Courts make it too easy to separate good dads from their kids!

[Rick Nebiolo]

While posting an innocuous link to Radified's home page (http://radified.com/index2.html) on the 2+2 Computer Technical Help forum I stumbled upon a section of his web site (http://radified.com/restraining_order/domestic_violence.htm) describing his ordeal noted in the title of this post.

Reading this made my blood boil.

I only know know Radified by the excellent technical tutorials on computer security, stability and other related topics he provides for free from his web site, which is in part a personal blog. He's an ex-submariner who lives in my county (Orange County, California) and he comes across as a straight shooter (as most ex-submariners do - I worked with a bunch in the eighties).

If you are a married man with young children (or might be some day) and think a divorce is even a remote possibility (which it is for all practical purposes) you need to read this. Even if you don't read it anyway. Boiling blood is good for you.

~ Rick

[lehighguy]

My half brother Thomas recentely got divorced. He was never the greatest guy. He did a lot of drugs when he was younger. But when he got married and had kids he really shaped up. He didn't drink or do drugs. He started this really tough job so he could afford a mortgage. He made sure the kids did thier homework and night and read alot. Both of em are at the top of thier class.

His wife was a total dingbat though. She started doing drugs and then started cheating on him. When he found out he wanted a divorce. However, the court values a drug using adulterer over Tommy because she's a women and he's a man.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
My half brother Thomas recentely got divorced. He was never the greatest guy. He did a lot of drugs when he was younger. But when he got married and had kids he really shaped up. He didn't drink or do drugs. He started this really tough job so he could afford a mortgage. He made sure the kids did thier homework and night and read alot. Both of em are at the top of thier class.

His wife was a total dingbat though. She started doing drugs and then started cheating on him. When he found out he wanted a divorce. However, the court values a drug using adulterer over Tommy because she's a women and he's a man.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's awful. I wonder if "You go girl" Oprah has ever done a story on this sort of thing.

~ Rick

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My half brother Thomas recentely got divorced. He was never the greatest guy. He did a lot of drugs when he was younger. But when he got married and had kids he really shaped up. He didn't drink or do drugs. He started this really tough job so he could afford a mortgage. He made sure the kids did thier homework and night and read alot. Both of em are at the top of thier class.

His wife was a total dingbat though. She started doing drugs and then started cheating on him. When he found out he wanted a divorce. However, the court values a drug using adulterer over Tommy because she's a women and he's a man.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's awful. I wonder if "You go girl" Oprah has ever done a story on this sort of thing.

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]


Isn't her audience mostly women? Why would she?

In regard to the OP: Having read Radified's website, doesn't this fit into the "there's two sides to every story" file? Granted, I don't know him personally, and you seem to have a better idea of his nature - but I think divorce cases like this are notorious for being 'messy' because of the difficulty of judging which partner is telling the truth. Certainly, the justice system is over-loaded; while it might be nice to get the bottom of every single case, that's probably impractical. It is a sad story, if true - yet I'm not sure what the remedy is - other than spending huge amounts of money and overhauling the justice system; while his suggestions seemed reasonable, they didn't (in my mind) do much to alleviate the problem.

And despite Radified's objections, I do see some wisdom in issuing TROs before a vigorous fact-checking process can take place. Certainly, though, if what he's saying is true - at some point, vigorous fact-checking should take place.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
And despite Radified's objections, I do see some wisdom in issuing TROs before a vigorous fact-checking process can take place. Certainly, though, if what he's saying is true - at some point, vigorous fact-checking should take place.

[/ QUOTE ]

A point he made was that the TRO is issued without him being notified of the court date so he can present at least some evidence he is not abusive and so on.

Also he indicates there is no penalty when the a parent (typically the woman) makes clearly perjured claims.

I'm not expert here and would appreciate others thoughts.

Regards,

Rick

[lehighguy]

"And despite Radified's objections, I do see some wisdom in issuing TROs before a vigorous fact-checking process can take place."

Then you've never had a restraining order put on you. When my grandfather was about to die my Aunt got a restraining order put on us. My grandfather was losing it by that point, his wife had just died, and she wanted to get her hands on the money. Once she did she left my grandfather to die alone, none of us were allowed to see him. She didn't even pay for the funeral, my other Aunt did. At the funeral she left halfway through to meet a lawyer so she could sign some papers and get a check. In the middle of his freaking funeral.

Could the court have avoided this, sure. Christ, the information was there and easy to get. My parents took care of my grandparents when they got ill. When my grandmother had cancer she came to live with us for a year. We took care of her until the day she died. My mother was always the responsible daughter. Her sister was always a total wacko though. She dropped out of 6 colleges, was constantly in mental counciling, dated these total wierdos. If the court had bothered to obtain testimony from anyone in the family or looked up any records they would have put out a restraining order on her, not our family.

I never got to say goodbye to my grandfather, and he died alone and afraid. Something has to change.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
"And despite Radified's objections, I do see some wisdom in issuing TROs before a vigorous fact-checking process can take place."

Then you've never had a restraining order put on you. When my grandfather was about to die my Aunt got a restraining order put on us. My grandfather was losing it by that point, his wife had just died, and she wanted to get her hands on the money. Once she did she left my grandfather to die alone, none of us were allowed to see him. She didn't even pay for the funeral, my other Aunt did. At the funeral she left halfway through to meet a lawyer so she could sign some papers and get a check. In the middle of his freaking funeral.

Could the court have avoided this, sure. Christ, the information was there and easy to get. My parents took care of my grandparents when they got ill. When my grandmother had cancer she came to live with us for a year. We took care of her until the day she died. My mother was always the responsible daughter. Her sister was always a total wacko though. She dropped out of 6 colleges, was constantly in mental counciling, dated these total wierdos. If the court had bothered to obtain testimony from anyone in the family or looked up any records they would have put out a restraining order on her, not our family.

I never got to say goodbye to my grandfather, and he died alone and afraid. Something has to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I've never had a restraining order put on me. And while your family situation sounds unfair, I certainly think the state has an interest in protecting people from possible attackers first, and fact-checking next, as the time it takes to investigate various situations can be lengthy, and TROs could give some level of protection against potential attackers. I grant that the system isn't perfect, but I don't see an alternative to TROs. I'd hate to think an abused partner (in a life-threatening situation) might have to wait a substantial amount of time before receiving what could be a life-saving restraining order.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I've never had a restraining order put on me. And while your family situation sounds unfair, I certainly think the state has an interest in protecting people from possible attackers first, and fact-checking next, as the time it takes to investigate various situations can be lengthy, and TROs could give some level of protection against potential attackers. I grant that the system isn't perfect, but I don't see an alternative to TROs. I'd hate to think an abused partner (in a life-threatening situation) might have to wait a substantial amount of time before receiving what could be a life-saving restraining order.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's arguing that extensive fact finding must take place before issuing the TRO. His point is that he never had a chance to easily disprove key points in the petition for a TRO the day it was issued.

~ Rick

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]

Also he indicates there is no penalty when the a parent (typically the woman) makes clearly perjured claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perjury is quite difficult to prove - that is, I think there are very few 'clear' cases of perjury - which is why successful perjury convictions are rather rare.

And while Radified feels the civil court ruling in his favor demonstrates his wife was lying, that's not necessarily the case. He makes no mention (at least from what I saw) about why he won his civil court case, but it could be on grounds unrelated as to whether or not his wife was telling the truth.

[lehighguy]

What about my grandfather. When we first lost contact with him he was still in good health (physically). We have it on good authority that he may have been denied certain treatments that could have prolonged his life, maybe even cured him. That's a life threatening situation. And yet the court kept away the people that could have helped him and placed him in the care of someone that wanted him dead for thier own personal gain. The slightest bit of effort and investigation could have avoided the situation. The problems the guy lists in his journal are just some, but they go on.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I never got to say goodbye to my grandfather, and he died alone and afraid. Something has to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, man, that's a sad story. Same for the OP. I think I'm gonna start wearing my "have you bitchslapped a feminist today?" button again.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What about my grandfather. When we first lost contact with him he was still in good health (physically). We have it on good authority that he may have been denied certain treatments that could have prolonged his life, maybe even cured him. That's a life threatening situation. And yet the court kept away the people that could have helped him and placed him in the care of someone that wanted him dead for thier own personal gain. The slightest bit of effort and investigation could have avoided the situation. The problems the guy lists in his journal are just some, but they go on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand - we can probably point to thousands of instances where the justice system fails;

However, in regards to TROs, I'm not sure that there's a remedy to the problem, in a way that doesn't weaken the TRO's legitimate uses. Seems as if the current system is the lesser of two evils.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
His point is that he never had a chance to easily disprove key points in the petition for a TRO the day it was issued.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a way to easily disprove charges of abuse? Isn't that the "two sides of the story" phenomenon I mentioned earlier?

