Nina Shapiro's story on the "systemic bias against men in King County family court". (For those not from this area: This particular King County includes Seattle and most of Seattle's suburbs.)
Samples:
Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a "women and the law" class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioner's courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. "She ruled against every single man," Rolfe recalls, "and two of them were unopposed."
. . .
By far, though, the most damaging allegation—the one that can change everything in an instant—is domestic violence. That's why, Rolfe says, "there are attorneys who will advise a client to accuse the other party of domestic violence in order to gain an advantage."
(Question for attorneys: Would such advice be ethical?)
It is hard to believe that this "systemic bias" is good for anyone, in the long run, but I especially worry about any children who may be caught in the middle of these fights.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Caveat: The article is based mostly on testimony from anonymous men and their representatives. I don't doubt that most of what Shapiro writes in the story is true, since she strikes me as a careful reporter, but we should recognize that we are not getting all sides of the story.)
Posted by Jim Miller at January 25, 2012 03:52 PM | Email ThisFamily courts are a kangaroo court and men have little if any recourse within them. They are generally guilty until proven innocent, especially in this state. Which is why as a single man I would never date women with children- If biological daddy absconds or can't be found, guess who the courts will come after for child support payments? Yup, that would be you. No thanks!
Posted by: Rick D. on January 25, 2012 09:12 PMI think even non-attorneys can see that it would not be, but not to worry: the claim that this happens comes from someone who can use such an allegation to explain away her own failures, and who didn't provide any evidence to support her self-serving claim. (Was she privy to the advice given by other attorneys to other clients? Now, that WOULD be unethical!)
The article is based mostly on testimony from anonymous men and their representatives.
And an anonymous comment on a web site somewhere, which Shapiro uses to attack the character of one of the commissioners. Well, that's some careful reporting, right there!
I honestly don't know what's funnier: Jim's condescending lectures to local reporters on their supposed bias and credibility problems, or his willingness to post accusatory material from anonymous sources and biased parties if he believes it suits his purposes.
Posted by: tensor on January 25, 2012 09:14 PMI have a number of clients in the family law profession and as to the issue of fairness for men in the courts, it's stacked against them. That's due to stereo types that mothers are better child rearers than men and to the false notion that men are more violent in family situations than women. In the Seattle/King county area, its worse.
As to ethics in the legal field, ha! The ends justify the means. We dont have a justice system. We have a legal system and there is a big difference between the two.
Posted by: Double D on January 25, 2012 09:44 PMWell, the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem, so it sounds as if you've made it one half-step along the way to solving yours, DD.
My definition of "polite" does not include giving unsolicited advice that one does not oneself take, nor does it include repeating accusatory and self-serving claims based upon anonymous sources. So, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Posted by: tensor on January 25, 2012 10:01 PMYou do realize that the incident you cite happened many years before Dr. Laura's conversion to faith, before her she started her advice program and might just be the REASON she now gives others that particular advice?
Context matters, learn some.
Posted by: eyago on January 26, 2012 09:09 AM..it is better for the single women with children not to date you.
Whatever. They don't exactly have a choice in the matter, tc. It's a personal choice i've made, so frankly, I don't give a damn if that hurts your feelings or not.
... reason. Even if no one said it happened, we would know it does, because we know:
a. an allegation is all that's needed to bias the court in your favor
b. there's no negative legal consequences for making a false allegation (unless proven false, which is extremely difficult)
Therefore, a significant number of people will make false allegations, and a significant number of lawyers will encourage their clients to do so.
The world works based on incentives, and the incentives are strongly in favor of lying about abuse. Therefore we know it happens.
http://mediaradar.org/research.php
http://www.helium.com/items/1968566-understanding-false-domestic-violence-charges
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://sethschwartz.info/wp-content/uploads
/2010/08/Divided-World-of-the-Child.pdf
http://drdondutton.com/fulltextframes.htm
Perhaps the most onerous fact of trying to show how this discrimination against men is rampant in our state is that our courts have deemed themselves above reproach and EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. Take this from a man who has been abused by Thurston Co. commissioners and judges in family court. By the way TC, you are clueless about the overwhelming reality of men's discriminatory experiences in family court.
