This guest Slog post is by Christopher Rao, managing partner of Rao & Pierce PLLC, and former Chair of the KCBA Family Law Section. He also runs decouplingblog.com, which helps make family courts more accessible to men and women who cannot afford attorneys.
A number of father’s rights groups have been increasingly vocal about the belief that fathers are typically treated unfairly in our courts—in essence, that dads are the real victims of nasty custody fights. It is disappointing that these misguided beliefs have been accorded an air of legitimacy by Nina Shapiro’s recent cover story, dramatically titled, “Ripped Apart: Divorced dads, domestic violence, and the systemic bias against men in King County family court.”
The article dutifully quotes a few female attorneys to make its point that men are consistently treated unfairly in King County Family Court. One attorney recounts a busy day on the calendar where a commissioner ruled against the man seven or eight times in a row. The piece narrates a couple of heartbreaking one-sided anecdotes—conveniently interviewing only the man’s attorney in each case. It then criticizes three female family law commissioners by name for a variety of offenses, including fining one man’s attorney $500 “for writing too much in defense of his client” (but the fine was for violating court rules on page limits).
Over the years I’ve seen many attorneys angrily (and disrespectfully) grandstand in court for the benefit of their pissed-off unrealistic clients, male and female—and heard these same attorneys, after losing their case, criticize the court for various types of bias. The truth is that wining in Family Court depends mainly on avoiding dubious he-said, she-said hysteria, and instead presenting a reasonable proposal to the court, backed by solid evidence from reliable sources.
Just last month, the week before Christmas, I represented a dad whose son had been removed from his custody via an ex parte restraining order based on flimsy evidence of allegedly beating his son—mere days after CPS apparently found that the mother’s complaints about the dad lacked credibility. My client was terrified before the hearing, partly because of how he looked (6’4″ with a prominent tattoo), but also because he’d actually been to jail for domestic violence against the child’s mother in the early 1990s and just been out of alcohol rehab last year. But the female commissioner relied less on what each parent said, and instead looked at the more reliable evidence: the boy’s school records, emails to and from teachers, highly detailed statements from neighbors, etc. She wisely noted that the dad had nothing more serious than a traffic ticket in well over a decade. She was pleased with his transparency, his consistent parenting over the years, his eagerness to submit to random urine samples and a domestic violence evaluation. And she returned this boy to his dad, just in time for Christmas.
While this careful treatment by the court was a huge deal to my client (who agreed to let me tell his story here), the point is that it was just an average hearing for the court, on an average afternoon with four or five other hearings. Tellingly, before we even knew which commissioner would be hearing the motion, we were confident that the court would take the time consider all the evidence and subtleties of the case. Even if the commissioner had got it wrong that day, litigants have numerous checks and balances at their disposal: You can file a reconsideration, and the court will often even look at new evidence. If you still feel aggrieved, you have an automatic right to have a do-over (called a “revision”), this time in front of an elected judge (more than half of whom are men, as if that matters). And if you are still dissatisfied, you can ask the judge to reconsider his or her ruling as well. In fact, if anything I believe that commissioners are more careful than judges because every single decision can be automatically sent up for revision. By contrast, judges cannot be revised, and appeals to the Court of Appeals typically require more than a year and tens of thousands of dollars.
It’s true that even after all these hearings and motions, many dads (and moms) still feel that they should have prevailed. That’s natural, given all that they’ve lost. Hell, Seahawks fans still gripe about how the refs robbed us in Super Bowl XL, more than six years ago—and that was just a football game. Institutional bias exists in the world. It’s a serious matter, and deserves proper attention. But to carelessly throw around these words absent proper data is irresponsible—it offers a convenient panacea to avoid taking responsibility for one’s own actions. The truth is that most men—and women—in family courts would rather blame anyone but themselves for their predicament, and that most of them are in court to begin with because of their own bad decisions and/or behavior.
Such claims of bias claims also excuse lazy lawyering, which starts with marketing one’s skills to frustrated men (“divorce for dads”), builds on unrealistic client expectations, and often ends with telling the completely disempowered (and substantially poorer) client that there’s nothing the lawyer could have done because the commissioner was a woman (four out of five in King County).
Finally, parading men as the victims of custody fights marginalizes the true victims—children. The standard for all custody issues in Washington state is “the best interests of the child.” Children suffer the violence and abandonment on a daily basis, from both their mothers and fathers, yet have almost no voice at all in this process.
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:
Or more:
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?
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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?
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%.
I’ve seen a few friends go through the courts and, male or female, it’s the sane one who prevails.
@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???
@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.
@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?
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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/
@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!
@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.
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.
You really live in a fucking fantasyland, don’t you?
@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.
@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.
@23
Awesome fucking response!!! Seriously, now you, are the kind of person I want to talk politics with!
Nice job
🙂
@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.
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.
@ 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?
@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.
@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.
@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…
@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 😉
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 ?
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
@ 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.
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 http://www.RaoAndPierce.com
@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.
@ 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…
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.
@ 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.
#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.
@ 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.