You should write an article about the third court that nobody really knows about. Everyone knows about the criminal court and everyone knows about the civil court, but most people don’t understand There is a ‘court of equity’ (I E. Family Court) Where there is no jury, just one man who decides everything for everyone NO QUESTIONS ASKED and almost impossible to challenge.
If he is pissed off at you or didn’t get laid the night before, your case is going to go sideways if you are a man. Or perhaps if he’s mad at his wife, then the mother before him will get shafted that day!
Apparently, you sign up and agree to this insanity if you utilize the family court system for your inevitable divorce. Thank how many fathers would not have been “divorce raped” if there had been a jury for each and every divorce! The entire system would be turned on his head if there was an actual jury to hear these cases. They would know that the mother cheated and caused the divorce and therefore shouldn’t win all the ‘cash and prizes’ that is expected in modern divorces now.
Additionally, you’re not allowed to audio or video record anything that goes on inside so trends of female bias or down-right crime against men is difficult to prove. This is by design. Tell me that isn’t sketchy!!!!
Indeed! Unlike Criminal Court, men are guilty until proven innocent; it’s literally that way, evidenced by mothers almost always getting total Cash & prizes!
It’s completely backwards and everyone just goes along with it. Fathers have to prove they are fit even though he was a perfectly fine parent for years UNTIL mom was caught cheating with the pool-boy!
THEREFORE-
Never getting married, thus ‘starving out the beast’, is a viable solution EVEN IF the population has to dip for a while!
The way it is now cannot be sustained. Men are finally waking up to this madness.
MGTOW will save you from Divorce-Rape, kidnapping of your children, LIFETIME ALIMONY (in 7 states) and having to pay Mommy-Support for 18 years!
One thing is sure; The leading cause of divorce is marriage… 😏
It's a jacked-up system. Maybe foreign women are better than American women and can have better luck with them. Who knows? But the system is broken for sure.
Absolutely — and thank you for bringing this up. That core tension between the Parental Rights Doctrine and the so-called Best Interest of the Child standard is exactly what more people need to start questioning.
The Parental Rights Doctrine is rooted in constitutional protections—especially the 14th Amendment—which affirm that fit parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children without government interference. Supreme Court cases like Troxel v. Granville and Santosky v. Kramer have made it clear: the state doesn't get to step in unless a parent is proven unfit with clear and convincing evidence.
But in family court? That standard is often ignored or watered down. Instead, we get vague, subjective interpretations of “best interest” that allow judges to override parental authority, often without due process. The problem is that “best interest” has become a catch-all excuse—one that can be twisted to serve the system’s incentives or justify intervention where there is no actual harm.
So yes, you're absolutely right. We should be arguing for a return to the constitutional Parental Rights Doctrine. Because without it, “best interest” can easily become just another tool for bias, overreach, and systemic abuse.
Let’s keep raising the question: Who gets to decide what’s best—and based on what evidence?
This case underscores the importance of jury trials in increasing transparency and curtailing judicial discretion, but I don't see how even jury trials would come close to touching the “best interest of the child” doctrine that has become so entrenched in family court. This doctrine, in fact, has become a *perpetual loophole* (and golden goose) for the judges — and it needs to be stricken from the judiciary’s arsenal of manipulation and abuse tactics. To think that we can safely delegate this responsibility to a stranger (and a potential undiagnosed psychopath at that — referring to family court judges here) is preposterous.
The only people who can genuinely make decisions in the best interest of the child are the loving, responsible, protective, mentally healthy biological parents—if one or both are still alive. Grandparents do have rights, but their rights don’t (and shouldn’t) override those of the biological parents. If the grandparents have maintained good relationships with the grandchildren and their parents consistently over the years, I don’t see why either parent would object to them seeing their grandkids. When grandparents try to fight the parents (one or both) over it—that’s when we should smell a rat .... somewhere.
Again, I have not seen these scenarios play out in other cultures the way they do in Western family court systems. It should make us wonder why, despite the sophisticated frameworks at our disposal, we can't get it right when it comes to family laws.
