Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Restraining Order Abuse

When restraining orders are granted ex-parte, for "emergency" protection, they take on a life of their own. From that point forward the court seems to believe there is actually some legal process that has happened, which places doubt over the target of the order (guilty until proven innocent). Often times NOTHING has happened except speculation on the part of the "Victim" (though usually no crime has occurred), and often times the defendant has not even been accused of anything. From here the "old boys club" of judges kicks in to protect each others back, as in this case detailed below.  A father is denied access to his children, clearly violating constitutional rights, with no real due process - and the ban plays on, in spite of that fact.

This is practice is one of the most egregious violations of rights and is happening THOUSANDS OF TIMES PER MONTH, in Massachusetts alone.  Judges are LITERALLY high jacking the fathers homes and all their possessions and effectively kidnapping the children and denying them a father. They call this in the "best interest of the children", but this is clearly no so - in in fact to any educated observer is to their great detriment.  The "Best interest of the children" is a smoke screen and a policy which is so vague it is clearly unlawful.  It allows judge to do whatever they want.  The supreme court has said any vague law is not enforceable - but judges are enforcing this any way they see fit every single day.

The web site http://www.massoutrage.com/rocases.htm has lots of these stories from Attorney Greg Hession, who is on a mission to stop the abuse of restraining orders.

SAMPLE STORY From Chris Kennedy of CT:

This is from a hearing for a restraining order, which removed my daughters.  The application was blank, listed no children and contained no allegation of abuse or threats. Judge Kaplan, who signed the Ex Parte order, was the Administrative Judge for the entire county.  It was granted for filing a motion to recuse the judge, a motion that was never heard and  the Judicial Review Council dismissed my complaint.  This case is now at the Supreme Court of CT.  It's been over a year since I had any contact with my three children. 

Please forward this to everyone you can, Newspapers, Legislators, Civil Rights Groups,  - It deserves an investigation, before the next father is abused.  Stand up and fight for you right as a parent before you or your sons go through the same.  Judges cannot be free to arrest, restrain and remove your children, without reason.   TRANSCRIPT OF APRIL 5, 2004  LEANNA PUTMAN V. CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, ROCKVILLE COURT, CT
Page 3
MR. KENNEDY: I'd like to object immediately, Your Honor, and I'd like to move to have this dismissed.
This restraining order, if you read the copy of it, it doesn't even list the children. It was granted by Judge Kaplan
MR. KENNEDY: I don't understand how a restraining can get granted even ex parte if there's no claims of abuse, and there's no children listed.
THE COURT: That's what we're here for.
  Page 19
Q (Christopher) You mentioned custodial interference, as far as father being arrested for custodial interference --
A (Leanna) Yes.
Q --under those circumstances, the children were to be dropped off at seven o'clock p.m. on a Wednesday night.
A Yes.
Q Were you home at that time?
A No, I wasn't.
Q Did you make any contact with the father and where to find him if you were home or not home?
A No….   Page 23
Q (Christopher)…you had a restraining order and you chose to ignore it and go pick up the children?
A (Leanna) I went to the children's school? Yes. Absolutely. Yes.

MR. KENNEDY: She (Leanna) entirely disregarded a restraining order that was served on her.
THE COURT: Yes. She's testified that she did   Page 38 THE COURT (To Leanna): This is the issue before me. It's simple. … My concern is whether or not there's a reasonable reason for you to feel that these children's safety is impaired or in danger by his (Christopher) act of going to Hartford and getting a restraining order THE COURT: That is the issue here. I don't think there's anything else other than language in the affidavit, which doesn't mean particularly much.
  Ruling Page 63
THE COURT: …I've read the motion that you filed in this Court to recuse Judge Kaplan.  You're suggesting that criminal charges be brought against him in your affidavit to recuse him.  That, to me, smacks -- of some instability.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I am concerned for these children; and I think because of the concern  -- and it's a legitimate concern and a reasonable concern through the testimony that I've heard here -- that this restraining order should be continued.  
Chris Kennedy
Ellington, CT 06029


The Shared Parenting Council -CT
The Fatherhood Coalition -MA
Fathers-4-Justice- UK