A self-censored chronicle of family court dramas, lived by parents who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence
“Without a GAL, parties will go back to the old practice of dragging their children into court to testify against their parents,” said Hollander. “The parties will pay top dollar to get pediatricians and counselors to testify and will put their families’ fates in the hands of the very judges that they have come to scorn.”
AUGUSTA, Maine — Divorces and child custody disagreements can be messy and when parents can’t resolve their differences alone, courts appoint a guardian ad litem to investigate the situation and make recommendations.
But there are many people, dozens of whom testified Thursday afternoon in Augusta, who say major flaws detract from the system, ranging from guardian ad litems who charge too much to others whose recommendations are flawed and incomplete. According to testimony heard Thursday by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, there are nearly 300 guardian ad litems, or GALs, in Maine.
Numerous people told stories about GALs whose errors and carelessness resulted in unfavorable custody arrangements with their former spouses. One of them was Sen. David Dutremble, D-Biddeford, whose children were assigned a GAL during his divorce in 2004. Dutremble sponsored one of four bills on guardian ad litems that were presented on Thursday.
“I can assure you that the appointment of a guardian ad litem was one of the worst experiences of my life, and I am a full-time firefighter,” said Dutremble. “A GAL’s position is to remain neutral during their appointment to the child and to determine what is in the best interest of the child. This is where the real problem existed in my case. … My guardian was anything but neutral and many guardians continue to remain anything but neutral to this date.”
Other people at the hearing testified that the vast majority of guardian ad litems operate responsibly and equitably. One of them was Ethan Stevens of Chelsea, who said in written testimony to the Judiciary Committee that his first experience with the guardian ad litem system was in 2010 when he began the divorce process after a seven-year marriage.
“I am extremely grateful to have had the services of Maine’s current guardian ad litem system as well as the competence and experience of our particular GAL,” wrote Stevens. “I went from expecting to see my children every other weekend or some similar arrangement to one where custody is split almost in half. The guardian ad litem system is a vital tool to Maine’s overburdened court system.”
Reforms to Maine’s guardian ad litem system have been eyed for years. In 2006 the Legislature’s investigatory Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability released an extensive report on the issue. It found that the system has insufficient oversight on any part of the process, including that judges in many cases cannot be confident that they are receiving complete and accurate information.
“Under these circumstances, judicial decision in child protection cases may not be optimal,” reads the OPEGA report. “Because of the way the court administers GAL services, there is little documented, standardized and accessible data to analyze. Therefore, while OPEGA can confidently state that compliance and performance inconsistencies are readily detectable, we cannot quantify the extent of compliance with mandated activities or the effectiveness of GALs themselves. Clearly, there are high-performing, dedicated and effective GALs. There are also too many reports of GALs with questionable performance, particularly regarding contacts with children and interactions with key individuals in children’s lives.”
The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Thursday heard testimony on four bills proposed to improve the system:
• LD 522, An Act to Amend the Guardian Ad Litem Laws, sponsored by Sen. Linda Valentino, D-Saco, which seeks to implement the recommendations of a 2012 report by the Guardian Ad Litem Task Force, which was appointed by Maine Supreme Court Chief Justice Leigh Saufley. The report calls for the Supreme Judicial Court to adopt a range of rules covering registration and certification, qualification, practices, training and discipline.
• LD 551, An Act to Establish Certification Standards for Guardians Ad Litem, sponsored by Rep. Joseph Brooks, I-Winterport, which would direct the Supreme Judicial Court to establish certification standards for guardians ad litem.
• LD 872, An Act to Improve the Quality of Guardian Ad Litem Services for the Children and Families of Maine, sponsored by Sen. David Dutremble, D-Biddeford, which is based on the recommendations in the OPEGA report.
• LD 975, An Act to Ensure Accountability of Guardians Ad Litem and Parenting Coordinators, sponsored by Rep. Lisa Villa, D-Harrison, which would require a range of training, cap GAL fees, remove the quasi-judicial immunity provided to GALs and parenting coordinators, and open the door for litigation against GALs and parenting coordinators who falsely accuse parties of abuse or neglect or who intentionally exclude relevant information from reports.
Michael Cianchette, chief legal counsel for Gov. Paul LePage, said the governor supports strengthening the system.
“The governor has a strong interest in these efforts, both as someone who has mentored young people as well as his role as chief executive,” said Cianchette. “He has heard firsthand the problems that can exist in our current system, whether it is outrageous billings or odd recommendations to the courts that could result in very negative outcomes.”
Cianchette said LePage supports a current initiative by the Judicial Branch that would cap what GALs can charge their clients, as well as increased oversight, standards of practice, continuing education and immunity.
