No-Fault Divorce Paired With Child Support Enforcement

No-fault divorce was originally posed as a way to facilitate independent decision making, allowing couples to dissolve a contract that was no longer beneficial to them. The two litigants are treated as equals, both blameless partners who have simply changed their minds about the desire to cohabitate and wish to alter the marriage contract.

This may be true for a significant portion of the population. However, in cases in which “fault” is an issue, cases in which fault in fact precipitated the need for a divorce and protection of children—those cases have formed an arena in which criminals are protected who should be prosecuted through the legal system. Those litigants who come to court with serious, legitimate complaints have become the objects of prey for predators that have redesigned the courts as killing fields to destroy protective parents and vulnerable children, exploiting their innocence and ignorance for financial gain.

Assessment of custody arrangements has also become associated with an assessment of the parent who is the most stable source of funds, namely, the parent who has the greatest concern and investment of love for the child. We suspect that the love for the child is in fact used against the parent with the greatest commitment to the child. This is the parent who is assessed to be the “most stable.” The best earner is made responsible to pay for the child, while the parent who is assessed to be less well off is given the child and becomes the recipient of child support. If you have a W2 and a reportable income, that is most accessible and attachable.

The family court system has also become a conduit for raising funds for state programs through the child support programs. This conduit may include back-channel payments to judges.

In family court where criminals seek shelter by the manipulation of a court process that should be examining alleged dangerous behavior, the entire court process has been designed to dismiss even the idea that such behavior ever existed.

These foregone conclusions lead with the presumption that raising issues of serious criminal behavior is done for the purpose of discrediting the accused, seeking to distort and manipulate the entire proceeding.

No-fault divorce has become a vehicle for allowing the acting out of behavior that would normally be defined as criminal acts. Lawyers have fully embraced and weaponized the unscientific, unethical, concept of parental alienation—which has been fully rejected by the medical, psychiatric, and scientific community—by wrapping arms around the “reasonable doubt” element raised by Richard Gardner’s theory that sexual abuse does not exist and that the parent raising this claim is doing so out of spite and malice.

When a parent raises charges of abuse in the course of marital litigation, that parent will be judged, and all due process will be shut down by familiar court protocol. This protocol consists of actions of abuse in the court system: coercive controls, threats, and intimidation tactics, which not only are brutally destructive to all innocent parties but also elevate the accused abuser to a place of sympathy and a prejudgment of innocence. The protective parent is no longer a litigant in a court process, but a victim of an obscene playing out of a process that leads to the transfer of vulnerable children into the control of their abuser.

The population of judges and their minions who cooperate, conceal, contract to pervert an entire system of juvenile justice is growing to cover the entire American landscape.

The victims, whose lives have been destroyed, lament in the inchoate shadows of social media, discredited, bankrupted. After the exsanguination of their life force, they have no power to fight back.

As the situation now stands, the criminal division of the court system may be seen to have ceded much of their authority to family courts, thus eviscerating and undermining their own authority to prosecute criminals. Crime victims who have the ill fate of being subjected to the family courts instead of the criminal courts are unable to seek protection from crimes committed against them, because judges in family courts have exonerated the criminal.

Judges inflict further insults and injuries by having police forces at their disposal to carry out orders that harm victims, further forcing the child victims into the isolation of their abusers. A court that should have helped the children instead expresses willful malevolence toward those children. As a result, we are seeing generations of children whose lives are being irreparably altered by this malevolence.

Clients who have chosen to retain legal representation have often found themselves with attorneys who were noisy in their ineffectual displays of courtroom drama, but entirely incompetent. Further, instead of acting in the best interest of their clients, these attorneys have acted in lockstep with the illegal, eviscerating directives of the court, moving the children into the custody of an abuser, stifling communications of abuse, and maximizing the flow of reliable child support.

The process of confronting court corruption via scholarly legal intervention and support interventions confronting corruption is a complex matter. In order to effectively challenge court corruption, clients must sometimes resort to pro se representation, but it must be done under the right circumstances. The client’s way forward in these circumstances requires effective, skilled, scholarly representation. Clients who have taken possession of their own communications with the court will then be able to create a record that can be deployed for the defense of their children, themselves, and even other victims in the future.

 

 

Share This:
Close Menu