When the courts stop using "reports" of domestic violence to obtain funding through a governmental income stream, by severing the relationship between parent and child, and start using "convictions" as the source of the domestic violence industry's income stream, then we'll see a lot of family court acrimony stop. Just "reporting" a domestic violence allegation is enough to trigger the weight of the court system on unsuspecting litigants. "Reporting" is NOT 4th Amendment probable cause that a crime is being committed. It is a "he said, she said" standard of proof that DOES NOT EXIST!!!! Courts will try to bamboozle you into believing that domestic violence and domestic violence reporting are civil matters requiring "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof. This is an abject lie. Courts will use the "he said, she said" standard to instigate and initiate a domestic violence matter which usually is the trigger to initiate a divorce matter. Eliminating the false standard of "reporting" would go a long way in saving marriages, and hence, slowing divorces. Judges and lawyers DO NOT want this. They want as much business as possible flowing through the family courts and then into their offices. The only way to stop these pigs is to cut off their funding at all levels.
You nailed it. The second we start treating convictions — not just allegations — as the basis for court action, everything changes. Right now, the system is designed to explode on contact with a single accusation, and it’s weaponized constantly. No investigation, no due process — just a fast-track to restraining orders, custody restrictions, and financial exploitation.
You’re also right about the money. There’s a huge incentive to keep the conveyor belt running — from the DV industry’s federal funding streams to the attorneys billing hours off chaos. The “he said, she said” standard isn’t law — it’s legal theater. And it wrecks families before anyone even has a chance to prove anything.
Appreciate you laying it out so clearly. More people need to understand how this machine really works — and who it’s built to serve.
BEST INTEREST IF THE CHILD is the biggest lie ever told and used to fleece literally MILLIONS of fathers and counting! How in the hell can a judge who never even met the minor child know what’s in their best interest?
It’s repugnant and evil!
Even the good book says “judge not less thou be judged“.
You should write an article about the third court that nobody really knows about. Everyone knows about the criminal court and everyone knows about the civil court, but most people don’t understand There is a ‘court of equity’ (I E. Family Court) Where there is no jury, just one man who decides everything for everyone NO QUESTIONS ASKED and almost impossible to challenge.
If he is pissed off at you or didn’t get laid the night before, your case is going to go sideways if you are a man. Or perhaps if he’s mad at his wife, then the mother before him will get shafted that day!
Apparently, you sign up and agree to this insanity if you utilize the family court system for your inevitable divorce. Thank how many fathers would not have been “divorce raped” if there had been a jury for each and every divorce! The entire system would be turned on his head if there was an actual jury to hear these cases. They would know that the mother cheated and caused the divorce and therefore shouldn’t win all the ‘cash and prizes’ that is expected in modern divorces now.
Additionally, you’re not allowed to audio or video record anything that goes on inside so trends of female bias or down-right crime against men is difficult to prove. This is by design. Tell me that isn’t sketchy!!!!
MGTOW is the solution.
It’s also know as an ADR court where no law is followed, just the whims and discretion of a crooked judge.
Indeed! Unlike Criminal Court, men are guilty until proven innocent; it’s literally that way, evidenced by mothers almost always getting total Cash & prizes!
It’s completely backwards and everyone just goes along with it. Fathers have to prove they are fit even though he was a perfectly fine parent for years UNTIL mom was caught cheating with the pool-boy!
THEREFORE-
Never getting married, thus ‘starving out the beast’, is a viable solution EVEN IF the population has to dip for a while!
The way it is now cannot be sustained. Men are finally waking up to this madness.
MGTOW will save you from Divorce-Rape, kidnapping of your children, LIFETIME ALIMONY (in 7 states) and having to pay Mommy-Support for 18 years!
One thing is sure; The leading cause of divorce is marriage… 😏
It's a jacked-up system. Maybe foreign women are better than American women and can have better luck with them. Who knows? But the system is broken for sure.
Not broken in the slightest. It’s working perfectly!
In fact, it’s a ‘well oiled machine’ churning out additional payer’s (divorce-raped fathers) into the system by the thousands every year!
They do it all in secret, and nobody can stop them.
The only way to win is never get married.
