May 12, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

FYI,

Here is the chance you were always waiting for, a chance to have your say in public!

RoadkillRadio.com is worth listening to (Tuesdays, PST 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.) and even worth promoting.

Home Page: RoadkillRadio.com

Listen live:

Quoted from that web page:

NOTE: We only Broadcast “LIVE…” on Tuesdays, starting approximately 30 minutes before showtime! If its not Tuesday, you will not get a live stream. The archived shows however, will stream. All archived audio on the web site is of the MP3 file format.

Archived shows:

Archived Shows
All shows [a large and interesting list — WHS] are available for mp3 download

For example:

Download Show 8 Part Two

There will be time for some open-line then an eye-opening, in-depth discussion on Fathers Rights and the Rights of Children.  Vancouver lawyer and well-known advocate Carey Linde will be joining us to talk about this issue and parental alienation.  Are the courts getting it wrong?  (Note: The first third of that portion of the show deals with provincial politics in B.C..  Skip that to get to the interview with Carey Linde.  The discussion of fathers rights, feminist judicial bias, divorce issues such as parental alienation and much more is fascinating.  It is very important for anyone living in B.C. that the discussion contains a recommendation by Carey Linde to copy the results of the poll on shared parenting run by Saskatchewan MP Vellacotte and to forward that to the B.C. Attorney General — in view of the currently going-on revisions to family rights laws in B.C.. –WHS)

From the home page:

Important and Informative! Joins US!!

Broadcasting Live from Vancouver Canada
Unabashedly Canadian, BOLD, No Apologies!
Join Kari Simpson and Terry O’Neill as they expose and examine
the issues that affect your family, rights and liberties.

This Hard-Hitting current events online show dares to be
politically-incorrect and invites all those who have been silenced to be heard!!

May 12th 2009 - 7:30 p.m. - We ran out of time last week, so as promised you will hear a tape recording of a meeting (held on April 29, 2009) between RKR’s very own Kari Simpson, social workers and the parents of three children who are being “investigated” by these so-called child protection workers. Listen as social workers REFUSE to have the meeting taped for accuracy
(click here for an advanced listen part 1).

Then you will hear how they REFUSED to provide the findings of their investigation in writing!!!! (click hear for an advanced listen part 2)

For the rest of the show it is all about the BC Election!! Joining us in-studio will be pollster Glen Robbins from SceResearch and our own, politically in-the-know commentator Ron Gray. Former B.C. Premier Bill VanderZalm will be here and we will talk to candidates as their political fates are decided by BC VOTERS!!!!

We will be taking your calls and emails! This is a must listen… a must tell your friends and family to listen to… RoadKill Radio Rumble!

CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167

Important and Informative!

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions are welcome!

EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca

WHERE: Listen live - http://www.roadkillradio.com

–Walter

http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Education, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Economy, Child Support, Judiciary, Divorce, Health, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Gay issues, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 5, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The Toronto Star
3 April 2009

Children harmed by sole custody, report says

Canadian judges rarely use voluntary arrangements in which kids live with each parent roughly equally

By Susan Pigg, Living Reporter

Family court judges are misguidedly harming children by granting sole custody to one parent - usually the mother - in bitter divorce battles, says a comprehensive new report.[*]

Too many children are being “robbed of the love of one parent” by a legal system that is out of touch with the needs of children and treats them like property to be won or lost, says Edward Kruk, an expert on child custody issues….(Full Story)
__________________
* Note by F4L:

The report by Edward Kruk, Ph.D.:

• Shared Parenting: Child Custody, Access, and Parental Responsibility
• More information by Edward Kruk at Fathers for Life

Posted in Divorce, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Health, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Child-Custody Awards, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

April 4, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The Free Lance-Star

March 29, 2009 1:14 am

AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND:UNWELCOME REALITY

By Stephen Baskerville

–The decline of the family now affects virtually every American and seriously threatens not only social order but freedom and constitutional government. G.K. Chesterton once observed that the family checks government power. He was writing about divorce: Despite other threats to the family, divorce remains the most serious.

