Family Court: the Source of the Corru...

Family Court: the Source of the Corruption

Posted in the Utica Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Truth

Marcellus, NY

#1 Aug 23, 2010
"Common wisdom" holds that some family courts are biased or discriminate against fathers. While this is certainly true in some cases, this is not the source of the corruption. Family courts discriminate in favor of money first; the reason for this is Title IV-D, which grants judges extra $$$ for each dollar the state extracts from the non-custodial parent in the form of child support. Thus, courts are incentivized to remove children from the primary breadwinner (most often the father), regardless of fault, and often over his objections. Oftentimes, monetarily-incentivized violations of constitutional rights occur because of Title IV-D.

Fathers are often divorced over their objections; their children and assets are seized from them, and they are plundered by the state. It is no exaggeration to suggest that tens of thousands of fathers are currently on the run from the government, with barely a roof over their heads, for failing to pay fraudulently high sums of child support to state thieves, for children who were seized from them over their objections and through no fault of their own. In fact, given that the U.S. Census Bureau lists roughly 17 million+ noncustodial parents, this may be a gross underexaggeration.

This is a short video composed of several other YouTube videos, arranged in a way I thought might be particularly effective, with some book material interspersed.

Websites on Title IV-D/equal parenting:
http://www.achildsright.typepad.com/achildsri...
http://www.daddy.typepad.com/
http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/category/title-i...

Here are the original YouTube videos:
"Carol Rhodes exposes the corrupt child support agencies," by rrpedersen

"Carol Rhodes Former FOC Enforcement Officer," by dandiebolt
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
"Carol Rhodes Author of FOC Enemy of the Family," by darricksf
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Marsha Maines, Family Rights Activist Parts 1 & 2, by markyoung12
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Stephen Baskerville Discusses Deadbeat Dad Pizza Box Issue, by acfusa
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[Les Miserables]- 10th anniversary Work Song, by mistyaho
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[Les Miserables] 10th anniversary - Look Down, by mistyaho
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I Agree

Marcellus, NY

#2 Aug 23, 2010
This all falls in line with the Hillary Clinton "It Takes a Village" mantra to justify the further destruction of the family unit by manufacturing problems that necessitate the need to create jobs within the system. Utterly disgusting.
Get real

Herkimer, NY

#3 Aug 23, 2010
While I agree that the family court system is a failure and corrupt at many levels I do not agree that it is fathers that are specifically prejudiced against. In my own experience they are given tons of leeway and time to do what the law instructs as far as child support is concerned to the point of ridiculousness as things get dragged out for months and months. They are also given time with the kids even when there is a question of abuse or neglect and nothing is done until something drastic happens for fear of infringing on the fathers' rights. Same goes in reverse for the mothers if there is a problem. There are many equal examples on both sides of unfair decisions and things not being done in the best interest of the kids to protect the parents "rights". What about the mothers who were left to take care of the children financially while the fathers played the 'hide the income' game and did nothing to help raise or support their children? And this is why the system exists in the first place, because too many fathers would leave the family and leave the mother and children to fend for themselves, often in total abandonment. I am glad you are not one of those fathers but I wish your point of view was not so gender biased and was more balanced. The child support system exists because a majority of parents that leave their partner and do not have the kids full time shirk their responsibilities, leaving the other parent to rely on social services and become a burden on society. The goal was to alleviate this and get the other parent to do their fair share. I bet a lot of times parents could have worked out the visitation without the courts' interference if not for the bitterness over the money issue. That becomes a war and the kids become pawns in the game. The problem as I see it is every case is individual and the judges paint everyone with the same brush and look at it as the same situation with everyone. I was told by someone close to the court system that they just don't care, it is just a job to them. How sad for the kids involved. The truth is, it is not always BOTH parents doing this and sometimes it is just one or the other but the judges do not take the time to get to the bottom of it causing more problems instead of fixing them.
Yes, there are bitter mothers who try to get the most money out of the father. But this is prevented by the percentages which men thought up and came to agreement on as fair and just amounts. If you disagree, try to change how the calculations are done. But, there are just as many men who are bitter who use the child custody and visitation issues to harass the mother by filing baseless violations and making the kids upset over going with them just to stress the mother out and make it harder. And the way the system is set up the court allows it and ignores this problem. It can be done by the women as well by them fighting for as little time as possible for the father's visitation. These are the issues that need to be addressed, for men AND women in these situations. By polarizing the issue as discrimination against men you only stir the pot and show your own prejudice and bitterness. The problems in the system affect BOTH parents. You also cannot ignore the needs of the kids and the gender roles of society. Equality has come a long way but nature dictates certain roles and a mother's role as primary nurturer and caregiver for a baby up until a certain age cannot be ignored. As well as the man's role to provide for his family and be the primary breadwinner. We can share roles more and more but these are the roles that work best for a reason as nature dictates. So I believe that the bias towards mothers getting primary custody is just a common sense one based on the mother's role before the break up. I do not believe this is intentionally discriminating against fathers. I believe it started as a practical decision and the kids' needs and ages should be a stronger factor than a parent's "right".
Single Parent

