April 23, 2014 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
It was business as usual for the domestic violence industry in Australia. The industry for decades has tried to convince anyone who would listen that, when domestic violence occurs, it’s overwhelmingly likely that (a) there’s a perpetrator and a victim (b) the perpetrator is a man, (c) the victim is a woman, (d) she took no part in the violence, (e) his violence was part of an ongoing pattern whose purpose was (f) to terrorize and control her. They were puttering right along as usual, peddling the same old snake oil when a funny thing happened.
That was the song they were singing way back in 1971 and it’s the song they’re singing now. In the early 70s, when Erin Pizzey founded the first DV shelter in the United Kingdom, she immediately learned from speaking to the women in the shelter that 60% of them were as violent or more violent than the men they’d left. The nascent DV industry responded to Pizzey’s revelations by threatening her life and probably killing her dog. Pizzey fled to the United States, fearing the violence of the domestic violence industry.
April 21, 2014 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
One of the key indicators of the status of fathers’ rights and their ability to achieve equal parenting post-divorce is the level of workforce participation by women. The more mothers opt for staying home with children, the more fathers must opt for paid work. And when those facts come before family court judges, mothers receive sole or primary custody essentially as a matter of course.
Now, that’s not the way it should be, but it’s the way it is. Amazingly, courts construe a father’s financial support of his family as a nullity when it comes to ordering custody. Just why judges believe that diapering the baby is a worthwhile act, but earning the money to buy the diapers is not, has always escaped me. But they do, and in states that require judges to consider statutory factors in deciding custody, who paid the bills is never one of those factors.