Americans would be shocked if they knew what goes on in the name of divorce. Divorce today licenses unprecedented government intrusion, including the power to seize children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without trial.

The full implications of the “no-fault” revolution have never been publicly debated. Divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways; 80 percent of divorces are unilateral. Under “no-fault,” divorce becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by judicial officials who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, and social workers. Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long-term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails….(Full Story)

Posted in Divorce, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

March 17, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Fathers rights activists like Stephen Baskerville, PhD., have advocated for years that to have children is suicidal and recommended to young men — to be able to survive and to avoid being criminalized as fathers:

Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

2007-11-14 at 11:36 am · Filed under Men and Mating, Vox Populi

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children….(Full Story)

Stephen Baskerville merely points out the circumstance of fathers expunged from their families — collateral damage resulting from current global population policies.  A far less personal issue that universally affects global population trends is the circumstance that populations in all developed nations, and increasingly in ever-increasing numbers of developing nations, are shrinking.

The plan is to reduce the global population to a population level between 300 million to a billion people.   You think that is an alarmist view of demographic trends? Well, think again.

 OneNewNow.com

Planting the seeds of a demographic winter

Robert Knight - Guest Columnist - 5/14/2008 2:10:00 PM

Did you know that planting a tree won’t save the earth? You’ve got to plant 483 trees just to offset your household’s carbon footprint. And that’s just for two people.

We know this because the Washington Post Home section on May 8 featured a cover story encouraging folks to plant trees while sternly warning them that this won’t help much because people are a cancer on the planet.

Okay, they didn’t quite put it that way, but it would be hard to miss the message. A graphic with 483 little green trees illustrates this stat from the EPA: “A two-person household is responsible for releasing 41,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. To offset that, each household would have to plant 483 trees and let them grow for 10 years.”

If a two-person household is that bad, what does that make families with children? Environmental criminals, at the least, and maybe earth wreckers….(Full Story)

Consider this:

How to Take the Chill Out of Demographic Winter

A speech by Don Feder to the New Generation Church, Riga, Latvia, November Nov. 15, 2007

….In half-a-century or less, Europe will be populated by strangers — who will wander by the continent’s cathedrals, museums, statues and battlefield monuments wondering what it all meant.

This catastrophe in the making can be most clearly seen in Russia. What Lenin, Stalin and Hitler failed to accomplish, the Russian people are doing to themselves. You might call it auto-genocide.

In Russia, the fertility rate is 1.17 (down from 2.4 in 1990, a decline of over 50%). Russia is losing three-quarters of a million people a year. Its current population of 145 million is expected to be reduced by a third by 2050. In Russia today, almost as many children are aborted as are born alive (1.5 million to 1.6 million)….

In terms of population replacement, Europe is going out of business. Of the 10 nations with the lowest fertility rates worldwide, 9 are in Europe. No European nation has anything approaching a replacement-level birthrate….(Full Story)

By now you must wonder how we got from the 1960s UN objective of Zero-Population Growth to the present calamity of accelerating population reduction.  It was easy.  It required a motivator that the social engineers in charge and control of global population growth could make palatable and have the masses swallow: Save the Planet — Reduce the Human Population.

Here is how that is made to work:

http://www.co2science.org

Your “Carbon Legacy”
Volume 12, Number 11: 18 March 2009

---

Politicians who bow to the demands of the world’s climate alarmists have long sought various means of reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To date, the measures they have proposed have been rather mundane, focusing primarily on reducing emissions associated with one’s household activities and transportation habits. For example, we have been encouraged to replace our incandescent light bulbs with more energy efficient ones. We’ve also been asked to participate in municipal recycling programs, to drive less, to car pool or to utilize public transportation. But the “rules of the road” will soon be become much more stringent, and you and I may be asked - if not mandated by law - to make an unprecedented lifestyle change that could dramatically curtail one of our most cherished personal freedoms, all in the name of “saving the planet.”

