system. So now I have to go to stores to spend time with my kids during the week because I love them and want to spend time with them. Actually homeless and on weekends drive over an hour and a half away to stay with family while they get $568.19 every two weeks which equals $1231.08 a month over two years now and got charged $8000 in back support for no reason. They have new mansion new cars and make over six figures and i suffer and i was the faithful husband and father. Her husband got rid of his own kids and she got rid of one of her own and he even threatens me how is gonna enjoy taking care of my kids. Again this is so messed up beyond belief. I sure wish someone could help me I even served my country for 10 years and became homeless because a woman could not keep her legs closed. It's so crazy. I can't believe Americans go through this and there is nothing anyone can do to fix it. I wish someone could make this right for me!



I do have a solution since I don't want to leave my last complaint of how I and all the the other Americans getting screwed over by the domestic court system left open ended with a better way or a fair way.



If a person who gets remarried, you count their spouses income too or even better if a person has more kids and they are not yours you get to drop off paying for one of your kids in child support. This would eliminate people just marrying and having kids to get a man or woman's money. Which happens so much. These are just ideas on how to fix a very broken domestic court system. Of making one parent rich and another parent homeless like in my case. These might not be the best solutions but something has to change so no other Americans become homeless due to child support when the other parents family makes over six figures a year. All I wanted was shared parenting and no one pays anything and split bills 50/50. Of course that was too simple I guess they had to make me suffer for no fault of mine. Yes I know everyone in the system says it doesn't matter but it matters to me when my dream was to have a family and kids of my own and I became broke, bankrupt, and homeless because she fell in love with a man at work. Not my fault. I just want my money back and my kids back to live the American dream and move forward. I sure wish someone could help me!
99
I can tell you from firsthand experience there is a high level of bias in the KCC. I am involved in a case where the mother offered our daughter for sex with a man on the internet when she was 13 (she is now 16), assaulted me because she was forced out of the house by court order, and filed falsified financial statements missing key information - all proven, and she wins every single time. Most recently, even though she makes 200k a year, and I make half that, and can barely get by trying to keep everything together in the hopes my daughter comes to live with me after trial (lol). We've had multiple commissioners and a judge. ALL of our pleadings and declarations and financial documents have been aboveboard, honest, and legally sound, while hers have been nothing more than emotional rants unsubstantiated by any facts, and even though we still refute them with, like, actual facts, she still wins. So don't give me this hogwash about filing thoughtful reasoned paperwork. I've done that, she has never done that, and she wins every single time.
100
I can't believe some of the comments here! Once breastfeeding ends, a mother is NOT more important than a father. What decade are people living in? If a woman is the primary care giver before the divorce it is likely only because the husband has been at work. He was not physically able to go to work all day and also take children to doctor's appointments and soccer practice. But once the divorce happens, that rather unfair system should not stand. I do not see why the man should continue to work in order for his ex wife to enjoy all the time with the children! Many fathers WANT to take their kids to the doctor, many dads would love to watch their kids play soccer rather than work overtime. The only "fair" thing for parents to do it split custody fifty-fifty, and both parents need to work and provide for their now INDIVIDUAL households. This nonsense of husbands automatically supporting their ex wives as full time babysitters, while they themselves never get to see their own children is outdated nonsense. Children see themselves as part of each parent, and both parents deserve the same opportunity to spend time with their child if they want it, and should be encouraged to do it even if they don't!
101
I can't believe some of the comments here! Once breastfeeding ends, a mother is NOT more important than a father. What decade are people living in? If a woman is the primary care giver before the divorce it is likely only because the husband has been at work. He was not physically able to go to work all day and also take children to doctor's appointments and soccer practice. But once the divorce happens, that rather unfair system should not stand. I do not see why the man should continue to work in order for his ex wife to enjoy all the time with the children! Many fathers WANT to take their kids to the doctor, many dads would love to watch their kids play soccer rather than work overtime. The only "fair" thing for parents to do it split custody fifty-fifty, and both parents need to work and provide for their now INDIVIDUAL households. This business of husbands automatically having to support their ex wives as full time babysitters, while they themselves never get to see their own children is outdated nonsense. Children see themselves as part of each parent, and both parents deserve the same opportunity to spend time with their child if they want it, and should be encouraged to do it even if they don't!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.