Bias against men in family courts – “Don’t nigggerise me”
“Don’t niggerise me” (“nigger” = an offensive term used in Britain against Asians as well as Blacks – which the writer of the article containing this quote states is essentially what is happening to non-custodial parents, regardless of their race) was the plea of a British fellow regarding corruption in family courts – you will see below is how non-custodial parents are treated IN AMERICA today – reminding me of the status of Blacks in America a 100 years ago!
This corruption is pervasive in American family courts as well – but I believe this applies to women as much as men, regardless of their race, who end up wrongfully as the non-custodial parent instead of as a co-parent with loving relationship with their children – solely due to the corruption of our family courts which is destroying child/parent relationships and teaching our children only greed and materialism, while alienating parents from their children. [all quotes are for emphasis purposes and are from Dr Linda Shelton written in this article]
I observed for several years now family court cases in Cook County, Illinois. I find that the judges are abdicating their responsibility to make decisions to the ill-trained and grossly biased child representatives and guardians ad litem. There is a strong bias towards assuming that one parent is BAD and one parent is GOOD and at all costs vilifying the parent these court-appointed attorneys decide is bad, usually with just hearsay and no actual evidence.
I have seen case after case where literally no evidence was allowed from one side to refute false statements from the other parent that were mere hearsay unsupported by evidence. The judges are therefore pulling their custody decisions out of thin air on the advice of court-appointed attorneys masquerading as trained evaluators of family interactions (psychologist, psychiatrist, psychiatric social workers, etc).
The family court lawyers for both the parents charge outrageous fees and grossly ignore constitutional rights, as well as grossly ignore federal and state laws (750 ILCS 5/506) that were supposed to encourage joint parenting, mediation, and solving of family arguments so that children are raised in a loving and nurturing instead of hostile, stressful and disruptive environment – which also deplete family funds including their college funds. Many parents last year testified to these facts in the Illinois House of Representatives. See their testimony here.
I believe that literally billions of dollars have been and are misappropriated in this scheme that is producing millions of children that are being taught that parents are unimportant and only serve as deep pockets for their every wish. This is destroying the families in America and encouraging greed, lawlessness, and immorality.
I firmly believe that the family courts and the lawyers and counselors that practice associated with them run a scheme to fill their pockets and pensions with the feuding families’ financial assets and money from the federal government that comes from Social Security Title IV-D and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funds. I believe the VAWA is faulty in failing to have oversight as to how the funds are used and in being grossly biased against men. I therefore do NOT support it without safeguards changing it to prevent these abuses. I feel some sympathy with those that believe womens’ shelters increase this bias. I don’t endorse everything said in this link, but much of what is said in the POD1 report supports this corruption as being true and needs remedy.
Two of the alleged worst offenders in violating these state and federal laws are child representatives David Wessel, Mary T. Doheny, and Ralla Klepak, as well as former child representative and now Judge Regina Scannicchio. The worst offending judges who are ignoring the Bill of Rights, the State statutes, and any concern over the childrens’ relationships with both parents include Judge David Haracz, Judge Veronica Mathein (well known appearing to hate men), Judge Pamela Loza, Judge Grace Dickler, Judge Fe Fernandez, Judge Debra Walker, Judge Leida J. Santiago, and Judge Paul Vega.
The “POD1″ report from the Illinois House of Representatives Family Law Study Committee seems to support this contention that there is a scheme or what they call development of a “cottage industry” that is supported by misused funds that encourages enrichment of these attorneys instead of the best interests of the children.
The Bill of Rights is trashed in Cook County Domestic Division (family) courts. Decisions are often made based on hearsay thrown around by these more often than not corrupt court-appointed attorneys. Child representatives totally ignore 750 ILCS 5/506(a)(3) statutes (reproduced at end of this post) that REQUIRE the child representative to act as the gatherer of discovery and present a pre-trial memorandum to both parents as to what are the “evidence-based legal argument” that he/she will present to the court through testimony of others and documents, which cause him/her to promote a specific custody decision.
