Systemic male entitlement is alive and well in family court. Mothers and children are killing themselves to escape the horror that family court judges sentence them to. Family court judges give custody to fathers that request it. They give child custody to abusive fathers. Family court judges knowingly give custody of children to rapists. Court appointees knowingly go along with family court judges. Women are discriminated against in family court. Mothers and children have no rights. There is no due process or equal protection in family court. Mothers and their children are treated inhumanely by family court judges. GALS, parenting coordinators and other court officials go along with family court judges. The rare exceptions that dare speak the truth are ignored and suppressed by family court judges. Family court judges abuse their power and lives depend on their power being removed. We need child custody cases heard by a jury not a family court judge. Mothers and their children are dying due to family court judicial abuse.
There are good men that are good fathers. My hope this Father's Day is that these good men join with us and demand this change. Our stories could be the stories of their loved ones. Their daughters, stepdaughters, granddaughters, goddaughters, nieces and their children could one day face our horror. I hope the good men out there join with us to protect women and children.
My custody case was in the USA (Ohio). The family court judge also did not obey the law. There is nothing you can do about it. New laws will not make a difference when judges do not obey laws. The court officials went along with him. Psychological and violence reports were ignored and sealed. Women and children have no rights in family court. Family court judges abuse their power and have no accountability. They enable abusive fathers. Judges not obeying laws and having no consequences for their actions does encourage violence against women and children. Family court judges will continue to get away with murder until they are rendered powerless. Custody cases must be heard by a jury not a judge.
Believing that any court is a solution to this issue is a gross misconception. This issue is backed by the government. It is an agenda, and no court or jury will offer a resolution. Period.
Yes, patriarchy is entrenched everywhere but Civil Court--with juries and other due process protections provided for in the Child Custody Act--will be a thousand times better than Family Court. Mothers will have a much better chance of keeping and protecting their children. And hopefully in the meantime women will continue to gain power and erode away patriarchal influence and rigging of all systems.
We can't give legal advice but you can send a summary of your story if you want it to be publicized. We are in the process of gathering women for activism and local support and will add you to our list if you want. womenscoalitionintl@gmail.com
Can you please post the case information. I could use another precedent for my current argument.
The concealment of the existing evidence and history of abuse by a judicial officer with such a duty, additionally and/or separately violates Wis. Stat. § 946.12(1). Factors required to be considered for a modification under Wis. Stat. § 767.41(5)(am)(11.), “Whether any of the following has a criminal record or whether there is evidence that any of the following has engaged in abuse, as defined in s. 813.122(1)(a), of the child or any other child or neglected the child or any other child: a. A party.” In Wis. Stat. § 813.122(a) “Abuse" has the meaning given in s. 48.02(1)(b).” The Wis. Stat. § 48.02(1)(b) definition of abuse includes sexual intercourse or sexual contact under Wis. Stat. § 948.02. The Police Department Case Report Summary states, “Incident Type: Sexual Assault of a Child” and “Offenses: 1, state, 11d, 948.02(1)(E) 1st DEGREE SEXUAL ASSULT – CONTACT WITH PERSON UNDER 13.” (Police Department Case Report Summary). The court appointees had the duty to report child abuse, this obligation is not discretionary, and the duty has been found to be a non-discretionary ministerial duty in Baumgardt v. Wausau School Dist. Bd. of Education, 475 F. Supp. 2d 800, 809-10 (W.D. Wis. 2007). The guardian ad litem, had a non-discretionary minstrel duty to present information and evidence from the history of the abuse of the child because “it is the duty of a guardian ad litem to communicate with the court as a lawyer for a party and to present information by presenting evidence.” Hollister v. Hollister, 173 Wis. 2d 413, 496 N.W. 2d 642 (Ct. App. 1992). The Social Service report was based entirely on the Child’s testimony and interview, it was neither speculative or unfounded. The Guardian Ad Litem negligently and intentionally misrepresented the Child Protective Service and the Police Department’s allegations of Father’s perpetration of a 1st degree child sexual assault of the child by purporting the word ‘UNSUBSTANTIATED’ to mean abuse did not occur. Wisconsin, Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem, explains child protective services use of the term UNSUBSTANTIATED is not indicative of abuse non-occurrence. Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem, says:
