Will Abbott, co-chair of the Citizens'
Commission on NH State Courts, has
asked for suggestion on what an "ideal"
family court would look like. Here
is my response. I strongly urge
everyone to write to him at:
and offer your comments and suggestions.
What WOULD the ideal family court
From the perspective of one who's
been in this battle for close to 20
years, and has seen the unconscionable
actions of judges first hand, I think
that calling for Kelly's resignation
is too mild. I, along with a
goodly number of others, have called
for the chief justice to terminate
him, and filed complaints with the
Committee on Judicial conduct, demanding
the same from them. Not that
we have a snowballs' chance in Hell
of that happening. The idea
is to serve notice that we are sick
and tired of judges abusing their
authority, violating state and constitutional
law, ignoring their oath of office
and the Code of Judicial Conduct,
all to the known detriment of our
children and society. We hope, by
demanding extreme measures, to wake
up the authorities, and force them
to control the excesses of the family
courts. If that doesn't happen,
and we really have no reason to expect
it will, then we will have to resort
to legislation to force them to live
up to the laws and code of conduct.
What does the ideal system look like?
It looks like an impossible dream,
based on twenty years of observation,
experience, and knowledge, and the
resistance to change we have experienced
in that time. However, let me
make an effort to provide some practical
answers to the question.
First, we need to have and enforce
a rebuttable presumption that parents
will share custody as equally as humanly
possible, under a parenting plan drawn
up by the parents themselves.
No evidence or testimony of unfitness
to parent should be allowed without
sufficient proof. HB 529 would
make that rebuttable presumption the
rule, rather than the exception.
It also provides for written findings
to be provided by the judge in any
case where physical custody is NOT
the order of the court. That would
make it harder to disenfranchise the
father on spurious grounds, such as
an unfounded allegation of domestic
violence, as is now all too often
Second, we should have a process whereby
the parents must meet WITHOUT LAWYERS
to discuss an equitable dissolution
to the marriage, and all the ramifications
of divorce, within 14 working days
of the court's receipt of the filing.
The meeting would be a mediation session,
facilitated by a certified mediator.
The mediator's fee would be standardized
(by the courts or state law), and
shared EQUALLY by both parties.
Third, we need to have a Judicial
Conduct Commission that is completely
severed from the courts. As
it is, the committee acts as if its'
purpose was to protect the judges
from complaints, instead of protecting
litigants from unscrupulous, incompetent,
biased, and ignorant judges.
A summary of all complaints should
be published yearly, to expose the
judge's record to the light of public
scrutiny. Such an action would
also allow the public to see if the
judicial conduct committee was doing
it's job properly.
Fourth, we need to halt the payments
to the court from the child support
collection agency. Those payments
provide an incentive to maintain the
status quo, which means giving mothers
sole custody in order to force the
father to pay the DDT, or Divorced
Fifth, we need to simplify the appeals
process, making it more easily navigable,
and less expensive for an aggrieved
father to utilize.
Sixth, we need to institute a process
of "retention elections"for
judges and marital masters.
After a given period on the bench,
not an overlong period, but maybe
EVERY three to five years, each judge
would stand for "re-election".
The vote is to retain the judge or
not. There would be no competition
for the position. Just a vote
on the judge's record. If the
voters say the judge shouldn't be
retained, then he/she would be terminated
with prejudice, meaning he/she could
never hold a judicial position again.
At the nomination of a replacement,
there should be public hearings, much
like legislative hearings, to gather
public input on the acceptability
of the individual.
Seventh, we need to eliminate the
re-distribution of wealth scheme that
passes for child support. If
the parents share custody according
to a schedule that is acceptable to
both, then no support should be ordered.
If the evidence warrants that sole
custody be granted to one parent,
then any support order should reflect
the true cost of raising a child,
and be shared EQUALLY by both parents.
It should NOT be based on the parents'
income, as that is the basis for the
Communistic Transfer of Wealth scheme,
which is the motivating force behind
the pressure to award sole custody
to the mother.
I know I probably haven't covered
all the bases, so I'll forward this
message to our lists, and ask for
comments and suggestions to be sent
on to you.
As for funding the ideal system???
The courts are already funded with
taxpayer dollars to a very adequate
extent. With a rebuttable presumption
of shared physical custody, and elimination
of the financial, social, and legal
incentives to divorce, the divorce
rate will drop, and the courts' costs
will be decreased. Furthermore,
the study by the National Probate
Judges' College and Boston Univ. School
of Law (as well as others) have found
that re-litigation is reduced by 50%
custody is the rule. A 50% decline
in court activity should reduce costs
accordingly, and funding becomes a
moot issue. Of course, that
begs the question of human greed.
It can be assumed that the courts
MAIN financial concern is the $2 Million
a year in free money they get from
the child support collection agency.
That's icing on the cake, and hard
for them to give up.
Great stuff. I would also add and
suggest the following:
Video monitoring and taping of all
judicial proceedings which is NOT
in the control of the judge or clerk
(sound or motion activated - now being
done in PA (?)). The chief
justice should be required to review
and comment on every judge (unknown
sample) once per quarter by watching
2-4 hours of random tapes and evaluating
performance to a standard and requirement
to follow all rules of civil procedure.
Every business in the world has a
system to monitor and enforce policy,
law and rules for their employees. Judges
seem to be the only exception I am
aware of here. There is no feedback
loop to discipline judges and over
time they get more and more arrogant.
Power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely. They have
become arrogant kings of their own
little tyranny where the people under
them are either afraid, or just assume
they are legally right, when they
are committing completely illegal
Removal of any restraining orders
without proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that a law was broken. This
must be beyond these "abuse"
definitions that feminists have infiltrated
the legal system with which make crimes
out of normal everyday acts that are
not crimes. These allegations
have become a joke and include dirty
looks, minor spats on name calling,
finger pointing (literally) and
other perfectly normal human behavior
in any marriage. These warped definitions are
now used as an excuse to hijack
children and homes without due process
and strip men of all their constitutional
rights when they have done nothing
wrong. If a woman is "in fear"
she can deal with that by leaving
- the men should not take the penalty
for this CLAIMED fear. She can move
out, but must provide equal access
to their children.
There must also be accelerating fines
for every instance of visitation interfered
with by either parent with more severe
punishment and loss of time with child
if this continues. i.e. for
each day of visitation not allowed
the offending parent will lose 2 days
of time with the child.
Mediation should be the standard.
The courts were designed as an adversarial
system to protect innocent people
from being incarcerated.
The standard has always been we would
rather let 9 people free than send
one innocent person to jail.
We are convicting 1,000 out of 1,000
men of "abuse" when only
5 in 1,000 are statistically guilty
of such under government statistics
due to a feminist propaganda machine
that is out of control and spreading
stories (not statistics) and falsehoods
too. The family courts have
maintained the adversarial part, and
lawyers increase the level of this
to drive up their fees (I know one
case with a prenup where the family
has now spent $500,000 on legal fees!).
Yet the courts have thrown out
all the legal protections for the
accused. Any unconstitutional behavior
(state or US) should be an infraction
of the law (IT ALREADY IS LEGALLY,
BUT IS IGNORED). After so many (3
per year) of these caught on tape
the judges should be removed from
the bench with penalties. An early
warning and feedback system of training
must be implemented because unqualified
people are being named judges.