Posted by: shaydo on January 26, 2012 10:59 AMTo reiterate, I do not disagree with the theory put forth that men may be being discriminated against. If that is the case, then actual proof is needed instead of anecdotal proof, should be put forth to change this practice. Complaining about it solely based on anecdotal proof and not doing anything about it is a worthless endeavor. Get off your but and collect the proof, if you are so concerned about it. Also, stop electing these judges.
Posted by: tc on January 26, 2012 11:33 AMThere is an extreme bias in Kingco, and most other courts against men. All Shapiro wrote is true, I have seen it, and met with those gents.
About time this was exposed, the question is, does anyone care? Certainly not the lieyers who line their pockets, the various advocates who have offices in the court, or the judges who keep their courtrooms full.
The conservatives should care, because removing a Dad from a child's life brings a host of social pathologies down the road, at a tremendous social cost.
Posted by: The Geezer on January 26, 2012 11:35 AMBtw, I especially like the "choose wisely" part, b/c so many women fail that part and choose jerk men.
Posted by: Michele on January 26, 2012 11:40 AMUntil several years ago, it is well documented that the Commissioners who hear child support cases were funded by the division of Child Support. They still are, they just dont' have to fill out the timesheet any longer due to some fathers rights advocates beating on the system of bias.
Bias - there is a reason the Snohomish County Courts were destroying their court records after 6 months, rather that the legally required 7 years. That too has stopped, due to pressure from Fathers Rights groups.
Go into court one day and watch, its no secret.
Senator Kastama testified to Little Jamie Perterson's committee that a Tacoma Judge told him - "we give fathers every other weekend, thats just what we do." yet, the LAW mandates a decision in the best interest of the Child. Not CHildren-Child. A unique decision for the child in that family. Not some policy that doles out what is convenient for the biad of the courts.
Debate this subject all you want, and call each other names like you do every day. In the mean time, loving fathers are ripped from the grabbing hands of their children.
Posted by: Rights on January 26, 2012 11:58 AMYou truly are clueless, tc. This scenario happens far more often than you think. Family courts do not care if the man is the biological parent or not. All that matters is that they have been in the childs life in some "paternal role" and boom, the courts can and have ruled that he has to pay child support if the biological father cannot be found. It is fact.
You're simply putting forth an emotional argument that has no basis in reality. Since you are completely out to lunch on the subject, I suggest you don't comment on something you are ignorant of.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 26, 2012 12:01 PMThe courts don't want data collected on the work they do. It's plain and simple. And, we keep these career Commissioners, who are unelected, and server at the will of the Judges, with no accountability to the people.
It's a perfect storm, with the Courts in their huricane enforced courtrooms, and the people standing outside in pajamas, holding their children and trying to resist the gale force winds of bias.
Posted by: rights on January 26, 2012 12:11 PMThe last sentences reads "The obligation to support stepchildren shall cease upon the entry of a decree of dissolution, decree of legal separation, or death."
Posted by: tc on January 26, 2012 02:54 PMtc- your last sentence doesn't mean jack without what comes before it above. Does "may" mean shall where you come from? "may" means the court could or could not terminate the obligation to support. Because many family courts already side heavily with the mother's and in the best interest of the child, they are obviously much more likely to continue to hold the non-biological stepparent to their child support obligations. That is the reality on the ground, tc.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 26, 2012 03:49 PMI can state anecdotal evidence on the other side of the argument. A friend of mine, woman, lost custody of one of her sons because the man, in this case, played the court systems, even though the Guardian Ad Litem report stated the exact opposite. This happened in Wisconsin, not Washington. It is anecdotal, like I said, but it carries just as much weight in argument as your anecdotal evidence. What matters is what the law says and are the courts following it. If the law is in error, then it is up to legislators to fix it. If the courts are in error, then it is up to us citizens to demand resolution of the issue by (1) electing different judges, and (2) support legislators that will provide the necessary funding to correct the systematic issues. One of the biggest systematic issue, when it comes to all courts, and especially domestic courts, is the caseloads. As the article points out, each side is given 5 minutes. Why? It is because of the number of cases having to flow through the system. If we want justice, then we do need to pay for justice which takes time. Five minutes a side for argument is worthless and not true justice.