Normally in civil cases discovery (factual information, proposed witness testimony, and evaluators reports, as well as child representative summaries of interviews with child(ren), teachers, friends, family, clergy, doctors that will be used in the divorce trial) is requested by each party and exchanged. The pre-trial memorandum is supposed to replace discovery to some extent and put the discovery in the hands of a supposedly neutral court-appointed attorney who is supposed to pay attention to the “best interest of the child[ren]“. However, I have yet to see ANY child representative produce ANY statutory required “pre-trial memorandum” and I have seen NO JUDGE REPRIMAND ANY child representative for failure to do so. I have seen NO JUDGE POSTPONE a trial until the child representative produces a pre-trial memorandum and NO JUDGE HOLD a child representative in contempt of court FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS LAW!
As a result divorce trials proceed with hearsay and not discovery – often biased against one side as the other side has not been given legal notice of evidence of it prior to trial. There is no fairness or justice, just a railroading of the vilified parent turning them into a deep-pocket to be used by the other parent, while the vilified parent’s child/parent relationship is de facto severed.
I have seen as many woman as men vilified falsely in this manner totally denying their constitutional right to due process and in the end harming the children, rather than resulting in a decision that is in their best interest. The parent is often rendered penniless and many are now even homeless, due to the violation of the Federal Consumer Protection law that requires that wage guarnishment in divorce cases can be more than 60% of a parent’s income. Judges are routinely ordering parents to pay child support in excess of their income! See:
15 USC § 1671 et seq. Federal Wage Garnishment Law (Title III of the Consumer Protection Act) & corresponding 29 CFR Part 870
When the man is vilified, the bias and defamation is in many ways as bad as the bias against blacks in the South during segregation. That is why this article:
written by an Asian British man regarding what is happening in the UK is relevent all over the world when family courts show bias against men.
Please read it and then read my
asking them to investigate the corruption and denial of constitutional rights in the family courts, as well as asking them to pressure the Illinois legislature to change the law so that the courts are forced to encourage instead of discourage equal parenting; discourage instead of encourage vilifying parents; encourage instead of discourage mediation and low-cost counseling instead of excessive appointment of unqualified attorneys who illegally act as psychologists and psychiatrists without a license. The phone numbers and email addresses to the board members are written below.
PLEASE CONTACT THE BOARD MEMBERS AND ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE ABOVE AND FORCE THE LEGISLATURE AND COUNTY COURTS TO STOP VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS AND
STOP HARMING OUR CHILDREN! ENCOURAGE JOINT PARENTING AND MEDIATION! STOP IMPOVERISHING FAMILIES TO ENRICH UNNECESSARY COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS! LIMIT FEES FOR DIVORCE ATTORNEYS APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO NO MORE THAN $150/HR CAPPED AT $5,000 PER CASE. SPECIFY IN COURT ORDERS THAT ONLY OPINIONS OF TRAINED EVALUATORS THAT HAVE INTERVIEWED FAMILY MEMBERS FROM BOTH SIDES, TEACHERS, FRIENDS AND DOCTORS CAN RENDER OPINIONS AS TO WHAT CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT IS BEST!
COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
President Toni Preckwinkle
Timothy O. Schneider
Elizabeth Doody Gorman
Joan Patricia Murphy
Jeffrey R. Tobolski
John A. Fritchey
William M. Beavers
Jesus G. Garcia
Peter N. Silvestri
John P. Daley
Commissioner Email addresses:
750 ILCS 5/506 Representation of child.
(a) Duties. In any proceedings involving the support, custody, visitation, education, parentage, property interest, or general welfare of a minor or dependent child, the court may, on its own motion or that of any party, appoint an attorney to serve in one of the following capacities to address the issues the court delineates:
(1) Attorney. The attorney shall provide independent legal counsel for the child and shall owe the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and competent representation as are due an adult client.
