Lifestyle‎ > ‎

Divorcing Fit Fathers from Their Children Is a Recent and Unconstitutional Process

posted 12 Sep 2010, 04:09 by Mpelembe Admin   [ updated 12 Sep 2010, 04:12 ]

You may be told that awarding child custody to mothers and
extorting fit fathers for payments is part of America's
tradition.  This is untrue.  It's part of the propaganda to
convince unwary fathers that their responsibility is to keep
quiet and pay the mother money for supporting his child. Here
are the facts.

Today, family court judges make orders that take away
physical and legal custody of children from fit father who
have not done any harm so he can't directly care and parent
his own children.  That fathers are targeted to be denied
their children is an overwhelming fact.

Judges may use the excuse of 'best interest of the child' to
do this. It's unjustified by constitutional law since that
law says that the 'best interest of a child' resides in a
fit parent and is outside of state interference. It's only
applicable when there's no fit parent - not two of them.

Equal rights would imply that both divorced fit parents
would be guaranteed parental rights over the child for 50%
of the time each.


A judge demands a father to pay a fourth, third or more of
his gross income for what the court calls 'child support' at
the point of a gun. He's thrown in jail if he doesn't pay
all.  The court can also take away his state license to
work, to drive his car, and take away his passport.

The gross extortion of a father's income for child support
is a lie because these payments neither have to be used for
the support of a child, and they're often far above the
necessities of living for the child.

At the founding of our country, family courts were run under
'common law'. Common law followed laws that dealt with right
and wrong. In a court action, harm had to be shown as made
by the defendant and required clear and convincing evidence
to prove it generally with a jury.

Equity determinations were invoked where no law specifically
dealt with the issue at hand. The judge could decide what
seemed to him to be 'fair'. Helping out were the 'maxims of
law'. Such maxims included 'no man should profit from his
wrong', 'a judge shouldn't profit from his determinations',
'no one is punished unless for some wrong act or fault' to
name a few.

All areas of family courts had full and complete remedy
under common law. No arbitrary decisions were allowed.
Divorce represented a contract broken by one of the parties.
Harm had to be clearly proved and fundamental rights for all
were protected under due process.

If a fit father was given custody of his children, this was
a benefit - a fundamental right. But it required his
responsibility to support them since 'the obligation goes
with the benefit received' - a maxim.

The ordering of child support was rare and required a jury
trial to prove parental abandonment.  And, then, it was
limited only to the necessities.

Later, toward the end of the 19th century, some 'equity'
determinations start to appear in family courts under
mistaken judicial interpretations of law. Working conditions
for men at the beginning of the 20th century often left the
children with the mother under divorce - a rare occurrence.

The mid 20th century saw a growing intrusion of state
socialism and intrusion into family life and growing
divorce. Rather than correct and support fundamental rights
for both parents, both the welfare and divorce industry
sought to control benefits to mothers and children.

When government began implementing women's programs,
feminists sought increased money and influence by
propagandizing the victimization of women necessarily
resulting from the abusiveness of men - under phony
arguments. The welfare and divorce industry sought to
validate feminist ideas by forcing fathers out of families
and extorting payments from disenfranchised fathers.

The divorce and domestic violence industry exploded with
money from government and disenfranchised fathers. Upholding
constitutional rights and protections of fathers was a clear
impediment to their growing power and money. Any thought of
equality in divorce for fathers was dismissed. Doing so
would undermine the sham of victimhood of mothers and
abusive fathers that fostered so much money and the feminist
agenda.

Over the last 40 years, the state has engineered a
money-making and feminist-based power grab at enormous
disenfranchisement of fathers. Today's family court violates
a father's rights that come under the Bill of Rights and the
further amendments. It promulgates his

* Loss of the right to a trial by jury (Due Process - Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment)

* Loss of parental rights (violation of First Amendment)

* Punishment through extortion payments without wrongdoing
(violation of Eighth Amendment),

* Made to pay child support without the right to question
that the money is going for necessities (Due Process - Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment)

* Loss of licenses, passport - arbitrary restrictions on
personal liberties ,

* Negatively impacts his rightful pursuit of happiness - and
his chosen employment

* Made to work at highest payment level to maximize the
child support paid (Thirteenth Amendment -slavery),

And, of course, the 'maxims of law' are unknown or ignored.
We have a tyranny in place.

About the Author:

Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for
your rights.
Get his FREE Downloads at
http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com
Take his ecourse: How to Handle Your Family Court Case at
http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com





Comments