Posted by: tc on January 26, 2012 04:14 PMI would not allow my ex-wife to take my children away from me and ruin their lives. I fought, against the advice of the GAL, the therapists "ordered" by the GAL, the mediator, the arbitrator, and my first attorney...a woman. My second attorney...a man, was flabbergasted at the unfairness, but hey....I am a man and that is the way it is, you know? I continued to fight and eventually won an equalized parenting plan, which was all I was ever trying for anyway. I should not have had to fight to see my children for as much time as my borderline, controlling, and abusive ex-wife. After tens of thousand of dollars of attorneys fees, ten thousand dollars in GAL fees (oh...and she, the GAL, didn't even provide a report), therapists for the children, and collaborative and totally worthless marriage/divorce counseling ordered/suggested by the GAL (who nobody wanted to piss off...). It still came down to me simply saying no...I did nothing wrong, I will not settle and I am totally willing to stand in the court and tell the judge that I am a good man, a loving father and husband that had never touched anyone, especially my wife in any violent or angry way. I am a good provider for my family and all of the lies are simply that....lies...not one shred of proof, witnesses, or evidence. I had to be prove my innocence or be willing to try...they never had to offer any evidence whatsoever of violence or bad parenting. It was all heresay...but nobody cared.
My case turned out OK because I would not give in, but the costs will be measured all of my life and my childrens lives...money, emotions, hardship...and not one of those people cared one iota.
Today, I am paying maintenence and child support. But I get to be a father to my loving children. As soon as the mediation and arbitration was over, she left the state for a month on vacation and the children have lived with me most of the time since April, 2011. I now voluntarily pay for all of their medical bills, sports fees, school lunches, and clothing and pretty much all of their needs because with me, it was always about the children. If I don't do it, she won't, even though I pay her about half of what I make each month. With her, it was and is only about her and "winning".
Men...beware the King County Family Courts and the King County divorce industry. It is as if you had entered hell....
Posted by: SadDad on January 26, 2012 04:22 PMI was told she and her male-hating attorney would lie through their teeth in everything they said and wrote just for pure spite. Judges would say "I know what the law says but we do it MY way in this court" and they proceeded to do just that.
I consider myself fortunate. I got off with only tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees instead of $250,000 I was quoted by four different attorneys to battle the anti-male, anti-father bias. By the way, I also had to pay HER legal fees...
Posted by: Bob Manning on January 26, 2012 04:51 PMAh, but the someone who said it happened had something to gain from saying it happened, and no evidence of any kind whatsoever to show it had happened. (Nice try, though.)
there's no negative legal consequences for making a false allegation (unless proven false, which is extremely difficult)
The "negative legal consequences" for perjury and for suborning perjury are, in reality, very severe. Even if it is "extremely difficult (to prove)" -- a point no one has yet established -- the consequences would not be ignored, especially not by an attorney. (Nice try, though.)
Therefore, a significant number of people might, or might not, make false allegations, and a significant number of lawyers might, or might not, encourage their clients to do so. No actual evidence exists to show this has happened.
There, fixed it for you. (Nice try, though.)
Posted by: tensor on January 26, 2012 10:17 PMYou both stated it so well I can add nothing too it, except to say that I too have been victimized by the man-hating industry of courts, lawyers, counselors, state bureaucrats and the like. The worst outcome is evidenced by my daughter, who sadly, is revealing (at 28) many of the immoral and shameful traits she learned as a result of being raised by her mother and her mother's family. Lord knows I tried but two days every two weeks just doesn't allow the opportunity for a caring father to properly influence his childrens' upbringing. And don't the leftist social engineers who devised this "system" know this.....
