The Truth About (Anti-)Family Courts

 

Brendan/Novaseeker wrote a series of comments explaining exactly how (anti-)family courts work:

By the way, if anyone reading thinks that John’s story quoted in the post is atypical or odd for the US, you’re quite wrong.

Be aware that, in many US states at least:

(1) Your spouse can clean out the bank accounts (and in many cases the movable assets) without any real accounting at the time of the finalization of the divorce, because you weren’t separated at the time of said cleaning out, and the cash, which was a marital asset at the time, has now simply been consumed, as in “poof, there it goes”. This is why so many people do it, by the way. Feel vindicated and that the judge will view this poorly? Guess again (unless you’re the guy, of course).

(2) Once your spouse leaves with the kids, or you are removed by your spouse from the spouse and the kids, your likelihood of getting custody is quite small, because a temporary custody order will generally come into effect (if she is being advised properly), and the final custody determination, which typically comes quite some time later, gives heavy weight to this “de facto” custody situation — in effect, the way the system works is that in everything other than outlier cases, you lose custody almost immediately upon separation, and even though this is “temporary”, technically, de facto it generally becomes permanent.

(3) If the situation described in (2) happens, you’re very unlikely to get the house, either. The house normally goes to the parent with the custody. In some states, the court will make that spouse “buy out” the other spouse’s portion of the equity value of the property by selling or refinancing, but in situations where there are significantly unequal incomes, the asset distribution can be quite unequal, too (in favor of the lower income spouse), resulting in this simply not being distributed, or being greatly reduced.

(4) Your ability to enforce visitation “rights” is almost nil in most places. Technically, your spouse is violating the law by violating the court’s decree, but other than issuing a new decree reiterating , the visitation order, courts generally won’t do much else to enforce these. They almost never are willing to accept this as a basis to revise the custody order, either. In fact, custody orders are very hard to revise under almost any circumstances, barring a truly awful situation involving the custodial parent — it’s more likely that the kids get referred to CPS than that your custody order gets revised, to be honest. So, your ability to see your kids depends largely on the goodwill of the custodial parent. If you find yourself in this situation, and she is of relative goodwill, maintaining this is the best option, if you want to see your kids regularly. If you have a war-like relationship with your ex, your likelihood of having regular visitation decreases, as she has incentives to block and no real enforcement. Once a lover/boyfriend/second husband comes into the picture, it complicates things even further around visitation, because you start to have a step-Dad in the picture who spends more time with your kids than you do, and has more of an influence on them than you do, whether he actively does that or not. Also, keep in mind that quite a few states won’t prevent a custodial parent from moving very far away with your kids simply on the basis of a visitation order — in these states you’ll be expected to lump it and figure it out, or move yourself to where your kids now live if you want to see them more often (but don’t expect your support obligations to go down if your new job pays less).

*****

The system is not “wrong” or “in need of reform”. The system is simply evil. It’s evil to the core. It calls into question the legitimacy of our entire system of government, full stop, when home, assets, children can all be spirited away in a thoroughly unconstitutional way, just because. It’s a deeply evil system and a stain on the national character. Truly, the entire system needs a fundamental, systemic re-think, rather than a piecemeal reform. But, in the meantime, piecemeal is all that’s available, and it’s better than nothing.

I added the bold.  Some of you might be thinking that there’s a private solution with the right contracts or prenups where you can create something that avoids this, but you would be wrong:

It’s worth a try. The main problem is that the family law courts in most states don’t take kindly to people trying to “privatize” family law, because in effect this divests (or is an attempt to divest) the family courts of their power to decide what is best under the circumstances. In the US, family courts are courts of equity and not courts of law, meaning that, unlike courts of law, they won’t enforce a contract just because it was validly entered into if they think the result of enforcing it would be inequitable. So any contractual attempt is worth a try — it isn’t per se invalid. But at the same time, the family law courts of equity won’t simply enforce it like they would any other validly contracted agreement – they look to the result, and work back from there, often, rather than a court of law, which starts from the premise of freedom of contract and the enforcement against you of a bad deal you may have freely made (absent fraud in the inducement, duress, unconscionability and so on) –> whereas an equity court looks to see whether that would be equitable as a result, even if there was no fraud or duress and so on. So, worth a try, but not ironclad.

The anti-family courts will not allow themselves to be divested of their power by prenups and other contracts.  If you get married this is the system you are under.  There is no going back to the old system (except by going expat) because the old system is dead and can’t be recreated by contractual means.  If you think this is bad, it gets worse, much worse:

Baskervile’s book describes cases of men being ordered by courts to avoid any writing anything about their opinions about their divorces under penalty of jail. No constitutional remedy, because our candy-ass federal courts refuse to enforce the constitution in state family courts.

