Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Nov 22, 2024, 07:12:41 PM

Login with username, password and session length

CHARITY?

Started by ymakemew8t, Jan 23, 2014, 10:20:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Would you agree on a charity for women with lack of funds to fight for the courts to make a fair and unbiased ruling?

Yes! I would vote for a charity
0 (0%)
No! I wouldn't vote for the charity
6 (100%)

Total Members Voted: 6

Voting closed: Jan 30, 2014, 10:26:07 PM

ymakemew8t

I would like to start a charity for the women that doesn't have the money to fight they're spouse's in court which makes them default for the courts to choose what the best interest of the child instead of just granting the order to lack of funds.

ocean

I voted no, as it is not a charity for either parent. Family court is very women biased still in almost every state. Restraining orders are given out like candy against men, police do not enforce family court orders for visitation, and women are not held accountable for not following the parenting plan. Men are threatened jail time for non-payment after the first month while women just file in court that the father owes xx dollars with no proof. The whole system needs to change but will not as this site has been here over 15 years with min change. Children need both parents in their lives and that is not the focus in family court.

Waylon

Bingo, I feel the same way, Ocean.

If it was for all parents I would support it, but as you pointed out mothers are usually treated deferentially by the family court system.

Quote from: ocean on Jan 24, 2014, 03:33:05 AM
I voted no, as it is not a charity for either parent. Family court is very women biased still in almost every state. Restraining orders are given out like candy against men, police do not enforce family court orders for visitation, and women are not held accountable for not following the parenting plan. Men are threatened jail time for non-payment after the first month while women just file in court that the father owes xx dollars with no proof. The whole system needs to change but will not as this site has been here over 15 years with min change. Children need both parents in their lives and that is not the focus in family court.
The trouble with reality is that there's no background music.

Waylon

Quote from: ymakemew8t on Jan 23, 2014, 10:20:16 PMI would like to start a charity for the women that doesn't have the money to fight they're spouse's in court

Usually when the mother doesn't have funds for a lawyer, the father is made to pay for her legal defense. Ask me how I know.
The trouble with reality is that there's no background music.

ymakemew8t

May I stand corrected! I agree with you that both parents need to be in children's lives. I feel that if a women does not have the money to find lawyer the system is set up to where she defaults and automatically allows the other party to win. If you can tell me how to get an attorney to take my case making my X pay. Please

ocean

Here only in divorce can you ask for lawyer fees. Family court you can ask for a contempt of court case. But for a regular family court (changes, modifications, child support) you have to qualify for free legal service. Most do not qualify as it is a very low income to be eligible.

Legally, you can always represent yourself. We have many times and have won against ex's lawyer. Judges will give you some leeway when representing yourself. Just say, I can not afford a lawyer or qualify for legal aid and will be representing myself.  Not sure why you say you will default, just negotiate with his lawyer in hall or go in and talk to judge.

Waylon

Quote from: ymakemew8t on Jan 24, 2014, 01:50:55 PMI feel that if a women does not have the money to find lawyer the system is set up to where she defaults and automatically allows the other party to win.

I'm not sure where you would get that idea. It's pretty much the opposite of what actually happens in most family courts.
The trouble with reality is that there's no background music.

tigger

The only time I was awarded atty fees is when my and his atty clearly delayed and delayed and delayed.  My atty was able to show a pattern of how many calls he had to make before getting a response.  And how many times he had to request information before the correct paperwork was turned it.  The judge found that they unnecessarily ran up my bill and they were only required to pay for that amount, not the entire bill.

As for providing women with representation without them having to pay for it . . . that wreaks of entitlement and no one is entitled to a lawyer for civil cases.  Only when the state charges you with a crime are you entitled to legal representation. 
The wonderful thing about tiggers is I'm the only one!