This is the problem

 This is the problem.  

Men and fathers lose everything. Everything in family court.  All it takes is one false allegation and the man is forced from his assets and more importantly his children. 

It’s encouraged by family law attorneys to file those false allegations because it makes it a slam dunk the man can NOT come back from.  

We only have three states that have even attempted to start fixing these issues with 50/50 shared parenting laws on the books. Kentucky. Arkansas. West Virginia.  

Only one of those states has the gold standard of clear and convincing evidence.  In the beginning of Johnny Depps case he was crushed with a restraining order for abuse and he was the victim here.  

No one sees a problem with this? Nobody wants to fix it? We’re okay with this happening to millions and millions of men a year in family courts? 

Yes we are aware it happens to women also. It predominately happens to men and fathers because the laws are archaic and discriminatory. 

Change is coming.  

Kenneth Rosa 

Media Personality

A Father's Anguish

In my life I've seen the heavy toll that divorce and separation can take - psychologically, emotionally, and financially. I've been extensively involved in divorce and paternity litigation and witnessed the way a non-custodial parent, especially fathers, are often forced to abandon all hopes of equitable rights wen it comes to their children.

It was difficult to write this.

Although my experiences with judges, lawyers, and court-ordered therapists during my own hi-conflict divorce and paternity proceedings left me outraged over the injustices are endemic to the family law system in our society.

So I had no desire to revisit them.

The pain I suffer, the fear, and anger I felt (and still feel) toward nearly all the principals involved, and the inescapable sense of hopelessness and isolation exhausted me. However, to live inside the family court matrix, to be engaged in that battle, ultimately means, to be poised to tell my story, to make make my point, to argue my side at a moments notice. It is a fire that is constantly burning.

 This is an issue that impacts all citizens everywhere. There is a serious problem and health risk in the family courts that ''we the people'' depend on to protect us.

My family court cases are not unique. But what is unique is that I just happen to be the first US citizen (according to a Federal Judge) declared disabled (determined through expert testimony)  because of the family courts. In 2016 I began receiving disability benefits because of a diagnosed ''injury'' called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Legal Abuse Syndrome) as the result of fraudulent and abusive legal proceedings in connection to the family court system.

I'm suffering from Legal Abuse Syndrome a sub-category of PTSD specifically from abusive legal proceedings. It's no different than combat trauma or PTSD in victims of torture. In fact it is diagnosed on the same MMPI sub-scale.

My case is still open and haven't seen my daughter again in almost four years. The wound still remains open.

Let me stress that PTSD(LAS) is an inflicted injury - NOT A MENTAL ILLNESS!!! It's an assault behind the judicial curtains where no one hears you - let alone the judge.

Strangely enough after reaching the point where they (the Family Courts) had burned my rights to the ground leaving no hope of a fair hearing, remedy, and or redress; all denied and out of reach.

I did not despair. Instead I reached the point of empowerment and became a top father's rights activist and found my voice to be revolutionary. That's what happens under tyranny...just look at history.

A court-inflicted injury on those it is supposed to protect should be cause for alarm among all citizens!!

I AM MY DAUGHTER AND SON'S FATHER -- A FIT FATHER!!

If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today he would be upset and say "What's up with this?"

What MLK Taught Me About

How to Be a Dad

“We don’t take black money.”

Those were the cruel words my father-in-law, Dr. Little, heard when he was a young man at a public golf course in 1959.

“Good,” he responded. “Because money is green.”

He left his cash on the counter, turned around, and walked out the door to go play a round of golf.

Later, he and his friends were escorted away by police for playing on a “whites only” course. Rather than exploding into a violent rage, as many others would have done, Dr. Little stayed calm and held his head high during his arrest.

That highly publicized event and his example of a dignified man were instrumental in the future of the golf course, which would be integrated a few years later.

On MLK Day, I find myself reflecting on my father-in-law’s story. I am also reminded that Dr. King’s famous “I have a dream” speech was about being a father. It was about envisioning the future he wanted for his children, and then working to make that dream a reality.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he said.

Displaced fathers are overwrought at the loss of contact with their children

Dr. Edward Kruk: 'Is Sole Custody

A Form Of Parental Alienation?'

Here's Barbara Kay again with her usual lucid, fact-based piece (National Post, 6/15/11). In it she raises a number of good points, one of which I should have raised earlier myself. I'm delinquent for not having done so and will duly fall on my sword at the appropriate moment. That point is simple; over the past, say, 20 years, fathers have taken on more and more of the care of their children. That's reflected in statistics and it's also reflected in popular culture where we see movies, commercials, sitcoms, novels, etc. about fathers and children or at least involving them in significant roles.

But courts remain firmly stuck in the past; the overwhelming majority of child custody still goes either solely or primarily to mothers. What that means is that children and fathers suffer as never before when parents divorce. In the past, dad may have seen his role as exclusively the breadwinner and therefore taken little part in day-to-day childrearing. In the event of divorce, it could be argued that separating him from his child wouldn't be too traumatic for either. After all, their relationship was a bit distant anyway. I would object to that argument, but now, with fathers bonding ever more closely to children, consigning him to the role of paying visitor is doubly bad policy. It's an important point and one I'll come back to in the future, partly because the always excellent Dr. Edward Kruk makes it in his new book, to which Kay refers.