20 Reasons

From the Frank Report comes 20 Reasons: Destructive Family Court Is Money-Maker, Corrupt and Unmonitored.

All points are quite true and I'll wager most people are unaware of. 

1. “Family” courts are not courts of evidence or law. They are solely courts of equity.

2. So why do we allow “family” courts to hear cases involving claims of abuse and neglect?

3. “Family” courts are the only courts that do not read or inform you of your rights.

4. Because they want you to believe you have no rights and are subject to the whims of the state. (False.)

5. By most accounts, 86% of all parents in “family” court are Pro Se and can’t afford an attorney.

6. There is a vast difference between how Family Court handles low-income and high-income cases.

7. The more money to be made, the more conflict the “family” court will promote.

8. The states make money under SSA Title IV-D, forcing the separation of children from their parents.

With Title IV-D, the federal government pays the state grant money for every dollar of child support the state reports collecting to the federal government.

This provides a financial incentive even  for state courts to separate a child from one of the parents to force the payment of child support even where none is needed.

9. The Divorce Industry uses the false portrayal of ‘deadbeat’ or abusive dads to promote its agenda.

10. Hollywood perpetuates this myth.

11. The suicide rate for divorced men is 10x the national average.

12. The vast majority of divorce cases do not involve abuse or domestic violence.

13. Most claims of abuse or neglect do not start until after a divorce is filed and attorneys get involved.

14. There is no penalty for making false claims of abuse, engaging in open fraud, or perjury in our “family’ courts.

15. “Parental alienation.” or whatever people may wish to call it, is very real.

16. More money flows through our “family” courts than all other courts – combined.

17. Yet our “family” courts are subject to practically no checks or balances or audits for performance.

18. No “family” court judge or “family” court attorney has ever once been held accountable for flagrant and even criminal violations of law or rights in the State of CT.

19. The U.S. is home to more single-parent households than any other country on the planet.

20. The Divorce Industry has grown into a $60+ Billion industry over the past 20 years.

Gender Bias In Family Court

Although people claim there is and is not bias against men in family court, the reality is there is little hard evidence to support one side or the other. We simply do not track the statistics. 

We do, however, know that women initiate the vast majority of divorces, are the recipient of alimony in over 98% of cases where it is awarded, and are far more likely to be awarded child custody.   

Why this is true is a matter of opinion. 

In my case, even though I was doing the majority of parental work and despite the fact that my ex-wife committed perjury and her lawyer committed fraud, I had to pay a massive amount of money to my ex.

In the end the money I paid was worth it because my kids turned out pretty well. Mostly, I believe, because they chose to live with me despite the court awarding joint custody. 

So, admittedly and without concrete evidence, I do believe there is bias against men in family court. Indeed, if the only thing to change in my case were the genders, my hypothetically now male ex would have spent time in jail and I would have been awarded full child custody, child support, and alimony. 

For another view, I ran across this article from a law firm on the matter of gender bias.  

From our experience working with families, we have realized family court can be biased towards mothers and against fathers in custody disputes. Many fathers we have represented can personally attest to experiencing a negative outcome in a custody dispute because of gender bias in the court system. Often, fathers will make the mistake of assuming that because we are a nation of laws not men, they will get a fair hearing by a judge or hearing officer who is unbiased. This is not always the case.

Equality Should Go Both Ways

I totally agree women often suffer from gender discrimination. But that doesn't mean men do not as well. The most obvious poster childs for discrimination against males is our societal acceptance than men should almost entirely be the ones killed and injured in the military, suffer the preponderance of workplace deaths and injuries because they perform the preponderance of dangerous jobs, and, of course, are the ones paying alimony in 98+ percent of cases 

But one area where discrimination against men is perhaps less visible is the punishment they receive for criminal offences. From Australia, but very relevant to the U.S. and the wider world, is this fairly humorous exploration of the matter.

The Legalization Of Corruption

Proving legal corruption has always been difficult because it seeks justice within the very system where the corruption occurred. Since 2016 it has been even more difficult.

the 2016 Supreme Court case McDonnell v. US, which narrowed the legal definition of bribery and made it more challenging for prosecutors to prove corrupt acts by public officials, and extra-legal sanctions, such as media coverage, rejection by voters, and other mechanisms, that provide some level of accountability for corrupt actors.

NYU Law School recently held a session on the topic titled The Legalization of Corruption in the United States.

Letter From One Of My Former Lawyers

One of my former lawyers, the junior one, sent me a letter. but she didn't mean to send it to me. She sent it to a couple going through a divorce and the guy's name is the same as mine. An easy mistake really as I have a common name. 

The letter and the attached documents indicate the couple is going through a divorce following the standard lawyer divorce script. Counseling for the kids, a parental counselor for the parents, and a seemingly endless processes. Apparently my former lawyer is acting as the parental consultant in this case. 

Unfortunately, the standard pattern in divorces is geared toward extracting as much money as possible for those in the divorce industry. It totally ignores what is best for the kids and fair to the parents. Indeed, as extracting money is maximized in contentious divorces, it inherently maximizes pain and alienation. 

In my case, the mediator, recommended by my lawyers, told me my ex-wife was insisting on using a parental consultant. A specific parental consultant recommended by the mediator. The mediator, however, told my ex-wife I was insisting on using a parental consultant. Neither of us wanted one. The mediator lied to benefit the parental consultant. I suspect the parental consultant often directed business to the mediator in turn.  It is profoundly corrupt and harmful system. 

Rafael Nadal's Eloquence

Although I don't like the politicized title and narration much in this video of Rafael Nadal answering a question on gender discrimination in sports, I do like his answer. 

Popularity is what drives sport and entertainment salaries. Why are female basketball players paid less that male players? Because more people follow men's basketball. 

I have female friends who believe women players should be paid exactly what male players are paid. Yet at the same time they do not bother to watch or go to women's' sports at all. 

Certainly discrimination exists. Sometimes against women and sometimes against men. But it is easy to go overboard. Viewing everything as discrimination against one gender will not only blind you to reality but cause you to do the very thing you are complaining about 

Lawyers Lie (Mostly) With Impunity

Sydney Powell, who worked for former President Trump, has pleaded guilty to spreading false claims of  election fraud after the 2020 contest and trying to tamper with voting machines in Georgia. 

You would think she would be be put in prison for a very long time. But nope, she cut a plea deal.

Under the plea deal, Powell will serve six years of probation, pay a $6,000 fine, pay restitution of $2,700 to the state that covers the cost of replacing election equipment, write an apology letter and testify truthfully in future hearings and trials, as well as provide "any requested documents or evidence subject to any lawful privileges asserted in good faith prior to entering this plea."

I wonder what he punishment would be if she wasn't a lawyer? A lot more I'll bet. The funny thing is that as an officer of the court, which all lawyer are, she is supposed to be held to a higher standard than the general public. 

I hope the deal the prosecutors made results in some serious convictions for others. Powell is getting off easy.