Mother Wins 2 Appeals: Still No Kids
And MSM Misses the Mark—Again
A Custody Crisis case in Wisconsin is getting local and national MSM (mainstream media) attention. The mother, Julie, has done a great job of getting public support and publicity on her case.
However, as usual, MSM is not reporting about how Julie’s case is part of an international crisis of women losing custody, nor what the real reason is for this scourge.
Julie has fought hard, unsuccessfully, for many years to maintain custody and protect her children from her violent ex. Recently she’s won two appeals but still does not have custody of, nor even contact with, her four children, now ages 8 to 16.
Family Court Judge Michael Aprahamian minimized the prevalent violence and abuse testified to by Julie and admitted to by the father. He switched custody to the father using a version of the “unfriendly parent” legislation, lobbied for by fathers’ rights groups. He claimed Julie was “blowing the father’s violence out of proportion”, and in so doing, interfering with the father’s relationship with his kids.
Aprahamian also deemed Julie “not credible”, a legally acceptable way of portraying her as a liar and/or mentally unstable—age-old patriarchal tropes used prolifically in Family Court to deprive women of custody.
JULIE’S APPELLATE WINS
One reason for all the media attention on Julie’s case is that she won her second appeal this month, coming on the heels of her first win in December. It’s rare for a mother to have the wherewithal to appeal, even more uncommon for her to win the appeal, but to win twice in a few months is remarkable.
The first win was basically useless, though. The Appellate Court ruled that Judge Aprahamian had erred in deeming the presumption against giving custody to a domestic violence perpetrator had been rebutted (made moot) because Julie’s ex had completed a DV program. Apparently he had not completed a certified course.
[Of course, even “certified” courses have not been shown to “cure” violent men, nor has anything for that matter. The rebuttal exists as part of the rigged Family Court system to create a pretext for judges to give violent fathers custody.]
That appellate ruling does no good whatsoever for Julie or her children. Instead of suggesting the judge should reconsider his erroneous ruling, the Appellate Court should have overturned the illegal custody order and returned Julie’s children to her custody.
Julie’s second win is more substantive, as it includes the overturning of an order placing her in contempt, which was about to land her in jail. This was just one of many times she’s been found in contempt by this awful judge.
Family Court judges routinely jail mothers for contempt to punish, terrorize, disempower, and silence them.
Although it’s great the contempt ruling was overturned and Julie won’t go to jail, it does nothing to get her kids back or away from the abusive father.
APPELLATE COURTS ARE RIGGED TOO
Appellate courts are the only way to hold judges legally accountable. [Ethical commissions are totally useless.] But as is made obvious in Julie’s case, appeals rarely help mothers because Appellate Courts are rigged too.
First of all, filing an appellate case takes a lot of money and time, which most women don’t have, especially after a Family Court battle designed to bankrupt them. So it is a largely unattainable option in the vast majority of custody crisis cases.
The rare mother who has the wherewithal to appeal faces the exceptionally high appellate standard—judicial discretion—used only in family court cases, which is nearly impossible to overcome. In practice it means family court judges can pretty much do whatever they want.
But even when women like Julie win their appellate cases, it usually takes years and is just remanded back to the same judge who took custody away from them in the first place, or to a crony of his, who can just use something else to hang their hat on for the switch. Ironically, judges will often say it is in the children’s best interest to stay with the father as they have been there so long during the appellate process.
Sometimes, as with Julie’s case, an appellate win leads to the judge’s recusal. But even that rarely helps mothers get their kids back, as the new judge simply maintains the status quo or finds some new bogus justification for the father keeping custody.
The only way an Appellate Court can make a real difference is to overturn the order switching custody to the father and returning custody to the mother, but that is virtually unheard of.
So it is just an illusion that appellate courts provide accountability. That judicial system is rigged to allow the entitling of fathers in the family court system. There is nowhere and no way for women to get justice in custody cases except to get them out of Family Court and into a regular civil court with a jury. The Child Custody Act provides for this new system.
MSM MISSES THE REAL CAUSE
MSM is doing a pretty good job of reporting facts in Julie’s case and holding Judge Aprahamian publicly accountable by interviewing people who support Julie.
But it is important to recognize what MSM is missing about how Julie’s case fits into the broader Custody Crisis issue. The articles talk about the judge behaving in a biased manner, though they don’t make clear exactly what his bias is. Some articles describe it as a bias against DV victims.
But it is not just DV victims losing custody in massive numbers; it all women who find themselves in Family Court up against an ex who wants to take custody away from her—for whatever reason.
And it is not that judges are biased against women, consciously or unconsciously, although some surely are. There are plenty of female judges who aren’t biased against women or against DV victims, yet they still habitually switch custody to the father.
No, the problem is not simply biased judges.
The problem, which MSM keeps missing when they report on custody crisis cases, is that judges are deliberately discriminating against women due to the agenda to keep men entitled and empowered in their family.
If MSM would get this right, it would help women and the general public recognize the magnitude of what is occurring in family courts, how damaging this is for so many women and children, and how badly we need a new system.
OUTCOME FOR JULIE
Judge Aprahamian recently recused himself from Julie’s case following the appellate losses and negative publicity. Notice it was HE who recused himself. It is nearly impossible for mothers to get judges recused. Judges can dismiss or strike the motion. They have all the power, by design.
Of course it is a good thing this horrible judge recused himself, however, at a hearing Friday the new judge, Ralph Ramirez, did not return custody to Julie, as he should have. He scheduled yet another hearing.
And on and on it goes, hearing after hearing...while the children grow up without their loving mother.
Let’s hope Julie is one of the rare mothers who actually gets her children back and is able to protect them…
MSM ARTICLES ON JULIE’S CASE
“She Said Her Husband Was Abusive: A Judge Took Away Her Kids and Ordered Her Arrest”
“Waukesha County judge acted with bias against domestic violence victim in custody case, state appeals court finds”
For more information on the Custody Crisis, visit our website: WomensCoalitionInternational.org
This is exactly what had been done to me & my 3 #TAKEN Boze Children: Devon, Cheylan & Nashera, by the Mafia run Family Destruction Court System in Helmerica! I WILL NEVER BELIEVE IN THESE FELONY AGENTS SENT STRAIGHT FROM THE PITS OF HELL TO DESTROY WOMEN, CHILDREN & FAMILIES FOREVER! Government Agents/Agencies use So-called Help as a fraudulent way to entrap you into their WICKED OPERATIONS OF DIABOLICAL, MONEY MAKING SCHEMES OF: KIDNAPPING, SLAVERY, SEX TRAFFICKING, PORNOGRAPHY, CORRUPTION, MURDER, DRUG ABUSE & FRAUDULENT IMMORAL ACTIVITIES!
AmericasTAKENChildren.com
AmericasTAKENChildren.org
I have shared with the Propublica reporter. She told me she was going to do a "real" article. But alas she did a Joan Meier/DV shill propaganda piece. All this article does is promote the "treatment" - at the end she mentions the treatment dad got is not on the list of approved treatments - it is probably done by father's rights and paid for with fatherhood grants. The author doesn't even mention the name of the treatment center. Something is wrong when propaganda becomes the news.