Feminist excuses for the ‘common good’ deny parents’ constitutional rights in family court
The Family Court unfairly uses the ‘common good’ excuse of the ‘best interests of the child’ to invalidate the constitutional rights and protections of the overwhelming majority of parents. His configuration and use of the excuse of ‘abuse’ of the greater good also shows that he has no interest in protecting the rights of a father, but in denying his children and extorting his earnings for the best interest of the mother.
Securing our inalienable (also known as constitutional) rights, including the right of parents, the right to property and earnings, life and the pursuit of happiness, is the reason America was formed. You cannot be denied any constitutional rights unless it is clearly demonstrated that you are guilty of having committed a serious crime or that you are not eligible in the case of parental authority. And the defense of the constitutional rights of one person can never be based on denying those of another when no real harm is done.
There is no “greater good” than our constitutional rights and their protections. Tyrannies use excuses for the ‘greater good’ to justify the denial of fundamental rights to some or all of their citizens.
It is our constitutional rights and protections that the courts, all courts, are intended to protect when adjudicating cases. Any court that denies the constitutional rights of a litigant without the required constitutional due process and justice invoking a legal excuse of ‘greater good’ commits treason and tyrannizes the litigant.
The family court, now a perverse distortion of its original form, daily denies not only the constitutional rights of the litigants – overwhelmingly the father – but the very processes and justice that the possibility of such denials necessarily requires. It does so by invoking the ‘best interests of the child’ excuse without the need to prove a parent’s disability. And it accepts the safe excuse of ‘abuse’ of women by mothers to overwhelmingly deny fathers even more rights without the required due process.
* The scope and settings of the family court show your treason actions:
The overwhelming majority of women file divorce or paternity complaints because of the privileges granted to them by the family court. The family court dissolves the marriage while determining:
1. which parent will have physical and legal custody of the child (ren) – which implies denying the parental authority of one of the parents – overwhelmingly the parent,
2. the amount of child support that the non-custodial parent must pay to the custodial parent, who extorts the non-custodial parent’s property, his earnings, under the euphemism of ‘child support’ for whatever the mother wishes to use .
3. the division of property between husband and wife – an appropriation of property without taking into account the wrongdoing,
4.How much child support should one parent pay to the other – plus seizure of property
Paternity actions determine only the first two above, that is, issues of custody and child support.
The court’s judgment on each of these matters requires that the parents have not committed a crime or proven incapacity. In fact, the installation of the court is characterized by:
* There is no jury trial as the judge acts as both judge and jury.
* It is not necessary to prove any proof of incorrectness or inadequacy. The mother’s insinuations about the father are enough for the judge. Perjury is practically never punished or accepted for prosecution, even when it is evident in family court cases.
* There is no presumption of equal rights for the father and mother, as unequal rights will be granted without an error being shown.
* There is no presumption of sharing parenting equally when no error or inadequacy is proven.
* One of the parents, mostly the mother, will be the custodial parent who will have legal and physical custody of the child.
* The other parent, mostly the parent, will be the non-custodial parent who will not have physical custody of the child and will be seriously deprived of most of their parenting rights. If you share legal custody, the court will largely ignore your opinion.
* The non-custodial parent, who has been denied the right to parent and directly support their child, will have a significant fraction (30% or more) of their gross income, or even imputed income (that is, offset by the judge), 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 parent, no matter how ‘fit’ they may be, will be the overwhelming target of being the non-custodial parent.
* Non-custodial parents are reduced to occasional visitors at best, and the court almost never safeguards the clear application of that meager “privilege.”
* If the father is unable to pay the extorted ‘child support’ that was ordered, he is sent to jail for up to 6 months in a row without the due process required to so drastically deny a person’s rights.
* If you owe ‘child support’, the state will deny you state-required work licenses, and you will be denied the right to travel and passport, all due to a delay.
* Federal laws have been passed that prohibit approved ‘child support’ obligations from being waived, no matter how unfair.
The family court imposes these lawsuits that deny constitutional rights without the required substantive due process and without taking into account the maxims of the law that promote fairness in the judicial processes for the litigants. They use the ‘common good’ excuse of the ‘best interests of the child’ illegally, as both parents are fit, unless clearly proven otherwise. When necessary, they also invoke the excuse of abuse of the “greater good.” And finally, they overwhelmingly target parents as the recipients of their injustice and persecution.
Family court judges hide behind feminist-instigated, endorsed and upheld “greater good” excuses that deny constitutional protections for fathers and men for the benefits and privileges they accord to women. That is wrong, constitutionally wrong. These judges constitute the axis on which this anti-paternal tyranny turns. And its rulings denying the constitutional rights of parents have spawned a huge and growing state industry for divorce and domestic violence. It benefits from extortion from parents under euphemistic child support orders, attorneys and other fees that litigants must pay and, of course, tax money extracted from the public under bogus ‘women’s safety’ legal processes. ‘formulated under VAWA (Violence Against Women Act). The propaganda of this powerful industry is selfish and false.
Good excuses promoted and supported by feminists cause fit parents to withdraw from their families and extort and enslave them for their gain for the benefit and privilege of women. This tyranny against parents must be exposed by their destruction of parents, their children, freedom and the family.