In a world gone mad, surrounded by bleeding heart liberals, crippling political correctness, Republicans masquerading as conservatives, Democrats whining about everything, media that will inject as much liberal political bias as possible into every "news" story, and the State’s daily efforts to reign supreme by pushing God overboard, there also persists a nationally legalized system of State sponsored terrorism that is destroying the traditional family faster than NOW mobilized support for Clinton when the Monica story broke: no-fault divorce.
Years ago, when the California legislature arrogantly determined that marriages were nothing more than notarized dating, those who supported no-fault divorce professed that it would greatly reduce divorce litigation and clear the clogged court dockets of pending cases. Like always, the State is "here to help" so it rushed in to "solve the problem."
True to form, the Law of Unintended Consequences appeared to prove that all the politicians, pundits, and hangers-on were wrong once again. The 50/50/90 Rule also applied: given a choice between two equally possible alternatives, the State will get it wrong 90% of the time. The State could have left divorce well enough alone, but instead it opted to reward infidelity and irresponsibility with a Get Out of Marriage Free Card, at the expense of the working spouse.
Oddly enough, apparently no one anticipated that children would be separated from one parent. Most states, including California, still make the specious claim that its family courts operate "in the best interest of the child," but anyone who has ever stepped foot inside one knows that this is The Big Lie. It’s all about money; ensuring that mommy stays off of welfare, that daddy shuts up and pays up, and that the attorneys get paid up front, since they did write the law. Funny how that works, huh?
Far from reducing litigation, no-fault divorce accomplished just the opposite, to the delight of divorce attorneys, court appointed therapists, and "expert" witnesses. The end result was to cast in concrete an adversarial system that ensures that the truth never comes out in any divorce proceeding, while also bleeding the family dry. When the money is gone, the attorneys suddenly settle and move on to the next case. What a racket.
None of this comes as a surprise to anyone who has lived through a no-fault divorce with children involved. The horror stories are incredible. Just when you think you’ve heard them all, an even worse story surfaces. The State did this country no favors when it embraced no-fault divorce. Stephen Baskerville, in his article "The Politics of Family Breakdown" is right on target.
"…the media image many people have of marriages simply and mutually "breaking down" is inaccurate. Under "no-fault" divorce laws, some 80% of divorces are unilateral and over the objection of one spouse."
"…when minor children are involved, the divorcing parent is overwhelmingly likely to be the mother. Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver has shown that at least two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women. Few of these divorces involve grounds, such as desertion, adultery, or violence. The reasons usually given are "growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated." More disturbing, researchers Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that "Who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce." [Emphasis added.]
"No-fault divorce, often blamed for leaving wives vulnerable to abandonment, has left fathers with no protection against the confiscation of their children. No-fault laws were passed not as the result of any popular clamor or following any public debate but largely for the benefit of divorce practitioners."
"It is striking how little attention is focused on family courts. They are certainly the arm of the state that routinely reaches farthest into the private lives of individuals and families. "The family court is the most powerful branch of the judiciary," according to Robert Page, Presiding Judge of the Family Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey. "The power of family court judges is almost unlimited.""
"Nothing requires judges to grant the
divorcing parent's request to strip the other
parent of his children. Yet they invariably do. One need not be cynical
to recognize that judges who failed to reward the divorcing parent would
be rendering themselves redundant and denying earnings to a large entourage
of lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists, mediators, counselors,
child-support enforcement agents, social workers, and others - all of
whom benefit from the ensuing custody battle and also have a strong
influence on the careers of judges."
"The existence and virtually every problem addressed by family court - divorce, custody, child abuse, child support enforcement, even juvenile crime - depend upon one overriding principle: removing the father from the family. [Emphasis added.] "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating," New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell told his colleagues at a training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around… We don't have to worry about the rights."
"Once a parent loses custody he becomes a virtual outlaw. His contact with his own children outside authorized times and places becomes criminalized. He can be arrested for running into his children in public places such as the zoo or church, or for telephoning his children when he is not authorized, or sending them birthday cards."
"Parents summoned to court are subject to questioning about their private lives and how they raise their children that attorney Jed Abraham has characterized as an "interrogation." Their personal papers, financial records, and homes must be opened and surrendered on demand. Their children may [be] used as informers."
"The criminalization of fathers is further consolidated through child support burdens, which constitute the financial fuel of the divorce machinery, underwriting divorce and giving everyone involved further incentives to remove children from their fathers." [Emphasis added.]
It is very difficult to defend the current state of affairs in the no-fault divorce arena, especially in view of Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, United States Supreme Court, 1982. In no uncertain terms, the court found:
"The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child…[Emphasis added.]
Americans are now forced to endure State sponsored parentectomies, plundering of family wealth, criminalization of fathers, incentives to divorce, and a divorce industry that exists solely to support itself--all at the expense of the fundamental rights of parents.
Let’s call this what it really is: collusion, conspiracy, and criminal--a massive shakedown perpetrated by the State against its own citizens. When the mafia does it, the State applies federal RICO statutes, but when the State sponsors terrorism in family court it’s "in the best interest of the child."
Since this situation only exists due to enabling legislation passed by the State, it is not only complicit, it is culpable. Rule of Law? Yeah, right.