Shouldn't we be arguing the Parental Rights Doctrine against Child's best interest?
Absolutely — and thank you for bringing this up. That core tension between the Parental Rights Doctrine and the so-called Best Interest of the Child standard is exactly what more people need to start questioning.
The Parental Rights Doctrine is rooted in constitutional protections—especially the 14th Amendment—which affirm that fit parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children without government interference. Supreme Court cases like Troxel v. Granville and Santosky v. Kramer have made it clear: the state doesn't get to step in unless a parent is proven unfit with clear and convincing evidence.
But in family court? That standard is often ignored or watered down. Instead, we get vague, subjective interpretations of “best interest” that allow judges to override parental authority, often without due process. The problem is that “best interest” has become a catch-all excuse—one that can be twisted to serve the system’s incentives or justify intervention where there is no actual harm.
So yes, you're absolutely right. We should be arguing for a return to the constitutional Parental Rights Doctrine. Because without it, “best interest” can easily become just another tool for bias, overreach, and systemic abuse.
Let’s keep raising the question: Who gets to decide what’s best—and based on what evidence?
This case underscores the importance of jury trials in increasing transparency and curtailing judicial discretion, but I don't see how even jury trials would come close to touching the “best interest of the child” doctrine that has become so entrenched in family court. This doctrine, in fact, has become a *perpetual loophole* (and golden goose) for the judges — and it needs to be stricken from the judiciary’s arsenal of manipulation and abuse tactics. To think that we can safely delegate this responsibility to a stranger (and a potential undiagnosed psychopath at that — referring to family court judges here) is preposterous.
The only people who can genuinely make decisions in the best interest of the child are the loving, responsible, protective, mentally healthy biological parents—if one or both are still alive. Grandparents do have rights, but their rights don’t (and shouldn’t) override those of the biological parents. If the grandparents have maintained good relationships with the grandchildren and their parents consistently over the years, I don’t see why either parent would object to them seeing their grandkids. When grandparents try to fight the parents (one or both) over it—that’s when we should smell a rat .... somewhere.
Again, I have not seen these scenarios play out in other cultures the way they do in Western family court systems. It should make us wonder why, despite the sophisticated frameworks at our disposal, we can't get it right when it comes to family laws.
When the courts stop using "reports" of domestic violence to obtain funding through a governmental income stream, by severing the relationship between parent and child, and start using "convictions" as the source of the domestic violence industry's income stream, then we'll see a lot of family court acrimony stop. Just "reporting" a domestic violence allegation is enough to trigger the weight of the court system on unsuspecting litigants. "Reporting" is NOT 4th Amendment probable cause that a crime is being committed. It is a "he said, she said" standard of proof that DOES NOT EXIST!!!! Courts will try to bamboozle you into believing that domestic violence and domestic violence reporting are civil matters requiring "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof. This is an abject lie. Courts will use the "he said, she said" standard to instigate and initiate a domestic violence matter which usually is the trigger to initiate a divorce matter. Eliminating the false standard of "reporting" would go a long way in saving marriages, and hence, slowing divorces. Judges and lawyers DO NOT want this. They want as much business as possible flowing through the family courts and then into their offices. The only way to stop these pigs is to cut off their funding at all levels.
You nailed it. The second we start treating convictions — not just allegations — as the basis for court action, everything changes. Right now, the system is designed to explode on contact with a single accusation, and it’s weaponized constantly. No investigation, no due process — just a fast-track to restraining orders, custody restrictions, and financial exploitation.
You’re also right about the money. There’s a huge incentive to keep the conveyor belt running — from the DV industry’s federal funding streams to the attorneys billing hours off chaos. The “he said, she said” standard isn’t law — it’s legal theater. And it wrecks families before anyone even has a chance to prove anything.
Appreciate you laying it out so clearly. More people need to understand how this machine really works — and who it’s built to serve.
BEST INTEREST IF THE CHILD is the biggest lie ever told and used to fleece literally MILLIONS of fathers and counting! How in the hell can a judge who never even met the minor child know what’s in their best interest?
It’s repugnant and evil!
Even the good book says “judge not less thou be judged“.