Men learn all about spouse abuse in family court

[Brent]

Men learn all about spouse abuse in family court

December 5, 2003
by Russ Maney

A recently divorced friend of mine is afraid of the mailman. He cringes as he checks his email. His heart races every time his beeper goes off.

No, he's not being stalked. He lives in fear of Family Court. Just this past week, another fat envelope of injustice came in the post — another ruling ordering him to pay more money he doesn't have.

My friend did nothing that warrants such one-sided treatment. No physical or verbal abuse, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no adultery, no gambling, no "too many nights out with the boys." The "irreconcilable differences" his wife cited boiled down to money. She wanted to spend it. He wanted to save it. She wanted the divorce. He wanted to save the marriage.

Now, thanks to draconian spousal maintenance, child support and numerous other private school, therapy and other medical expenses, the court is now forcing him to pay, he's poised on the cliff of bankruptcy. Forty-three years old and a well-respected family doctor, he can't afford to live anywhere but in his old bedroom at his parent's house. Meanwhile, his wife drives a brand new $50,000 SUV, lives comfortably in what was their upper-middle class house and cashes his checks.

This isn't an isolated incident. Anti-male bias in family courts is epidemic. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that when fathers are brave and rich enough to seek custody of their children, they receive primary custody less than a third of the time and joint physical custody less than half the time.

When it comes to who cashes whose checks, the trends are even more lopsided. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, less than a third of custodial fathers receive child support from their former spouses, while 80 percent of custodial mothers do. Even more telling, almost half of these non-custodial mothers default on paying, while less than a third of non-custodial fathers do.

Many researchers now believe that this bias is wrecking the institution of marriage itself. According to the National Center of Policy Analysis, at least two-thirds of divorce suits are now filed by women, most often without grounds of wrongdoing by the father.

If you know you can take the kids — and the house and the bank accounts — with you, why stay and work on the marriage? To be clear, we're not talking about victims of abuse or adultery, who have every right to run and should. These are women who think the grass might be greener on the other side of the "irreconcilable differences" fence. And it well may be, especially if they get to bring most of the "green" from their current side of the fence.

Unfortunately, there's often little the man can do about it. Thanks to most states' current "no-fault" divorce statutes, a mother can have a half-dozen previous divorces, commit adultery, level false charges and (in some cases) even assault the father, and none of these will have any bearing on custody or child support decisions.

The ethical stench emanating from many family courts gets even worse as you dig deeper into the cesspool of recent decisions. Florida's Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Michael Anderson had to continue paying child support, despite DNA tests that showed he wasn't the father. He's far from alone. A 1999 Florida Department of Revenue study found that about one-third of men identified by mothers as possible fathers in child support cases were found not to be the fathers after DNA tests.

In cases like this, many argue that once a man agrees to be a father, both emotionally and financially, then he shouldn't be allowed to wriggle off the hook, even if he turns out not to be the father. But what if that hook was a lie all along? Anderson married the woman in an attempt to "do the right thing," after she had become pregnant and told him the baby was his. She knew it might not be, but he didn't know this until three years later. The Florida Supreme Court formally endorsed this blatant fraud by ruling that Anderson must continue paying child support anyway.

My friend was raised to believe that courts were hallowed ground — ivory towers of wisdom, truth and justice for all. Now, not only has his entire life been shattered financially and emotionally, so has his faith in "the system."

I, too, have been divorced, but this column isn't sour grapes. My own experience, in a county without family courts, wasn't biased. I'm thankful that my ex-wife has been similarly fair and shares custody of my daughters with me. It's a shame that I appear to be an exception to a very disturbing trend.

Meanwhile, my friend waits for the next envelope and wonders where he'll get the money to pay for it all. There are far too many good men just like him.


Russ Maney


To read more of Russ Maney's columns, please visit //www.russmaney.com.

[Jasmine]

IMO the worst part is the poor men who are duped into believing they are father's when they really are not. These women who intentionally lie should pay for their actions.

[StPaulieGirl]

[p]My friend did nothing that warrants such one-sided treatment. No physical or verbal abuse, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no adultery, no gambling, no "too many nights out with the boys." The "irreconcilable differences" his wife cited boiled down to money. She wanted to spend it. He wanted to save it. She wanted the divorce. He wanted to save the marriage.

[p]Yet another reason to abolish "no fault divorce".

[p]Now, thanks to draconian spousal maintenance, child support and numerous other private school, therapy and other medical expenses, the court is now forcing him to pay, he's poised on the cliff of bankruptcy. Forty-three years old and a well-respected family doctor, he can't afford to live anywhere but in his old bedroom at his parent's house. Meanwhile, his wife drives a brand new $50,000 SUV, lives comfortably in what was their upper-middle class house and cashes his checks.

[p]He's lucky that he could stay at his folks house.  Some guys end up staying in their cars, or on a friend's sofa.  50.000 SUV.  Damn.

[p]Many researchers now believe that this bias is wrecking the institution of marriage itself. According to the National Center of Policy Analysis, at least two-thirds of divorce suits are now filed by women, most often without grounds of wrongdoing by the father.

[p]Why is that?  No, really. Why do women abandon their husbands if they aren't beating on them and the kids, having affairs, etc?  How sick.

[p]Unfortunately, there's often little the man can do about it. Thanks to most states' current "no-fault" divorce statutes, a mother can have a half-dozen previous divorces, commit adultery, level false charges and (in some cases) even assault the father, and none of these will have any bearing on custody or child support decisions.

[p]This infuriates me.

[p]The ethical stench emanating from many family courts gets even worse as you dig deeper into the cesspool of recent decisions. Florida's Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Michael Anderson had to continue paying child support, despite DNA tests that showed he wasn't the father. He's far from alone. A 1999 Florida Department of Revenue study found that about one-third of men identified by mothers as possible fathers in child support cases were found not to be the fathers after DNA tests.

[p]In cases like this, many argue that once a man agrees to be a father, both emotionally and financially, then he shouldn't be allowed to wriggle off the hook, even if he turns out not to be the father. But what if that hook was a lie all along? Anderson married the woman in an attempt to "do the right thing," after she had become pregnant and told him the baby was his. She knew it might not be, but he didn't know this until three years later. The Florida Supreme Court formally endorsed this blatant fraud by ruling that Anderson must continue paying child support anyway.

[p]Time to agressively address this issue with your state representatives, congress critters, etc.  Make it the new "litmus test".  Hey Hillary, it's for the children. /sarcasm

[p]I too was taught to believe in my government and the judical system.  Everyone has an axe to grind....so much for fairness and impartialility.

[StPaulieGirl]

This is worse than bank fraud. This is worse than scamming senior citizens.  I don't understand women like that.

[Kitty C.]

...to send this to EVERY judge in our state.  I think they would find it hard to believe all the nasty lessons that THEY are teaching.........