Writing for the scientific journal Global Environmental Change, two academics at Oregon State University - Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax - identify this lifestyle change in a paper entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals.” In this treatise they attempt to quantify, in their words, “the carbon legacy of an individual,” and to examine “how it is affected by the individual’s reproductive choices,” based on the premise that “a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him.” So what did they find?

The two researchers calculated that a woman in the United States would reduce her lifetime CO2 emissions by about 486 tons if she implemented the green-approved household and transportation activities mentioned previously. But they estimate that if she were to have just one child, that child, over its lifetime, would eventually release nearly 20 times more CO2 to the atmosphere than the reductions achieved by its mother via her more mundane green activities.

In light of these calculations, Murtaugh and Schlax conclude that “the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” adding that “enormous [our italics] future benefits can be gained by immediate changes [our italics] in reproductive behavior,” and, therefore, that “an individual’s reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to his or her genetic lineage.”

We can only hope, in this regard, that everyone’s future reproductive behavior will continue to be a matter of choice. But in light of the supposedly “enormous” CO2-related “benefits” of curtailing child-bearing - especially in the United States - no one can assume that such will continue to be the case, especially in light of the claims of climate alarmists such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who consider CO2-induced global warming to be the greatest threat to the survival of civilization ever to be encountered. Faced with such a unique and unparalleled threat, we could well awake one morning and find ourselves with no choice in the matter, mandated by law to only procreate to the extent deemed ecologically appropriate by those enlightened few who somehow simply “know” what is best for the biosphere.

It may seem unthinkable today that our government - of the people, by the people and for the people - would ever assume the power to tell us how many children we can and cannot have. But much has happened in the past few months that truly was unthinkable, and only a single year ago. And if it’s happened before, it can happen again; for in times of crisis - either real, as in the current economic crisis, or imagined, as in Al Gore’s climate crisis - normally-rational people can do some wildly-irrational things. We must, therefore, maintain the eternal vigilance that is needed to preserve our God-given rights that no one has the authority to rescind. Stand up with us and demand that your elected officials carefully scrutinize both sides of the CO2-climate debate and think for themselves. We need thoughtful men and women of integrity to guide our nation, not mindless lemmings.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference
Murtaugh, P.A. and Schlax, M.G. 2009. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Global Environmental Change: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007.

That editorial by Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso is also accessible as a video (4.5 minutes) at YouTube.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Religion, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

February 6, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Divorced father seeks equal protection
Custody challenge cites discriminatory decisions
Posted: January 28, 2009
10:09 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A case is developing in a Tennessee divorce dispute that one attorney believes could impact custody decisions nationwide because it calls down the authority of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to help fathers who are good parents and want to remain involved in their children’s lives….(Full Story)

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Paternal Rights, Shared Parenting, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence | Print | 5 Comments »

February 2, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

National Post
January 30, 2009

by Kelly McParland and Barbara Kay

In what has been called a “stunning and unusual family law decision” released Jan. 16, a Toronto father was awarded sole custody of his three daughters, aged nine to 14. The “persistent and overwhelming” campaign by the mother over the course of more than a decade was recognized as emotional abuse by Ontario Superior Court Justice Faye McWatt, and the children have been sent to a California therapeutic recovery centre for treatment.

The couple, known as A. L. and K. D., have had a volatile relationship since they met 15 years ago. In spite of K. D. falsely alleging that A. L. sexually abused their first child, the couple had two more children between bouts of disaffection. K. D. — herself dominated by a vindictive mother who had beaten her in childhood– repeatedly called police after provoking physical confrontations with A. L., and frequently bad-mouthed him in front of the children….(Full Story)

Posted in Paternal Rights, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

January 30, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Telegraph.co.uk
29 Jan 2009

A Christian couple who say they felt forced into giving up their grandchildren for adoption said they would never have done so if they had known they would be placed with a homosexual couple.