Rome, NY

#4 Aug 23, 2010
Get real wrote:
While I agree that the family court system is a failure and corrupt at many levels I do not agree that it is fathers that are specifically prejudiced against. In my own experience they are given tons of leeway and time to do what the law instructs as far as child support is concerned to the point of ridiculousness as things get dragged out for months and months..........
Very well stated - without bias. Very few single parents receive the Child support they are entitled to. Then when the children reach 18 - 21, the Fathers try to contact their children and try to begin a relationship with them. However, by that time, the children have gotten use to his absence and want nothing to do with him!!!!
So Typical

Marcellus, NY

#5 Aug 24, 2010
Single Parent wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well stated - without bias. Very few single parents receive the Child support they are entitled to. Then when the children reach 18 - 21, the Fathers try to contact their children and try to begin a relationship with them. However, by that time, the children have gotten use to his absence and want nothing to do with him!!!!
Obviously a man hating woman with a sense of entitlement who alienated her children from their father and made it all about money!
Good Dad

Long Island City, NY

#6 Aug 24, 2010
Single Parent wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well stated - without bias. Very few single parents receive the Child support they are entitled to. Then when the children reach 18 - 21, the Fathers try to contact their children and try to begin a relationship with them. However, by that time, the children have gotten use to his absence and want nothing to do with him!!!!
Very good points brought up on both sides of the coin here. I just wanted to add my 2 cents. Totally disagree that "very few single parents recieve the child support". I do know women who haven't gotten support due to a looser ex running and hiding from the courts and his kids. However, I believe most do get at least some support and most times that support is way more than they would have been spending on the kids had they stayed in the relationship. It's a shame that there is no accountability for the child support. My kids always complained that he wasn't getting things he needed. I couldn't say a word in court though in fear of ticking off the judge. Many times it's just a money scam by the women. I know of one that has 4 kids with 3 different guys and collects child support from them all. Figure it,
aveage pay =$40K x 17% x 4 kids =$27,200/yr. And this is TAX FREE!!!
Get real

Herkimer, NY

#7 Aug 24, 2010
So Typical wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously a man hating woman with a sense of entitlement who alienated her children from their father and made it all about money!
Sounds more to me like someone that had a father who walked away rather than pay support and that is unfortunate. You would be bitter too, if it was your father or father of your children. Many fathers choose to walk away when the relationship is over and don't bother with the kids much, if at all. You cannot deny it is a common problem in our society. All men are not like that but because so many are the laws were made. I guess your argument would be why punish all for the sins of some... but I hardly think contributing 17 percent of your income to help your kid and help provide a roof over their head is something you should resent. Most loving parents (including the custodial parent) contribute way more than that to their child on a regular basis. And when there are two children, it isn't even double that amount! It is only 25 percent total. So now each kid has to make do with only about 12 percent. There is an example of how the laws took into consideration the father's plight and needs as well. Everybody suffers financially in break up. That is why two incomes in one household is always best for everyone. There is no way to make it so one parent is untouched by this fact. And the above response by syracuse is very typical of the bitter make who resents paying support.
Get real

Herkimer, NY

#8 Aug 24, 2010
Spelling mistake. bitter "male", not make.
LifelongUtican

Okatie, SC

#9 Aug 24, 2010
I am a father that has been a victim of "the system" and of my ex-wife and her family along with several other players.