So has anyone tried to force the issue with constitutional challenges in federal courts?  Yes, but it hasn’t worked because those courts always refuse to hear the case:

Trouble is, it’s been tried (on other issues) — that is, to involve the federal courts in enforcing the constitution in state equity family courts. They don’t bite. The federal courts just won’t get involved in family law matters unless they are dealing with something like racial discrimination or, today, gay marriage. They take the view that the state law courts of equity dealing with “routine” family law disputes don’t rise to the level of having constitutional implications, more or less. It’s not like this hasn’t been tried, believe me.

In fact family law judges are so brazen now, they openly talk about how they don’t need to worry about the consitution:

Indeed, if you read Baskerville’s book (every man should read it really), you’ll see where family law judged have, in training seminars/meetings with new FLJs, explicitly stated that they do not need to worry about the constitution. It’s openly admitted.

You have no constitutional rights w/r/t: your home, your kids, your assets, in the context of a divorce. The Constitution just does not apply, because these things “aren’t important enough”.

Doesn’t this mean you should marry a traditional (Christian) woman who wants to be a stay at home mother?  Not only is the divorce rate inside the church is as high as outside the church, but when such a woman divorces you, you will be worse off:

The way that the system is set up currently actively punishes men who make this decision. As bad as it can be for other guys, the guys who get it the level absolute worst in divorces are the guys who have SAHMs for wives. If you have a SAHM and get divorced, you’re in for one hell of an ass-fucking by the courts financially. Asset division will be skewed in her favor (considered “equitable” because she has lower earning capacity to replace these in the future) and alimony will be high and long in many states — and don’t even think about fighting a SAHM to take away her sole custody unless she’s a drug addict. This is the hi/lo bet for guys who the have “traditional Chistian” marriages. If it doesn’t work, you’re fucked even worse than the guys who married the career feminists are, because if you have nearly equal incomes, things like asset division are more likely to be closer to equal, and alimony is in most states out of the picture.

If you want to get married, you have to expat out of the West.  There are no other options.  The only way to opt out of (anti-)family courts is by never getting married.  In the near future, this will likely also mean no cohabitation.  When marriage rates drop enough, the (anti-)family courts will start going after unmarried couples who live together.

We hear a lot about how the patriot act or the drug war, is an assault on our freedom.  Even if we assume that’s the case with either of those things (and it’s not clear that they are), they are nothing compared to how (anti-)family courts have completely destroyed our freedom.  They have created a feminist police state within the US and other Western countries, and those police states are expanding to the point where eventually the US and other Western countries will completely be feminist police states.

After reading this you should be angry at a lot of people.  One group you should be angry at are the marriage pushers in this part of the internet.  Since they have come here, they should already know this.  That means they’re pushing marriage knowing full well the evil they are promoting.  You should treat those people as enemies of freedom and agents of the feminist police state because that is effectively what they are.  Marriage pushers outside of this part of the internet should probably be treated in the exact same way.

If you want to know more about the reality of (anti-)family courts, then Brendan recommends reading Stephen Baskerville’s book, “Taken Into Custody”.

Please link to this page as much as possible in as many places as possible.  Brendan’s comments succinctly get to just how bad (anti-)family courts have gotten.  Men need to know this.

  7 Responses to “The Truth About (Anti-)Family Courts”

  1. the marriage pushers are similar to the war pushers. Doesn’t matter if its stupid, irrational, or even dangerous, as long as men “man up”, and do their duty.

  2. the marriage pushers, whether parents, relatives, church, or co-workers should show good faith, and insure / indemnify the man they are pushing to marry for the risk divorce and automatic mother custody / child support. For the middle class, this might be $250k of asset division, and another $250k of child support. If the man’s status and social skills are such that he can only pull a 33 year old instead of a 23 year old, then they should also insure against Down’s, and other very expensive health conditions associated with ageing mothers. That could easily be another $500k.

  3. I highly recommend Stephen Baskerville’s book, “Taken Into Custody”, to all men. It documents very well all of the major issues surrounding the family court system in the US in quite good detail, and is a kind of unique resource because of that.

  4. If abyone thinks that the USA is uniqe in the western world with the issues raised about family courts, then please read the comments by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/) on the abuse perpetrated by social workers aided and abetted by family courts in the UK.

  5. […] The Truth About (Anti-)Family Courts […]

  6. I’m a victim of Family Court too. There’s a lot of us out there. It’s tyranny pure and simple. The America we knew is gone and this horrible slave state is all that’s left. You can read my story on my blog http://www.thejoyoffamilycourt.com.
    I’m just getting started and I’m not yet sure how to cross link but I’ll be finding out and adding this page.
    Dave

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: