Feminist 'Greater Good' Excuses Deny Constitutional Rights of Fathers in Family Court - By: Shane Flait

Family Court unjustly uses the 'greater good' excuse of 'best interest of the child' to override constitutional rights and protections of overwhelmingly fathers. Its setup and use of the greater good 'abuse' excuse, too, shows it has no interest in protecting a father's rights but to deny him his children and extort his earnings for the best interest of the mother.

Securing our unalienable (aka constitutional) rights - including parental right, right to property and earnings, life, and pursuit of happiness - is why the U.S. was formed. You can't be denied any constitutional right unless you're clearly proven guilty of committing a serious wrong, or unfit in the case of parental rights. And, upholding the constitutional rights of one person cannot ever be based on denying those of another where no real wrong is done.

There is no 'greater good' than our constitutional rights and their protections. 'Greater good' excuses are what tyrannies use to justify denying fundamental rights to some or all of their citizens.

It's our constitutional rights and protections that courts - all courts - are purposed to protect while adjudicating cases. Any court that denies a litigant's constitutional rights without the required constitutional due process and fairness by invoking a 'greater good' legal excuse commits treason and tyrannizes that litigant.

The family court, now a perverse distortion of its original form, daily denies not only the constitutional rights of litigants - overwhelmingly father - but the very processes and fairness that the possibility of such denials necessarily requires. It does so by invoking the 'best interest of the child' excuse without the necessity of proving the unfitness of a father. And, it accepts the safety of women 'abuse' excuse from mothers to deny overwhelmingly fathers even more rights without the required due process.

*Family court purview and setup shows its treasonous actions:

Women overwhelmingly file divorce or paternity complaints for the privileges family court affords them. The family court dissolves the marriage while determining:

1. which parent shall have physical and legal custody of the child(ren) - which implies denying the parental rights of one parent - overwhelmingly the father,

2. how much child support the noncustodial parent must pay to the custodial parent - which extorts the noncustodial father's property - his earnings - under the euphemism of 'child support' for whatever the mother wishes to use it for.

3. the division of assets between the husband and wife - an appropriation of property without regard to wrong done,

4. how much alimony one parent must pay the other - more appropriation of property

Paternity actions determine only the first two above - i.e. custody and child support issues.

The court's judgment on each of these issues requires no wrong committed by a parent, nor unfitness proven. In fact the court set up is characterized by:

* No jury trial since the judge serves as both judge and jury

* No proof of wrong or unfitness needs to be proved. Insinuations by the mother about the father are sufficient for the judge. Perjury is virtually never punished nor accepted for prosecution even when evident in family court cases.

* There's no presumption of equal rights for father and mother since they'll be awarded inequivalent rights without a wrong proven

* There's no presumption of equally sharing parenting of the children when no wrong nor unfitness is proven

* One parent, overwhelmingly the mother, will be the custodial parent having both legal and physical custody of the child

* The other parent, overwhelmingly the father, will be the noncustodial parent having no physical custody of the child and seriously deprived of most all his parenting rights. If he shares legal custody, his input will in large part be ignored by the court.

* The noncustodial parent, having been denied the right to parent and to directly support his child, will have a significant fraction (30% or more) of his gross income - or even an imputed (i.e. judge-made up) income - extorted from him with the threat of jail to pay what is euphemistically called child support for up to 23 years. Child support does not have to be used to support the child.

* The father - no matter how 'fit' - will overwhelmingly be targeted to be the noncustodial parent.

* Noncustodial parents are reduced to occasional visitors at best, and clear enforcement of that meager 'privilege' is almost never safeguarded by the court.

* If the father is unable to pay the extorted 'child support' ordered, he is sent to jail for up to 6 months at a time without the due process required to so drastically deny rights to a person.

* If he owes 'child support', the state will deny his state-required licenses to work, and his right to travel and passport is denied - all because of an arrearage.

* Federal laws have been passed that prohibits passed 'child support' obligations ever to be forgiven - however unjust.

The family court imposes these constitutional rights-denying judgments without the required substantive due process and without consideration to the maxims of law which promote fairness in court processes to litigants. They use the 'greater good' excuse of 'best interest of the child' illegally since both parents are fit - unless clearly proven otherwise. When necessary, they invoke the 'greater good' abuse excuse, too. And, lastly, they overwhelmingly target fathers as recipients of their injustice and persecution.

Family court judges hide behind feminist-instigated, supported and maintained 'greater good' excuses that deny constitutional protections for fathers and men for the benefits and privileges they afford women. That's wrong - constitutionally wrong. These judges constitute the lynchpin upon which this anti-father tyranny turns. And their judgements that deny fathers' constitutional rights have spawned an enormous and growing state-enforced divorce and domestic violence industry. It profits from the extortion of fathers under euphemistic child support orders, lawyers and other fees litigants must pay, and of course tax money extracted from the public under the phony 'safety of women' legal processes formulated under VAWA (Violence Against Women Act). This powerful industry's propaganda is self-serving and phony.

Feminist-instigated and supported greater good excuses drive fit fathers out of their families and extort and enslave them for their earnings for the benefit and privileges of women. This tyranny against fathers must be exposed for its destruction of fathers, their children, freedom and family.

About the Author

Shane Flait gives you the capability you need to fight for your rights. Get his FREE Downloads at http://www.FathersRightsLegalAid.com Take his ecourse: How to Handle Your Family Court Case at http://www.fathersrightslegalaid.com/HowToHandlePromo.htm

Article Directory Source: http://www.articlerich.com/profile/Shane-Flait/49445

Additional Articles From - Home | Reference & education | Legal