Today is one of our longer ones, but it could save you thousands of dollars in legal fees. So please digest all of it, and pass the message on to others. This is Day 147 in the countdown to the Founding Fathers March, sponsored by the Parenting Rights Institute and National League of Fathers. Inc. Today we honor the grandparents of America. Without them we would not be here. This is a central theme of my introduction to our march published on Day 156. Parenting is an inalienable right which runs back in time over countless generations to make possible the civilization we enjoy today.
Grandparent interests are also a subject of my test cases which seek to get government out of the “child business” as one Family Court put it. The case Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57, 75, 100-102 (2000) represents the last time our Supreme Court addressed the parenting right, repeatedly described as the “oldest liberty interest” protected by the Constitution. It was a grandparent rights case divided into six conflicting opinions with Judge Scalia as the lone dissent arguing that no such right exists. As relevant here, the court declared that drawn out custody litigation could become sufficiently burdensome as a violation of the Constitution.
Since I became involved in the parenting rights movement and what I call the last bastion of institutional discrimination left un-remedied in America today (prejudice upon fathers in domestic relations courts), I note with dismay that the majority of our responders continue to be women. There are certainly various reasons to explain this, but the one that I think most prevalent is the damage which these “custody” and “support” laws are producing upon the very same gender which promoted them.
This is easily seen in the second wives, girlfriends and family members called upon to pay for the cost of litigation and money obligations which are cranked out of these courts for the benefit of third parties. Among the goals in one of our cases pending at a middle level appeals court is to secure a study and remedy from New York’s Unified Court System behind the vast amounts of monies diverted from the child to pay for court battles concocted by lawyers using fraudulent claims, inflamed issues and an utter exploitation of the laws of nature, see i.e. yesterday’s commitment of Judge Martha Walsh-Hood.
One illustration, magnified by millions of others across America, is sufficient for purposes of today’s dedication. A grandmother approaching the age of 70 contacted me in response to our Thanksgiving post and next day “Shopping with Martha on Black Friday”. Distraught over the condition that she found her son and grandchildren, she sought my assistance. Due to the lack of significant contributions to our Parenting Rights Institute, however, I could not travel to her location, file a helpful amicus brief, or appear in court as an expert. Nevertheless, I did my best to explain our reform efforts and March on Washington.
She related a heart wrenching story so familiar to the thousands I have studied over the years. Her son was denied holiday time with his children. Therefore, she was similarly injured as a grandparent. But this was only the beginning of her pain and suffering. She had shelled out more than $30,000 in legal fees for her son’s divorce and custody battles, putting up her home in the process to get a loan. Now he was facing a court order to pay another $30,000 for the ex spouse’s lawyer while the son tried to make ends meet paying so-called “child support”. You should familiarize yourself with this particular fraud elsewhere on our site.
The situation was obviously untenable, and the judge presiding over this fiasco could care less about the injuries he was logically inflicting upon extended family members. The woman’s son would soon be doing time in a debtors’ prison if these obligations were not satisfied. Indeed that is how this “custodial institution of childrearing” was designed to work behind closed doors. A giant gold mine was envisioned by the people who drafted amendments to the federal Child Support Standards Act during the nineties.
Now put your common sense hat on, I explained to this wonderful, loving grandmother. If you could resurrect those debtor prisons, ruled unconstitutional 200 years ago, the threat of six months in the slammer for a non-criminal act would cause mainstream American to give up literally billions of dollars to lawyers, politicians and forensic feeders of a dysfunctional childrearing system. These socialist feeders include psychiatrists, law guardians, evaluators, anger management “experts”, and the newest one which combines insanity and audacity in the twilight zone, the so-called “Parent Education Class”.
Keep that hat on now, Ms. Robinson, as I give you more logic. Unequal laws are inherently unjust. That’s not me saying it. Our Founding Fathers did, and you’ll find it in the Constitution. But when money becomes the subject, such inconvenient principles are simply phased out with propaganda, in this case the state acting in our children’s so-called “best interests”, see also Mein Kampf, by Adolph Hitler. Just think about that broad standard for a minute. Even a half baked lawyer could come up with something to make a “best interest” argument.
Meanwhile the unsuspecting client is led to believe that something intellectual is occurring in these courts. A favorite case citation of mine is Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY 2d 727 (1996) where New York’s high court compared a custody relocation case to a nursery rhyme character. It callously blamed the pieces of a broken marriage upon the parents but never addressed how the court process pushed “Humpty Dumpty” off the wall. By keeping things unbalanced and oppressive, like we did slavery and women in the day, it keeps litigants coming in search of justice which cannot be provided. Very simply, you get hamsters in a cage, entertaining second rate lawyers and the public.
Under current law, you have guaranteed losers on both sides of any case with children often turned into rudderless zombies, particularly after the “professionals” arrive with their bag of experimental chemicals. The state mandated fight over one’s own offspring will logically produce unconventional behavior, and then the judge, pretending to be ashamed and shocked at the parents’ immaturity, now remands the whole nuclear family for costly counseling. If Hitler had such audacity, we would be living today in Nazi America. It’s a goldmine that even he never envisioned.
So what’s the answer, Mr. Koziol, asked the grandmother. My best suggestion in reply was that she help me find a way to fund this mission of reform, our Parenting Rights Institute and the Founding Fathers March. $10, $20 and $50 contributions are certainly helpful, but this is not the kind of commitment which can take on a multi-billion dollar child industry. If the $60,000 in combined fees spent on her son’s case were applied to this cause, given the personal sacrifices already made, I could have secured the kind of reform that would have made her holidays more pleasant. I could hear her on the home computer as she began looking for donors along with a farewell statement to the effect that those lawyers “did nothing” for her.