“Child Protective Service (CPS) Records: CPS records may show prior reports of abuse, neglect, or violence in the home. Under Wis. Stat. §48.981(7)(b), a guardian ad litem may review these child protective services records if one or both parents of the child have signed a release authorizing the disclosure of this information. Inquire with the county CPS agency as to the required form and procedure to avoid an unnecessary delay in obtaining the information. If the parents are unwilling to sign such an authorization, a guardian ad litem also has the option of filing a motion for an order allowing access to specific information. Many judicial officers, while careful to protect confidentiality, will be generous in allowing a guardian ad litem access to relevant information upon a careful showing of need and meeting the overriding standard of in the best interests of the children. Review CPS records carefully and acknowledge their limitations. At times, agencies will “screen out” or “unsubstantiate” reports of alleged maltreatment and not take any further action. This does not necessarily indicate that the alleged actions did not occur. The Wisconsin Access and Initial Assessment Standards requires the agency to determine whether there are present or impending threats that place the child at risk of harm when determining response times or if a report is to be “screened out.”
Wis. Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem. at 50-51 (2017).
The case was screened out because at that time the child was in the care and custody of the protective parent, the mother.
Please view my GLOBAL PETITION to UN PETITIONS TEAM @ https://chn.ge/2Hpu2aa - I am trying to get WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL LAW [CEDAW] into the domestic level - in an effort to stop perpetual discrimination against women
CEDAW - CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION TO ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN - https://rebrand.ly/20sgod4
14,470 are for HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL LAW at the domestic level
¡ F I N A L L Y = BREAKING that EFFING judicial immunity ... ... a wee bit ! FINALLY.
Systemic male entitlement is alive and well in family court. Mothers and children are killing themselves to escape the horror that family court judges sentence them to. Family court judges give custody to fathers that request it. They give child custody to abusive fathers. Family court judges knowingly give custody of children to rapists. Court appointees knowingly go along with family court judges. Women are discriminated against in family court. Mothers and children have no rights. There is no due process or equal protection in family court. Mothers and their children are treated inhumanely by family court judges. GALS, parenting coordinators and other court officials go along with family court judges. The rare exceptions that dare speak the truth are ignored and suppressed by family court judges. Family court judges abuse their power and lives depend on their power being removed. We need child custody cases heard by a jury not a family court judge. Mothers and their children are dying due to family court judicial abuse.
There are good men that are good fathers. My hope this Father's Day is that these good men join with us and demand this change. Our stories could be the stories of their loved ones. Their daughters, stepdaughters, granddaughters, goddaughters, nieces and their children could one day face our horror. I hope the good men out there join with us to protect women and children.
The Family Court is a global problem. In my case matters in Australia, the judges just did not OBEY THE LAW and encouraged "violence against women"
My custody case was in the USA (Ohio). The family court judge also did not obey the law. There is nothing you can do about it. New laws will not make a difference when judges do not obey laws. The court officials went along with him. Psychological and violence reports were ignored and sealed. Women and children have no rights in family court. Family court judges abuse their power and have no accountability. They enable abusive fathers. Judges not obeying laws and having no consequences for their actions does encourage violence against women and children. Family court judges will continue to get away with murder until they are rendered powerless. Custody cases must be heard by a jury not a judge.
Believing that any court is a solution to this issue is a gross misconception. This issue is backed by the government. It is an agenda, and no court or jury will offer a resolution. Period.
Yes, patriarchy is entrenched everywhere but Civil Court--with juries and other due process protections provided for in the Child Custody Act--will be a thousand times better than Family Court. Mothers will have a much better chance of keeping and protecting their children. And hopefully in the meantime women will continue to gain power and erode away patriarchal influence and rigging of all systems.
This is the same judge who allowed my abusive ex husband to take my 4 children away from me. Can you please help me??