Toby Hollander, president of the Maine Guardian Ad Litem Institute, took issue with many of the statements made Thursday about GALs and opposed some of the proposed provisions. In particular, he called a proposal to strip GALs of their quasi-judicial immunity, which is contained in Villa’s bill, a “mean-spirited” measure that could destroy the entire system.
“Without a GAL, parties will go back to the old practice of dragging their children into court to testify against their parents,” said Hollander. “The parties will pay top dollar to get pediatricians and counselors to testify and will put their families’ fates in the hands of the very judges that they have come to scorn.”
The bills have not yet been scheduled for further work in the Judiciary Committee.
We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace.
This year we are lucky enough to have ( 6 ) bills which have been sponsored for legislation. While we do not expect all...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
Judicial Disqualification or recusal has been an issue in Maine courts for years. This is especially so in our Family...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
We welcome a chance to respond to Divorce Corp‘s invitation to speak out on the topic, “oversight of judges” or the...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
In an effort to have government transparent we are publishing the following letter to Sen David Burns. The letter deals...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
Judge Manno-Schurr Harms Litigants in Miami Family Court - VOTEFamily.US
Senator DutrembleDear Senator Dutremble:Regarding the re-appointment of Judge Jeffrey MoskowitzAs supporters and...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
Florida Family Court Fail Kids and Parents VOTEFamily.US
Mandate 50/50 physical custody nationwide of all FIT Parents, in initial custody issues, make BOTH Parent equally responsible for raising a child. "There's no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for...
Within hours of our letter going out to Senator David Burns we received a response back from him. Below is Sen Burn’s...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
The current standard for child custody decisions, “in the child’s best interest,” is misleading. It presumes that a...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
Dear Member of the Maine Judiciary Committee of the Legislature,Re: Judging judges: hearings on judicial appointments...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
PORTLAND, Maine — People seeking reforms to the guardian ad litem program in the state court system expressed their...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, August 13, 2015
Yup.. Yet another good reason to ask why we even need a Family Court system to solve the Parental Issues?? I think these 200 words from a judge sums it up? http://defend-yourself-go-pro-se.blogspot.com/2012/07/minnesota-judge-has-200-blunt-words-for.html
"CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE." Personally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute. We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. That bill passed, and on May 24, 2012 Governor Mark Dayton vetoed it. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives. Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
Mike Haskell is a divorced dad, shared parenting supporter and practicing family law attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
ACFC is America's Shared Parenting Organization
"CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS"
The members of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children dedicate ourselves to the creation of a family law system and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by issues of the modern family.
ACFC is challenging the current system of American family law and policy. Through a national system of local affiliates and in alliance with other pro-family and civil liberties groups, ACFC is shifting the public debate to the real causes of family dissolution.
PRO SE RIGHTS: Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
There are some fathers that are Little League Dads - they care about their children. They are sports coaches, homework helpers, taxis, etc. However, the sad reality is that these types of dads are few and far between. Most (in the case of divorce) are neglectful and abusive (the reason for the divorce). They should not be awarded 50/50 custody or any legal decision making. This father's rights movement has allowed many abusive men/fathers to continue to abuse and terrorize their children and ex-wives through shared custody and father's rights. Let's talk about the real rights of the children - the right to decide who they feel safe with, the right to have a better education, the right to stay involved in their activities (because divorce allows the father to say "it's MY parenting time and I don't have to take them on MY parenting time."), the right to not have to have their daily life disrupted by which house am I at today. You may get father's rights now, but when the pendulum swings back the other direction, it's going to swing so hard it may fly right off the axis.
I see you have found our little club here and you've decided to troll around for a bit. I first would like to say "welcome" on behalf of the men and women who suffer daily inside and outside these pages. We are glad you are here. Feel free to take your time and peruse the stories of men and women who have lost everything. Take in the agony and the pain, read the horror stories of men who havn't seen their children in 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years. You will notice that all the stories share a familiar tone. The pain is real. The disbelief is palpable. The constant barrage of men ready to give up is unfortunately true. They may give up and stop fighting vindictive exes for their children and just move on, only to be later called a deadbeat loser from the same woman that deprived him of his children. They may give up and eat a bullet, jump from a bridge or tie a noose around their neck and say their final goodbye. You win, they lose. You are now an accessory to murder. Stick around and look at the pictures of the children that are left behind. These are the other victims. The victims without a voice in all of this. Had they had a choice they would almost always choose to have a loving caring father by their side. You deprive them of that. Not only do you assist in the murdering of fathers, but you're also a child abuser. Congratulations. Be sure to keep coming back to our little club here. Make jokes about how we are all domestic abusers who feel we have some ghastly privilege of fathering our children. Keep your kids close to you, be sure you cash that child support check and keep the children from Daddy if he misses a payment. It's only a fair punishment for him. Make him suffer. Make him hurt so bad he stays awake at night crying because he misses his kids so badly. Make him out to be the deadbeat you just know he is. Make his feel the depths of depression and despair by keeping his kids from him. Threaten to have him arrested and thrown in jail for inability to pay child support. You're cruising now bio-mom. You show them who is boss. Don't allow him to talk to his kids on the phone. Don't allow him to have one extra minute of "visitation". Marginalize him and make him feel what a scumbag he truly is. Don't tell him of your children's accomplishment or how they are doing in school. Keep any and all medical records from him. Keep him guessing who is with his children and where they are living. Keep doing what you are doing bio-mom. Now we all know who the boss is. It was never the judges or lawyers who caused all this. It was you. Now look down at your children and realize everything you have done to your ex has also been done to them. See, you are a child abuser after all. Sleep tight,
“Without a GAL, parties will go back to the old practice of dragging their children into court to testify against their parents,” said Hollander. “The parties will pay top dollar to get pediatricians and counselors to testify and will put their families’ fates in the hands of the very judges that they have come to scorn.”