Posted by: Saltherring on January 27, 2012 08:38 AMand
http://thurstonpundits.blogspot.com/
were originally created to shed light on this issue. Those blog owners will gladly introduce any skeptics to about a 100 men tomorrow who have been reamed by the system.
The article does a good job of describing the situation.
An accusation of DV is all that is needed to strip a man of most of his rights, including his 2nd amendment rights.
The accusation alone ends ALL careers in the military (if you want I can introduce you to men this has happened to).
For policemen, the accusation basically puts them in the same category as David Brame.
In custody battles, the accusation will add 20-300k to a man's attorney bill. I can introduce you to about a dozen men tomorrow who have not seen their kids since their seperation simply based on an accusation.
I will also call out that the same judges who hand these out are also the same judges who give the rest of society EXTREME judgements like Chris Wickham in Thurston county who ordered talk radio hosts to register their time covering candidates as a financial contribution with the PDC and equally insane environmental rulings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I09I_PX2-pc
Note- Bonus points if you can tell me who Judge Paula Casey is married to!!!!!
I was served with an Order of Protection in October of 2010. The Order was issued based solely on lies from my ex. For 2 weeks I was not allowed to have ANY contact with either of our children. We went to court and proved nothing happened and that she lied on her court statements. Did the Commissioner cite her for contempt? No. Did he make her pay my legal fees for defending myself against an obvious lie? No. The very day I was removed from my home, my ex moved her boyfriend in.
2 weeks after the Order was dismissed, we were back in court to set-up a temporary Parenting Plan. The Commissioner put several orders in the Plan. One was that she was to get both children into counseling within 2 weeks of that hearing. She got our 6yo daughter into counseling almost immediately, but not our 12yo son. It was almost 3 months after that hearing before that happened. She didn't need to find counselors for them- I provided her with names of several qualified therapists for her to choose from. The second order was that the children were not to have ANY contact with the boyfriend until after everything was settled, and after BOTH children's counselors "signed off" on it. I documented when my son's counseling started. I documented when the boyfriend was not only around the children, but when he spent the night at the same house as them. I had witness statements from multiple people. We called for an emergency hearing to have the children pulled from there mother and given to me as ordered in the Temporary Plan. The commissioner decided that my ex really didn't mean to violate the order and so she should continue to keep the children. As a result, the children were around the boyfriend for another several months, inspite of the order.
A Guardian Ad Litum was ordered as part of the preparation for Final Orders. I gave her access to all my files detailing all of the above and much more. Days when the children's mother (or anyone else) wasn't home to get them off the bus. I had to make arrangements to have them picked up by my family and friends. The fact that she didn't attend my son's IEP meeting, either child's conferences, and that she rarely did homework with the children. I did. I gave her the names of 2 people who know our entire family. She interviewed 1. I gave her the names of all the children's teachers and support staff. She interviewed less than half of them. I gave her the names of both the children's counselors. She interviewed 1 of the 2. She interviewed a co-worker of my ex... who has never met me, and hardly knows either of the children. She had access to the boyfriend's current wife and his history of actual domestic violence against her and her children. The Guardian ad Litum ignored ALL of that and decided that my ex and her new boyfriend were much better for the children than me.
I sent a DETAILED letter to the court officer who is in charge of reviewing cases where a Guardian ad Litum has been ordered. I received a short letter saying that, while some of my claims may have merit, I should take my case to court and have a Commissioner decide. In total, my ex and I appeared before 3 different commissioners (2 male, 1 female) and I didn't stand a chance of getting a FAIR hearing before ANY of them.
Posted by: David on January 27, 2012 03:15 PMYeah cuz those rich white male property owners owe the Occupiers a free college education.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 29, 2012 01:33 PM