By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent

They wanted to bring up the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister in their own home but said they were forced to give them up by social workers who had concerns about the couple’s age and their health.

They spent two years involved in court cases over the children, whose 26-year-old mother is a recovering heroin addict, and finally agreed to adoption when they were faced with mounting legal bills….(Full Story)

Posted in Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Child-Custody Awards, Gay issues, Family | Print | No Comments »

January 29, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Day of Rejoicing for the World of the Swiss Fathers Rights

Dear Reader,

Yesterday was a red-letter day for all fathers in Switzerland, and especially for separated or divorced fathers.

With the announcement of a proposed law for presumptive joint custody, the Swiss Federal Council approached a long-overdue gap in the law.

By including not-married parents, Switzerland goes even much farther than many neighboring countries.  Joint custody shall not only apply to married parents but also for those who are not married, as long as the father acknowledges paternity for a child.

The proposal by the Swiss Federal Council furthermore finally envisions clear consequences for those parents who torpedo visitation rights or even deny them.

The new Article 220 of the Swiss Criminal Code is slated to contain:

Article. 220

Who removes a minor from the of custody rights or refuses to return the minor,  who refuses to return a minor to the custody of the owner of custody rights, will, upon request, be punished with up to three years of incarceration or a fine.

Unmistakeable and clear - there is not much room left for maneuvering.

The fathers’ and parenting organizations are very proud on account of the interim target that has been reached.  We managed during the past years to sensitize the public and to draw its attention to the subject matter.  We are especially proud to have succeeded in convincing the leading professionals in the federal government administration that only a radical departure from the existing system will bring about a real improvement.

The present proposal shows that our words found an ear, and that fills us with pride and satisfaction.

However, nothing has yet been gained - this is only the first draft - there are yet many hurdles before us.

We will therefore continue to work - stick with it and convince the public, the politicians and leading professionals that only cooperation can in the end lead to the goal.
However, for today we may rejoice over what has been achieved.

Oliver Hunziker
Präsident GeCoBi
oliver.hunziker@gecobi.ch
www.gecobi.ch

The following contains the original, German-language text of that translation.

Freudentag für die schweizerische Väterszene

Liebe Leser,

Gestern war ein Freudentag für alle Väter in der Schweiz, insbesondere aber für die getrennt oder geschiedenen Väter.

Mit der Publikation des Gesetzesvorschlages für das gemeinsame Sorgerecht als Regelfall hat der Bundesrat eine längst überfällige Gesetzeslücke angegangen.

Mit dem Einbezug der unverheirateten Eltern geht die Schweiz sogar noch weiter als viele Nachbarländer. Neu soll nicht mehr nur für verheiratete Eltern das gemeinsame Sorgerecht gelten, sondern auch für unverheiratete, sofern der Vater das Kind anerkennt.

Der Vorschlag des Bundesrates sieht darüber hinaus endlich klare Konsequenzen für Elternteile vor, die das Besuchsrecht torpedieren oder gar verweigern.

Im neuen Artikel 220 des schweizerischen Strafgesetzbuches soll stehen:

Art. 220
Wer eine minderjährige Person dem Inhaber des Obhutsrechts entzieht oder sich weigert, sie ihm zurückzugeben,
    wer sich weigert, eine minderjährige Person dem Inhaber eines Besuchsrechts zu übergeben,
wird, auf Antrag, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder Geldstrafe bestraft.

Unmissverständlich und klar - da bleibt nicht viel Handlungsspielraum.

Die Väter- und Elternorganisationen sind sehr stolz auf das erreichte Zwischenziel. Es ist uns gelungen, in den letzten Jahren die Öffentlichkeit zu sensibilisieren und auf die Thematik aufmerksam zu machen. Und ganz besonders sind wir stolz, dass es uns gelungen ist, die massgeblichen Fachleute in der Bundesverwaltung davon zu überzeugen, dass nur eine radikale Abkehr vom bisherigen System eine wirkliche Verbesserung bringen kann.