(2) Guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall testify or submit a written report to the court regarding his or her recommendations in accordance with the best interest of the child. The report shall be made available to all parties. The guardian ad litem may be called as a witness for purposes of cross examination regarding the guardian ad litem’s report or recommendations. The guardian ad litem shall investigate the facts of the case and interview the child and the parties.
(3) Child representative. The child representative shall advocate what the child representative finds to be in the best interests of the child after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case. The child representative shall meet with the child and the parties, investigate the facts of the case, and encourage settlement and the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The child representative shall have the same authority and obligation to participate in the litigation as does an attorney for a party and shall possess all the powers of investigation as does a guardian ad litem. The child representative shall consider, but not be bound by, the expressed wishes of the child. A child representative shall have received training in child advocacy or shall possess such experience as determined to be equivalent to such training by the chief judge of the circuit where the child representative has been appointed. The child representative shall not disclose confidential communications made by the child, except as required by law or by the Rules of Professional Conduct. The child representative shall not render an opinion, recommendation, or report to the court and shall not be called as a witness, but shall offer evidence based legal arguments. The child representative shall disclose the position as to what the child representative intends to advocate in a pre trial memorandum that shall be served upon all counsel of record prior to the trial. The position disclosed in the pre trial memorandum shall not be considered evidence. The court and the parties may consider the position of the child representative for purposes of a settlement conference.
(a 3) Additional appointments. During the proceedings the court may appoint an additional attorney to serve in the capacity described in subdivision (a)(1) or an additional attorney to serve in another of the capacities described in subdivision (a)(2) or (a)(3) on the court’s own motion or that of a party only for good cause shown and when the reasons for the additional appointment are set forth in specific findings.
(a 5) Appointment considerations. In deciding whether to make an appointment of an attorney for the minor child, a guardian ad litem, or a child representative, the court shall consider the nature and adequacy of the evidence to be presented by the parties and the availability of other methods of obtaining information, including social service organizations and evaluations by mental health professions, as well as resources for payment.
In no event is this Section intended to or designed to abrogate the decision making power of the trier of fact. Any appointment made under this Section is not intended to nor should it serve to place any appointed individual in the role of a surrogate judge.
(b) Fees and costs. The court shall enter an order as appropriate for costs, fees, and disbursements, including a retainer, when the attorney, guardian ad litem, or child’s representative is appointed. Any person appointed under this Section shall file with the court within 90 days of his or her appointment, and every subsequent 90 day period thereafter during the course of his or her representation, a detailed invoice for services rendered with a copy being sent to each party. The court shall review the invoice submitted and approve the fees, if they are reasonable and necessary. Any order approving the fees shall require payment by either or both parents, by any other party or source, or from the marital estate or the child’s separate estate. The court may not order payment by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services in cases in which the Department is providing child support enforcement services under Article X of the Illinois Public Aid Code. Unless otherwise ordered by the court at the time fees and costs are approved, all fees and costs payable to an attorney, guardian ad litem, or child representative under this Section are by implication deemed to be in the nature of support of the child and are within the exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C.A. 523. The provisions of Sections 501 and 508 of this Act shall apply to fees and costs for attorneys appointed under this Section.
Written by Linda Shelton
January 16, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Posted in child protective service, Cook County Courts, David Wessel, family court, Illinois corruption, Judge David E. Haracz, Judge David Haracz, Judge Debra Walker, Judge Fe Fernandez, Judge Grace Dickler, Judge Pamela E Loza, Judge Pamela Loza, Judge Regina Scannicchio, Judge Veronicz B Mathein, Judicial Misconduct, Mary T Doheny, Stop Corruption
Tagged with child custody, child representatives, Cook County Circuit Court Domestic Relations Division, Corrupt Judges, cottage industry, Division, divorce, divorce attorneys, divorce lawyers, family court, guardian ad litem, Judicial Misconduct, parental alienation syndrome, PAS, Title IV
Subscribe to comments with RSS.