We can't give legal advice but you can send a summary of your story if you want it to be publicized. We are in the process of gathering women for activism and local support and will add you to our list if you want. womenscoalitionintl@gmail.com
Can you please post the case information. I could use another precedent for my current argument.
The concealment of the existing evidence and history of abuse by a judicial officer with such a duty, additionally and/or separately violates Wis. Stat. § 946.12(1). Factors required to be considered for a modification under Wis. Stat. § 767.41(5)(am)(11.), “Whether any of the following has a criminal record or whether there is evidence that any of the following has engaged in abuse, as defined in s. 813.122(1)(a), of the child or any other child or neglected the child or any other child: a. A party.” In Wis. Stat. § 813.122(a) “Abuse" has the meaning given in s. 48.02(1)(b).” The Wis. Stat. § 48.02(1)(b) definition of abuse includes sexual intercourse or sexual contact under Wis. Stat. § 948.02. The Police Department Case Report Summary states, “Incident Type: Sexual Assault of a Child” and “Offenses: 1, state, 11d, 948.02(1)(E) 1st DEGREE SEXUAL ASSULT – CONTACT WITH PERSON UNDER 13.” (Police Department Case Report Summary). The court appointees had the duty to report child abuse, this obligation is not discretionary, and the duty has been found to be a non-discretionary ministerial duty in Baumgardt v. Wausau School Dist. Bd. of Education, 475 F. Supp. 2d 800, 809-10 (W.D. Wis. 2007). The guardian ad litem, had a non-discretionary minstrel duty to present information and evidence from the history of the abuse of the child because “it is the duty of a guardian ad litem to communicate with the court as a lawyer for a party and to present information by presenting evidence.” Hollister v. Hollister, 173 Wis. 2d 413, 496 N.W. 2d 642 (Ct. App. 1992). The Social Service report was based entirely on the Child’s testimony and interview, it was neither speculative or unfounded. The Guardian Ad Litem negligently and intentionally misrepresented the Child Protective Service and the Police Department’s allegations of Father’s perpetration of a 1st degree child sexual assault of the child by purporting the word ‘UNSUBSTANTIATED’ to mean abuse did not occur. Wisconsin, Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem, explains child protective services use of the term UNSUBSTANTIATED is not indicative of abuse non-occurrence. Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem, says:
“Child Protective Service (CPS) Records: CPS records may show prior reports of abuse, neglect, or violence in the home. Under Wis. Stat. §48.981(7)(b), a guardian ad litem may review these child protective services records if one or both parents of the child have signed a release authorizing the disclosure of this information. Inquire with the county CPS agency as to the required form and procedure to avoid an unnecessary delay in obtaining the information. If the parents are unwilling to sign such an authorization, a guardian ad litem also has the option of filing a motion for an order allowing access to specific information. Many judicial officers, while careful to protect confidentiality, will be generous in allowing a guardian ad litem access to relevant information upon a careful showing of need and meeting the overriding standard of in the best interests of the children. Review CPS records carefully and acknowledge their limitations. At times, agencies will “screen out” or “unsubstantiate” reports of alleged maltreatment and not take any further action. This does not necessarily indicate that the alleged actions did not occur. The Wisconsin Access and Initial Assessment Standards requires the agency to determine whether there are present or impending threats that place the child at risk of harm when determining response times or if a report is to be “screened out.”
Wis. Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem. at 50-51 (2017).
The case was screened out because at that time the child was in the care and custody of the protective parent, the mother.
See how women's rights are fast disappearing - things are much worse than previous - chng.it/2mfCWZKN
Please view my GLOBAL PETITION to UN PETITIONS TEAM @ https://chn.ge/2Hpu2aa - I am trying to get WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL LAW [CEDAW] into the domestic level - in an effort to stop perpetual discrimination against women
CEDAW - CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION TO ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN - https://rebrand.ly/20sgod4
14,470 are for HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL LAW at the domestic level
How do you go against a gal is a domestic violence situation?