Der vorliegende Entwurf zeigt, dass unsere Worte Gehör gefunden haben und das erfüllt uns mit Stolz und Befriedigung.

Doch noch ist nichts gewonnen - dies ist erst die Vernehmlassung - noch stehen viele Hürden vor uns.

Wir werden daher weiter arbeiten - dran bleiben und die Öffentlichkeit, die Politiker und die Fachleute davon überzeugen, dass nur ein Miteinander schlussendlich zum Ziel führen kann.

Aber für heute dürfen wir uns über das Erreichte freuen.

Oliver Hunziker
Präsident GeCoBi
oliver.hunziker@gecobi.ch
www.gecobi.ch

__________

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Child-Custody Awards | Print | 2 Comments »

January 26, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Hi All,

This past Friday morning, a server rolled into my driveway and presented me with evidence that I was to be in Court on February 2, 2009.

I am being charged with remedial contempt of court by my wife and her attorney.  The opposition is charging that my web site, and the commercials advertising it, are an attempt to communicate with our children.  The web site in question: http://www.ourkidsmisstheirdad.com

This Hearing will be in front of Judge Ramona A. Gonzalez. Welcome back to our nightmare Judge Gonzalez!

The penalties Kathy and her attorney seek are severe.  Payment of a sum of money sufficient to compensate a party for loss or injury suffered the party as the result of the contempt of court, a forfeiture not to exceed $2,000.00 for each day the contempt continues, that I pay my wife’s attorney’s fees for bringing this charge into Court, that I pay $500.00 for every time the commercial ran, and a couple of other requests for Orders which will financially harm me - and Kathy as well.

It appears the website is something the opposition desperately wants to go away.  Judge Rosborough would hear none of it so now they’re going to try to get Judge Gonzalez to make it go away.  As one father reported to me (paraphrasing), “The people who work in the Family Courts are like vampires, they fear the light.”

I believe, at best, Kathy and Mr. Horvath’s chances for successfully finding me in remedial contempt of court resembles the success of people spitting into the wind.  I will not report my defenses at this moment, however, they are extremely sound and should carry overwhelming weight.

I am resolutely convinced Kathy and her attorney will be defeated on this charge.  It has been a long time since Mr. Horvath has won an Order that he and Kathy  sought and I look for his and her losing streak to continue (October 24th when AFCC Fleishman admitted impropriety and removed herself from our case).  That is, if justice actually works in the Family Courts.  Most report that it doesn’t.

I’m currently reading a new book by Stephen Baskerville, “Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family”. It is not fun reading this book as it details with voluminous reputable statistics the consistent horrific and horrendous treatment of fathers in Family Courts.

However, I like the book.  It starts with a quote from my all-time favorite book, “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand (many thanks to Aaron Bolstad for recommending this book):

“There’s no way to rule innocent men.  The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.  Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

The Family Court has made me a criminal for telling our children the truth, for parenting the way I see fit and not the way the government sees fit, and thus the government now has the power to judge and rule over nearly every aspect of my life.  On February 2, 2009, the Family Court is getting the opportunity to label me a criminal again for having the audacity to exercise my freedom of speech.  This is the worst thing about Family Court, it can summarily turn you into a criminal while affording you none of the rights an accused criminal has in Criminal Court.  In Family Court, many men are routinely sent immediately to jail for violation of Court Orders for which they have no means to comply.  Should the Court Order me in contempt of court, and I’m unable to pay the money requested - which I’m not, jail is likely my next address - an address I’ve been prophetically predicting for some time now.

