Family Law

Here is an interesting and controversial editorial in The American Daily regarding the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA):

The latest report by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy In Abuse Reporting), titled ?An Epidemic of Civil Rights Abuses: Ranking of States? Domestic Violence Laws? provides us with a new perspective on VAWA: we treat the average terrorist better than we treat the average husband facing a false allegation of spousal abuse.

It is now well-known (but often ignored by beltway candy-men) that VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act) is used more commonly as a tactical divorce weapon than for its intended purpose. We also know that physical family altercations are initiated slightly more often by women than men, but almost zero federal funds are used to help men facing a violent spouse.

Some states have lowered the bar of law so low that anything is considered ?domestic violence?, such as a simple statement of fear with no supporting narrative or even one whit of evidence. A 1995 study in Massachusetts found that less than half of all issued restraining orders contained even an allegation of violence.

This convenient weapon of mass destruction powers the feminist divorce industry. It has lead to massive violations of the fundamental civil right for good men to be in the family and to parent their own children, and placed cities-full of innocent children at risk for serious child abuse (about 66% of which is committed by natural mothers who have serious chemical abuse or mental disorders).

RADAR estimates that approximately two to three persons are outrageously evicted from their families every year, without so much as a reasonable evidence-based trial. Half of these do not even include an allegation of violence.

The latest RADAR report makes an astonishing finding: there are no states where domestic violence laws have a ?low risk? of being abused.

Seven states have laws placing them at ?extremely high risk? of abuse: Alaska, California, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia.

Twenty-six states fall into the ?high risk? category: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

High risk states enacted statutory elements replacing well-settled standard of probable cause (which refers to a specific action) with vague or subjective psychological idioms such as ?fear?, ?harassment? or ?stalking?. The world tiptoes on eggshells around uncontestable ?feelings? of even the nuttiest alleger. Anectode, allegory, and appearance operate the levers of law such that virtually anything can be construed to fall under the purview of VAWA.

Moderate-risk states include Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas RADAR?s report does not incorporate factors that increase the risk of statutory abuses, such as the implementation of police and court training programs by women?s abuse centers. One example is in Largo, Florida, where the Chief of Police installed a billboard presenting the illusion that men are the cause of domestic violence. Chief Widera bases this law enforcement approach by on the false claim that 73% of victims are women, while ignoring the fact that women initiate slightly over half of all serious domestic altercations.

Restraining orders are commonly issued on an ex-parte basis without any evidentiary hearing, in some jurisdictions on the basis of nothing more than an application faxed to the courthouse. VAWA abuses may be driving child poverty by unnecessarily destroying marriages. Child poverty is most strongly associated with family structure.

When RADAR risk rankings are paired with Children?s Defense Fund ?Kids Count? child poverty rates , a notable correlation between the two is immediately obvious.

In summary, VAWA is the framework providing substantial incentives that empower nuts and feminists to manipulate the legal system for every prurient purpose imaginable, deeply violating the civil and social rights of their targets: Judge Rucker Smith of Sumter County, Georgia, had a 17-month romantic relationship with Rachel Oliver. During a visit to her home on July 31, 2005, he learned of her relationship with another man, at which point he announced, ?I?m outta here.? But as he tried to leave her home, an angered Oliver blocked him and bit his leg. When he managed to escape, the now-vindictive woman called the police.

Judge Smith was charged with three counts of battery. Following a short trial in May 2006, Judge Smith was acquitted. Speaking to the news media afterwards, he explained, ?For someone to falsely accuse another out of anger and vengeance silences the voices of the many real victims.?

However, most restraining orders are issued within the context of a divorce or child custody proceeding, in which large sums of money are are literally ?up for grabs?. In my nineteen years of experience as a student of the divorce industry, I have found that the vast majority of these allegations are applied as ad motem litem tactical weapons (a term which holds the legal action as suspect due to the timing of the filing), rather than as cause for dissolution or because of a real action on the part of the alleged abuser.

VAWA is not a well-crafted mechanism geared towards achieving its stated purpose. It is truly a drive-by bomb, most often misused to irresponsibly destroy marriage according to anti-family feminist dicta. The downstream costs of this senseless destruction of marriage are much greater than often recognized.

Our extremely high social entitlement expenditures are weakening our ability to fight the war on terror (feminists strongly oppose war because it immediately brings focus to massive fraud and waste of their very large entitlements). Congress must recognize this fact and place a high priority on replacing VAWA with narrowly-tailored gender-neutral legislation crafted to intervene quickly and effectively where real spousal violence exists or is imminent. And, the American Bar Association has an explicit duty to change its positions on family violence law to meet long-settled standards of proof and evidence. Until VAWA is reformed, men should wisely avoid settling in states and cities where their civil rights are likely to be abused.