Where are all the pro- "child support" (backdoor alimony) folks?

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
There is a tiny snippet below of something that I posted some time
back, on the subject of why men don't organize adequately to fight back
against a system that is so grotesquely distorted against them. In the
interim, this thread has turned into a big argument between Max and
TeacherMama. I feel like someone who has failed to extinguish his camp
fire properly, and then seen it develop into a huge forest fire!

On the issue of fathers being penalized for speaking out, I have no
statistics, unfortunately. However, I have some experience of seeing
what happens to activist fathers. I'll cite two example that I know of
in recent years. I recognize, of course, that I heard only one side of
the story here, but I still think these episodes indicate what typically
happens. What it amounts to is that mothers' lawyers get hold of this
information, and -- in effect -- get the judges all riled up, because
they tell them that the father is leveling strong criticisms at them
outside the court.

One case was a father who was a deacon in a Baptist church and in every
respect an upright citizen. His wife left him, taking their child. In
the course of subsequent proceedings the father tried to expose what he
saw as improper intervention on his wife's behalf by a local female
police officer who was a member of the church and friendly with his
wife. He told me that he began to encounter serious problems with
getting his visitation rights honored as soon as he started to draw
attention to the police officer's activities on his wife's behalf. We
are talking about a small town, where people in the law enforcement
business all know each other.

The other is a father who, as a result of his treatment in the family
court system, wrote a book on the subject of what fathers should do. In
court, his wife's attorney then began drawing attention to the father's
book, and his other activities on behalf of fathers, with the obvious
intention of stirring up prejudice against him in the mind of the judge.

I doubt whether there are many cases in the U.S. where fathers are
jailed for protesting against the system. However, what frequently
happens, I think, is that fathers who do so are branded as
troublemakers. Judges have all kinds of discretion in these matters,
and they have all kinds of ways of punishing fathers who stand up for
their rights. For several years, I had a leading role in a local
fathers' groups. One reason why I was told I should take this on was
that my children were grown, and there was no longer any way that the
legal system could punish me for speaking out publicly.

Kenneth's examples show how judges are easily influenced into prejudicial
thinking against fathers.

One time I asked my attorney why I lost on every issue. He told me "The
judge doesn't like you for some reason." I asked what we possibility
could
have said or done to have the judge turn against me and favor my ex on
every
issue. His response was judges form opinions about the parties and rule
against the party they don't like. His point was it didn't really matter
about the facts or testimony. It was more a judge picking a winner/loser
and using that premise for decision making.

Unfortunately this is not a one time process. Every time I went back
before
the same judge as the case and the parties were being introduced she would
say, "I remember you." That was a clear sign the screwing was going to
continue.

She couldn't screw you physically (for obvious reasons), so she screwed you
financially. This is known as p _ _ _ _ envy.