Bottom line... our yes "OUR" children could have had better if she was not such a C..T! We all could have made the best out of a bad situation if the family court and the a..holes called lawyers did not interfere and throw gas on the fires.
I got beaten and broken over the 21 some odd years, but the children were hurt the worst as they were denied a loving father for NO reason.

The "system" is broken very very badly! Until the courts take the WMD away from them, and put the fathers on equal footing AND give the children the benefit of BOTH parents fully involved in their lives, this will continue to spiral and nosedive all its victims into oblivion.

Koziol took a stand against the machine and got hurt in the process. Any ONE of us who had stood up for our childrens rights, or god forbid tried to stand up for our own, was slapped upside the head AND the wallet by family court and "put in our place" or so they thought.
Our place was 50/50 involvement and time with our children. The system turns them into money making pawns for the state and to fuel hate and discontent between the mother and father.
The fathers who walk away to avoid this hurt, and life of pain, anguish and suffering don't have the balls give it their all.
Some of us were punished for takeing a stand. I, for one, will stand by Koziol shoulder to shoulder any day of the week against these bureaucratic a holes who care only for the woman and her master plan of pain and destuction of the father of her child(ren).
Screw all of them and hope they ALL die a horrible slow and painful death. Then, when you give up the ghost, I hope you all enjoy your trip straight to hell for all eternity.
History repeats

Wilmington, NC

#10 Aug 24, 2010
Time and time again things go on an on..........being a fourth gen of abusive parents and neg.......because I didn't carry on the family name or have a set of balls or the reason my husband was srewwwwwwwwwwwiiiinnnnnnnnnnng gggggggg around was I didn't give him enough. OK sauquoitty folks..........this is what we have in our community and lives.So power be to the woman.........we are working,not sitting home watching football or snapping the finger and saying we are disable and get the check.PLEASE so we don't have to pay support
Good Dad

Long Island City, NY

#11 Aug 24, 2010
LifelongUtican wrote:
I am a father that has been a victim of "the system" and of my ex-wife and her family along with several other players.
Bottom line... our yes "OUR" children could have had better if she was not such a C..T! We all could have made the best out of a bad situation if the family court and the a..holes called lawyers did not interfere and throw gas on the fires.
I got beaten and broken over the 21 some odd years, but the children were hurt the worst as they were denied a loving father for NO reason.
The "system" is broken very very badly! Until the courts take the WMD away from them, and put the fathers on equal footing AND give the children the benefit of BOTH parents fully involved in their lives, this will continue to spiral and nosedive all its victims into oblivion.
Koziol took a stand against the machine and got hurt in the process. Any ONE of us who had stood up for our childrens rights, or god forbid tried to stand up for our own, was slapped upside the head AND the wallet by family court and "put in our place" or so they thought.
Our place was 50/50 involvement and time with our children. The system turns them into money making pawns for the state and to fuel hate and discontent between the mother and father.
The fathers who walk away to avoid this hurt, and life of pain, anguish and suffering don't have the balls give it their all.
Some of us were punished for takeing a stand. I, for one, will stand by Koziol shoulder to shoulder any day of the week against these bureaucratic a holes who care only for the woman and her master plan of pain and destuction of the father of her child(ren).
Screw all of them and hope they ALL die a horrible slow and painful death. Then, when you give up the ghost, I hope you all enjoy your trip straight to hell for all eternity.
I share your plight and stand with you an Leon.

One question for this forum:

How ofen are women ordered to pay child support? Aren't they parents too?
I Know

Herkimer, NY

#12 Aug 24, 2010
Single Parent wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well stated - without bias. Very few single parents receive the Child support they are entitled to. Then when the children reach 18 - 21, the Fathers try to contact their children and try to begin a relationship with them. However, by that time, the children have gotten use to his absence and want nothing to do with him!!!!
This post has to be from the same woman that calls herself "Nana" or "Longtime Utican". It sounds just like her!!
Get real