This is how the system deals with folks like me; they lock you up, you go away, and they move on. As this is the most effective way for Kathy to realize her goal of never having to deal with me again, bank on Kathy hoping for jail as my future.  In fact, as detailed on the web site, she has numerous times informed me and others that she hopes I end up in jail - one time sending her stepsister down to law enforcement to effectuate an immediate arrest of me while I was legally at our property. Yet she constantly informs our children she wants them to see their dad - that her and other’s are working very hard to make this happen.  I’m sure she hasn’t informed Sammy and Walker that it is her goal for this “seeing your father” to happen through a phone with me, in an orange jumpsuit, on the other side of Lexan glass window. Of course, she’ll offer Sammy and Walker her patented response, “This isn’t what I wanted, this is what the Court has decided.”
Samuel M. Polhamus
5734 Cambridge Road
Sparta, WI 54656
Phone: 608.488.4880
Cell: 608.792.8417

Posted in Paternal Rights, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 3 Comments »

January 26, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Actions and consequences for a duped and defrauded father.

The following is a response to a complaint about real case of paternity fraud in the US. The names and locations have been altered to protect the victims of the fraud.

The man who wrote the original complaint is experiencing the whole gamut of the weapons of the divorce industry:

• Paternity fraud;
• Child abduction and move-away by the mother (involving an eight-hour trip - one way - by the father if he wishes to see the child whom he has come to see as his own);
• False allegations of domestic violence, to keep they alleged fathers at bay and away;
• The defrauded man duped into paternity;
• The mother of the child refuses any child access to the alleged father;
• The defrauded father has become very strongly bonded to a child who is not his, for whom he pays child support, but a child whom he no longer gets to see, and more.

If anyone reading about that case here has any good advice or pointers, please post a comment to this blog entry.

Here is my response to the man’s complaint:

Hello Bill,

Sorry for your troubles, but thanks for writing.

Don’t blame your misfortune so much on a miscarriage of justice due to your lawyer’s ineptitude as on a justice system in which the cards are stacked against you.  That is because you are a man.  The family-law system hates men.

That is nothing personal, but the more difficulties men encounter due to the justice system, the more money the players who inhabit the system and make it thrive can extract from men.  Family law grew into a social cancer.

The most important thing you can do is to get in touch with a fathers-rights organization in Flatbush, Tennessee.

It is highly likely, almost certain, that you must file your case in a Tennessee court, as Flatbush is the place of residence of the biological parents of your child.

However, do everything you can to keep the case out of family court. Family courts were a response by the legal system to the large back-log of divorce applications that occurred in the 1960’s as a consequence of the implementation of the concept of “no-fault” divorce (in whom the fault for the divorce is always placed squarely on the shoulders of the man). Family courts are not in existence to help families and to dispense justice for families.  They exist to pursue their original reason for existence: to help speed up the destruction of families.  In family courts the precepts of normal courts — to follow the rules of the courts and the rules of evidence, your right to be judged a jury of your peers, your right to face your accuser, your right to own property, your right the enjoy the earnings of your labour and your right not to be forced into indentured labour and not to have you forced into forking over your earnings to third parties — have all been abrogated and no longer apply.

You need to get in touch with that fathers-rights organization in Flatbush to learn from them what you can do to help your case.  You will most likely learn more from them than you can learn from a lawyer.  More importantly, you can ask them and learn from them how to go about finding a lawyer that can help you the best to win your case.  However, your chances of winning are slim.  That is because you are a man.  The system hates men.

That was in relation to your wish to obtain custody of your daughter.

As to what you must do to get compensation from your lawyer and to get him punished or fined for lack of action, for botching your case, and for being a bad lawyer all around, you will have to file that case in New York.  That case will have to be brought to court in New York, perhaps in New York State.

I do not know who in New York will be able to help you.  I am not aware of a fathers rights activist who may be able to point you into the right direction on that.  It will not hurt you to ask more fathers rights activist about it.

A word on your choice of lawyer in the very specialized field of family law:  Family law is not specialized because lawyers receive much training in family law (at some universities, family law is covered in no more than a day), but because it has become a sector of the justice system that, along with many other government bureaucracies nurtured by and living off it, grew into an enormously large and profitable industry that mainly extracts money from men and pretends that is justice, all under the excuse that it all is “in the best interest of the child.”