The bills have not yet been scheduled for further work in the Judiciary Committee.
Yup.. Yet another good reason to ask why we even need a Family Court system to solve the Parental Issues??
ReplyDeleteI think these 200 words from a judge sums it up?
http://defend-yourself-go-pro-se.blogspot.com/2012/07/minnesota-judge-has-200-blunt-words-for.html
"CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE."
DeletePersonally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute. We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. That bill passed, and on May 24, 2012 Governor Mark Dayton vetoed it. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives. Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
Mike Haskell is a divorced dad, shared parenting supporter and practicing family law attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
ACFC is America's Shared Parenting Organization
"CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS"
The members of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children dedicate ourselves to the creation of a family law system and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by issues of the modern family.
ACFC is challenging the current system of American family law and policy. Through a national system of local affiliates and in alliance with other pro-family and civil liberties groups, ACFC is shifting the public debate to the real causes of family dissolution.
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
There are some fathers that are Little League Dads - they care about their children. They are sports coaches, homework helpers, taxis, etc. However, the sad reality is that these types of dads are few and far between. Most (in the case of divorce) are neglectful and abusive (the reason for the divorce). They should not be awarded 50/50 custody or any legal decision making. This father's rights movement has allowed many abusive men/fathers to continue to abuse and terrorize their children and ex-wives through shared custody and father's rights. Let's talk about the real rights of the children - the right to decide who they feel safe with, the right to have a better education, the right to stay involved in their activities (because divorce allows the father to say "it's MY parenting time and I don't have to take them on MY parenting time."), the right to not have to have their daily life disrupted by which house am I at today. You may get father's rights now, but when the pendulum swings back the other direction, it's going to swing so hard it may fly right off the axis.
ReplyDeleteI see you have found our little club here and you've decided to troll around for a bit. I first would like to say "welcome" on behalf of the men and women who suffer daily inside and outside these pages. We are glad you are here.
DeleteFeel free to take your time and peruse the stories of men and women who have lost everything. Take in the agony and the pain, read the horror stories of men who havn't seen their children in 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years. You will notice that all the stories share a familiar tone. The pain is real. The disbelief is palpable. The constant barrage of men ready to give up is unfortunately true. They may give up and stop fighting vindictive exes for their children and just move on, only to be later called a deadbeat loser from the same woman that deprived him of his children. They may give up and eat a bullet, jump from a bridge or tie a noose around their neck and say their final goodbye. You win, they lose. You are now an accessory to murder.
Stick around and look at the pictures of the children that are left behind. These are the other victims. The victims without a voice in all of this. Had they had a choice they would almost always choose to have a loving caring father by their side. You deprive them of that. Not only do you assist in the murdering of fathers, but you're also a child abuser. Congratulations.
Be sure to keep coming back to our little club here. Make jokes about how we are all domestic abusers who feel we have some ghastly privilege of fathering our children. Keep your kids close to you, be sure you cash that child support check and keep the children from Daddy if he misses a payment. It's only a fair punishment for him. Make him suffer. Make him hurt so bad he stays awake at night crying because he misses his kids so badly. Make him out to be the deadbeat you just know he is. Make his feel the depths of depression and despair by keeping his kids from him. Threaten to have him arrested and thrown in jail for inability to pay child support. You're cruising now bio-mom. You show them who is boss. Don't allow him to talk to his kids on the phone. Don't allow him to have one extra minute of "visitation". Marginalize him and make him feel what a scumbag he truly is. Don't tell him of your children's accomplishment or how they are doing in school. Keep any and all medical records from him. Keep him guessing who is with his children and where they are living. Keep doing what you are doing bio-mom. Now we all know who the boss is. It was never the judges or lawyers who caused all this. It was you. Now look down at your children and realize everything you have done to your ex has also been done to them. See, you are a child abuser after all.
Sleep tight,