Herkimer, NY

#13 Aug 24, 2010
Any parent that walks away because they were asked to pay "too much" money and then blames the court system for them not being there for the kids is a fool or a liar making excuses for taking the easy way out. It is easy to look back and place the blame on the court system instead of yourself and make excuses for your choices. But in the end, a loving parent doesn't walk away no matter how hard the road is or what it costs. They suck it up and raise their children best they can and spend the time they get with their kids and make the most out of it even if it is not the way they want or as much as they want it to be. If they believe the laws are unfair in some way they rally against that the proper way and try to get the lawmakers to change things in their favor. They try their best to make their stand in court. If they lose, or things don't go all their way, they deal with it. How many custodial parents (in your example, mothers) that didn't get all the child support they wanted or that had to give the fathers more visitation than they wanted to then walked away from their kids or stopped contributing to them financially in protest? It doesn't happen. Wonder why that is? Good parents do not protest the laws or the judge's ruling in a way that causes their children to suffer or go without in any way, shape, or form. Koziol took the stance that he should pay nothing and not see his kids to make a point to the court. That was not doing things the right way for the kids, and that is all that matters if you truly love them. I could never support that kind of grandstanding. It is neglect and abandonment all because things are not going the way you want. How can anyone justify that?? I will never find that logical or reasonable.
Facts First

Marcellus, NY

#14 Aug 24, 2010
Get real wrote:
Koziol took the stance that he should pay nothing and not see his kids to make a point to the court. That was not doing things the right way for the kids, and that is all that matters if you truly love them. I could never support that kind of grandstanding. It is neglect and abandonment all because things are not going the way you want. How can anyone justify that?? I will never find that logical or reasonable.
Wrong...Koziol and his ex had come to an agreement on their own whereby he was paying child support. The court refused to accept it. It was later determined that he had been overpaying according to the "formula." Needless to say, those in power broke his chops and dragged a custody hearing out in order to determine such.

Was a primary custodian necessary? No
Was his divorce politically exploited? Yes
Was his ex used as a pawn? Yes
Was he tired of seeing his ex's attorney and the law guardian work against him in an effort to seize his children? Yes
UC4ME

Potsdam, NY

#15 Aug 24, 2010
these judges need to be thrown off the bench. the laws all need to be written for 21st century to replace the ones on the books from the 50's. money isnt even the biggest concern, its the shared time fathers want with their kids. its the head games some of these psycho mothers feel they need to play with childrens heads to screw with the father with total disregard for what damage they're causing these poor kids.
and no, i've never been in a custody battle. im happily married with one child and another on the way. but i've watched from the outside how these courts destroyed peoples lives. these judges face no accountability and that is wrong. this needs to change.
Facts First

Marcellus, NY

#16 Aug 24, 2010
UC4ME wrote:
these judges need to be thrown off the bench. the laws all need to be written for 21st century to replace the ones on the books from the 50's. money isnt even the biggest concern, its the shared time fathers want with their kids. its the head games some of these psycho mothers feel they need to play with childrens heads to screw with the father with total disregard for what damage they're causing these poor kids.
and no, i've never been in a custody battle. im happily married with one child and another on the way. but i've watched from the outside how these courts destroyed peoples lives. these judges face no accountability and that is wrong. this needs to change.
So true. The judges hide behind their black robes and have judicial immunity. The tide is turning my friend.
LOL

Syracuse, NY

#17 Aug 25, 2010
"Facts First" clearly doesn't know the facts. Leon wasn't over paying on a child support obligation that he and his Wife came up with. Yes, its true that the Court would not accept the party's agreement because a court must have financial disclosure. Leon did't want anyone, including the judge to see his financial records.

All this talk about child support being a money making proposition for the State is just a lunatics (Leon's) spin in trying to gather support for his misplaced ideas. Misplaced public support for his mission is just Leon's way of getting his ego stroked. Clearly that's been, and continues to be his priority over his children.