However, I agree that there seems something counter-intuitive about having the accuser call the accused and inform them about the hearing; yet Radified never explains why he didn't immediately contact a lawyer, and why that lawyer didn't alert him of his options. It seems as if his lawyer eventually alerted him to the fact that he could present his case at the hearing, but that this alert came too late.

In that way, I suppose Radified's advice is a sound: if you get accused of any kind of serious crime, go find a good lawyer ASAP. Sounds like he found one too late.

[cardcounter0]

It has improved some. Used to be the biggest piece of lying dung, total bottom of the barrel whore, mother -vs- fine upstanding hard working citizen father -- the mother automatically got the kids.

Now there is some consideration given, if the mother is a total strung out junkie scum sucking psycho nut, then there is a slight chance the father might get custody.

[$DEADSEXE$]

All this takes to fix is some well placed drugs in/on her propery and a random call to the police.

A friend of mine got date raped by a rich kid, a major prick to boot, in high school. His dad hired a really good lawyer and the case never even went to trial.
So one of my best friends, who had always had a thing for her, put a shitload of drugs in his spare tire in the trunk and made a random call to the police reporting his car.

[lehighguy]

I don't think it's much to ask to at least have both sides testify before the judge before issuing one. There are a million other reforms, but that seems like such a basic thing that I can't believe it isn't done.

[lehighguy]

That's not really the same case as with my Brother. It wasn't a man/women thing. It was just an example of failure of the system.

[Cyrus]

Here is the key paragraph in the man's web article, the one that shows the root of his troubles:

[ QUOTE ]
Note: If you are genuinely abusive ..., you deserve everything coming to you. People like you are the reason the courts have made it so easy to screw people like me.


[/ QUOTE ]

The system has to go by the stats and the stats are making that man's battle all uphill.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the key paragraph in the man's web article, the one that shows the root of his troubles:

[ QUOTE ]
Note: If you are genuinely abusive ..., you deserve everything coming to you. People like you are the reason the courts have made it so easy to screw people like me.


[/ QUOTE ]

The system has to go by the stats and the stats are making that man's battle all uphill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed that too. Good point Cyrus.

~ Rick

[Darryl_P]

I see the two as related in that the system is basically run by feminists.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Have you bitch-slapped a feminist today?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Each and every one of us came out of a vagina.

Some folks can deal with this fact. Other folks can't.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
We all came out of a vagina.

[/ QUOTE ]
My sister didn't... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We all came out of a vagina.

[/ QUOTE ]
My sister didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Subset.

[Darryl_P]

I'm quite fond of vaginas and women too for that matter, with the exception of feminists who are small in number (fortunately) but large in influence (unfortunately).

Maybe the number is large in the USA, but luckily not (yet) in my part of the world.

[Darryl_P]

As an example, here's a group of women I particularly dig:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
The system has to go by the stats and the stats are making that man's battle all uphill.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand there are some pretty strong stats showing that kids that grow up without a father (not neccesarilly biological) are huge favorites over those that do to end up as criminals, addicts, abusers, abusees or with any of a host of other social or personal problems.

Personally I think the law we have in sweden that proscribe shared custody even if both parents aposes it is pretty spot on.

If you're grown-ups you work it out!

/Bjorn

[Bluffoon]

I didnt read the link or any of the replies but I know from personal experience that as a divorced father you have just one right.

The right to pay.

[Easy E]

and women too for that matter, with the exception of feminists who are small in number (fortunately) but large in influence (unfortunately).

You're against women standing up for their perceived rights, and for the rights of others?

Care to explain that, or should I stick with my first impression?

[elwoodblues]

It's probably best to just stick with your first impression on this one. My guess is that he's someone who has used the term "feminazi" seriously in the past 24 months, has very little understanding of what a feminist is, and doesn't care to learn more because it's easier to just say you don't like feminists.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You're against women standing up for their perceived rights, and for the rights of others?


[/ QUOTE ]

They can yap about their rights 'till the cows come home for all I care, but they ain't gettin' a piece of me as long as I can help it.

I don't know what your first impression is, but if it feels right, go with it!