Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Family Court Injustices to Men
by Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?

Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?

Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?

These are among the injustices that the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.

His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.

Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer.

Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

And now the gov wants health care, too?
Never having been married and not having any children, I don't have any tales of woe or abuse suffered personally at the hands of the family court system, but in reading some of the stories here, it only reinforces my already-set-in-stone conviction that under no circumstances should our government be entrusted to be totally in charge of our nation's entire health-care system.

I've proposed in days past on this board ways I thought bureaucrats in such a system, if it ever comes about, could visit abuses upon those who fall into the orbit of the system, namely when they need treatment for a major condition for which a bureaucrat has totally authority to approve or deny - and was laughed at by a lot of liberals who thought my ideas that such abuses could happen in a totally government-run health-care system (which, like the family court bureaucracy, figure to be overwhelmingly staffed by those of a more liberal political persuasion given the fondness of liberals for government vs. private-sector work) were loony.

Well, the kind of abuses that many of the posters have been relating here (such as Jackpine Savage's of 12:53 pm of the "home worker" who lied about a family she was "helping" to obviously take revenge on the
person she was supposed to be "helping") ostensibly weren't supposed to be able to happen in the family court system, either - but they have and do, and a LOT more frequently than liberals want to admit, too.

Like our public-school system, the family court system has been politicized by liberals and made to serve political ends, not ends that are in the best interests of the families "served" by the system. Why should I believe anything will be different in a government-run health-care system?

From a very sad Grandmother
The family courts seem to be, if not broken, then oddly balanced. The best interest of the child is the the line spoken, but sometimes not enforced.
One case, my daughter lost custody of her beautiful baby boy when her recently divorced husband made accusations of physical abuse and drug use WHITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF. My daughter did not have an attorney at the first hearing, and the judge proceeded to place the child exclusively with the father anyways. The court asked for proof, the Mother (and her new boyfriend both) took voluntary drug tests for months. NO PROOF of the accusations, no reasonable belief that they were "working the game". Now, several years after the original filing, my daughter sees her beautiful son 4 days per month, period. She has remarried, there is a new, beautiful son (her first childs half brother) who only sees the firstborn son 4 days a month. Child support was held in abeyance by the court., but was used as a reason to deny the Mother custody.
How was the decision made: literally, the judge told both parties (lawyers) to write an order and he would sign one of them.
In another county in our state several siblings are in a home which includes drugs, child neglect, leaving small children home alone, violence, extra-relationship sex, abortions (the now 7 year old says that "Mama kills her babies" and noone seems to get past a slap on the hand and "we'll keep an eye on them". Mom already lost custody of the 7 year old, but what about the rest of these children?

How in either case is the best interests of the child being served?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.