Hey Leon, has the "higher court" that's reviewing all your lawsuits given you any positive feedback yet. Haven't seen any news releases on your website confirming that you've been vindicated.
Dumb Broad

Marcellus, NY

#18 Aug 27, 2010
LOL wrote:
"Facts First" clearly doesn't know the facts. Leon wasn't over paying on a child support obligation that he and his Wife came up with. Yes, its true that the Court would not accept the party's agreement because a court must have financial disclosure. Leon did't want anyone, including the judge to see his financial records.
All this talk about child support being a money making proposition for the State is just a lunatics (Leon's) spin in trying to gather support for his misplaced ideas. Misplaced public support for his mission is just Leon's way of getting his ego stroked. Clearly that's been, and continues to be his priority over his children.
Hey Leon, has the "higher court" that's reviewing all your lawsuits given you any positive feedback yet. Haven't seen any news releases on your website confirming that you've been vindicated.
The only crime Leon is guilty of is being a good father who wanted equal time with his children. He did not need a government directive to reduce his time with the kids and require him to pay. You need to stop hiding behind bogus laws that have other intended purposes despite how they are sold to the general public. Get yourself up to speed on Title IV D and for crying out loud...stop being so ignorant.
God

Rouses Point, NY

#19 Aug 27, 2010
Truth wrote:
"Common wisdom" holds that some family courts are biased or discriminate against fathers. While this is certainly true in some cases, this is not the source of the corruption. Family courts discriminate in favor of money first; the reason for this is Title IV-D, which grants judges extra $$$ for each dollar the state extracts from the non-custodial parent in the form of child support. Thus, courts are incentivized to remove children from the primary breadwinner (most often the father), regardless of fault, and often over his objections. Oftentimes, monetarily-incentivized violations of constitutional rights occur because of Title IV-D.
Fathers are often divorced over their objections; their children and assets are seized from them, and they are plundered by the state. It is no exaggeration to suggest that tens of thousands of fathers are currently on the run from the government, with barely a roof over their heads, for failing to pay fraudulently high sums of child support to state thieves, for children who were seized from them over their objections and through no fault of their own. In fact, given that the U.S. Census Bureau lists roughly 17 million+ noncustodial parents, this may be a gross underexaggeration.
This is a short video composed of several other YouTube videos, arranged in a way I thought might be particularly effective, with some book material interspersed.
Websites on Title IV-D/equal parenting:
http://www.achildsright.typepad.com/achildsri...
http://www.daddy.typepad.com/
http://mkg4583.wordpress.com/category/title-i...
Here are the original YouTube videos:
"Carol Rhodes exposes the corrupt child support agencies," by rrpedersen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LOC58c-IbdkXX
"Carol Rhodes Former FOC Enforcement Officer," by dandiebolt
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
"Carol Rhodes Author of FOC Enemy of the Family," by darricksf
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Marsha Maines, Family Rights Activist Parts 1 & 2, by markyoung12
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Stephen Baskerville Discusses Deadbeat Dad Pizza Box Issue, by acfusa
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[Les Miserables]- 10th anniversary Work Song, by mistyaho
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
[Les Miserables] 10th anniversary - Look Down, by mistyaho
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The system creates dead beat dads!! I know of a case where the woman had a child by the guy she was cheating with, but the husband still had to pay child support for the child even though a dna test proved he was not the biological father because it was in the best interest of the child?????? WTF is up with that?
someone who knows

Rome, NY

#20 Aug 28, 2010
God wrote:
<quoted text>
The system creates dead beat dads!! I know of a case where the woman had a child by the guy she was cheating with, but the husband still had to pay child support for the child even though a dna test proved he was not the biological father because it was in the best interest of the child?????? WTF is up with that?
Know your legal facts before you post something that you are not educated in.

There is a law that has been tested time and time again and is still in effect. It simply states "any child born within a marriage is automatically the responsibility of the husband and wife".

In other words, your "friend" should have divorced his cheating wife before she got pregnant-LOL.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Utica Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Kelly . Uvanni 8 min You Van E 18
What was your favorite bar in Utica? 13 min Lin D Joy 30
name who has bedbugs and carries them from apar... 22 min yucko 5
Parkway pete 33 min Lame 8
Matt Cuda & Sicilian Delight 52 min Bob 41
Dems secure a red wave and pay for this migrant... 1 hr maga 1
Oneida County installs security cameras at DMV ... 1 hr Nonogordon 17
Nano Utica FAILURE!!! 2 hr No nano 40
DMV in Utica rated worst. 8 hr ONLY in Utica 66

Utica Jobs

Personal Finance

Utica Mortgages