The relationship between you and any lawyer working for you is like that with any other contractor you hire. You are the boss and pay the bills and his wages.

A lawyer works for you according to your plan, your schedule, your objectives, your instructions and your supervision.  For you to miss out in any of those aspects is an invitation to disaster and much like giving the lawyer a signed, blank cheque.

Moreover, you must select and choose a lawyer like you would any other contractor.  With a construction or building-renovation project you may engage in a formal and tender and bidding process.  You would receive bids for a given job from more than one contractor.  You would evaluate the bids and pick the most promising contractor.  If you were not to do that, you would have no assurance that the contractor you hired would be the best for the job you want him to do.  If you don’t follow a similar process when hiring a lawyer, then there is no possible way that you can be sure to have hired the best lawyer possible.

As to going by the recommendation of someone who said you should pick that lawyer, “good advice” like that is cheap, and it is worth to you what you pay for it, but it may be worth more to the party offering the “good advice.”  Medical doctors pay a referral fee to other doctors who bring clients their way.  I don’t know whether lawyers operate that way, but I would be surprised if they did not.

As to how to find a fathers-rights organization, go to http://www.dvmen.org/dv-190.htm#help

Some general observations:

Given that your daughter is not your biological child, although you were duped into believing that she was, that will cause some special problems for you.  It appears obvious that you were duped in order to make you become involved in a strong emotional bond with your daughter.

The fact that the bond now exists lays you open to blackmail and extortion by the biological parents of the child.  Moreover, because you openly accepted the child as your own and are now even fighting for her custody and that of her sister, you are legally the father of that child and of her sister.

In all likelihood you will be paying child support until the girl comes of age or until she finishes her education, whichever comes later.  Yet, you may not ever see her again.  The “legal” system will insist that that is in the best interest of the child — not only that, but that your daughter is entitled to the level of comfort she became accustomed to while still in your care.  That means also that the child support amount will be increased over the years as your income increases.  It will be said that that is necessary because she would have the increase in the level of comfort if she were still with you, and that those increases in child support payments, too, are in the best interest of the child.

Moreover, it is relatively easy now to make you the father of not only the girl whom you believed was your daughter, but also of the one that clearly and quite openly was not your child.  That doubles the stakes in the game that you became involved in.

If the biological parents are in the state of existence you described, they will have a very strong interest in having you make those ever-increasing child support payments for as long as possible.  In fact, as far as they are concerned, the best thing that could happen would be for them to have your daughter(s) go to university for as long as possible.  They could well afford that, because you will be paying for it.

Your child support payments will be their major source of income.  It will be far better than receiving a government disability pension, and it is possible for them to use the power of the State to make sure the money you are able to pay will keep coming their way.

That will motivate the parents to refuse to hand the child(ren) over to you.  Against their resistance it will most likely be impossible for you to gain custody of your daughter(s).  The parents will have lawyers beating a path to their door to help them fight your application to gain custody.  You will be paying your lawyer out of your own resources.  Their lawyers will be paid out of the bottomless public purse.  You will therefore fight against an opponent with unlimited financial resources.

Under those circumstances it will be difficult for you to maintain the pretense that the girl is your daughter.  You will have little or no feedback from her to re-enforce your bond with her.  The question now is for how long you can keep up the pretense that the child is your daughter.  When that pretense ends, the child support you are paying will be seen by you for what it is, extortion money that you must pay because you were duped and defrauded.

If you were to consider all of that, you should then not fight for custody but for recognition of what happened.  You were duped and defrauded.  That is a crime.

You are not the father of that child, and you should fight to have your status cancelled of having been made the father through fraud.  Your legal paternity is a fraud.

If you were to base your future actions on the fact of that fraud and if you were to attempt to put an end to it, you would have a very small but slightly better chance to have your paternity declared null and void than you have to gain custody of one or both of the girls.

All the best,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Paternal Rights, Paternity Fraud | Print | 2 Comments »